Planned Parenthood South Atlantic v. State of South Carolina: Unreasonable Invasion of Privacy and the Fetal Heartbeat Act

Planned Parenthood South Atlantic v. State of South Carolina: Unreasonable Invasion of Privacy and the Fetal Heartbeat Act

Introduction

The Supreme Court of South Carolina, in the case of Planned Parenthood South Atlantic; Greenville Women's Clinic; Katherine Farris, M.D.; Terry Buffkin, M.D., Petitioners v. State of South Carolina et al., Respondents-Intervenors, addressed the constitutionality of the state’s Fetal Heartbeat and Protection from Abortion Act (Act), which prohibits abortions after approximately six weeks of gestation. The Petitioners, including prominent medical providers and reproductive rights organizations, challenged the Act on several constitutional grounds, primarily arguing that it constitutes an unreasonable invasion of a woman's right to privacy as guaranteed by Article I, Section 10 of the South Carolina Constitution. The Court, however, upheld the Act, deeming it a reasonable restriction balancing the state's interest in protecting unborn life against individual privacy rights.

Summary of the Judgment

On January 5, 2023, the Supreme Court of South Carolina delivered its opinion ruling that the Fetal Heartbeat and Protection from Abortion Act violates the state constitutional right to privacy. The majority, consisting of Chief Justice Beatty, Justice Few, and Justice Hearn, held that the Act imposes an unreasonable invasion upon a woman's right to privacy by severely limiting access to abortion services before many women are aware of their pregnancies. The Court emphasized that, while the right to privacy is protected, it is not absolute and must be balanced against the state's legitimate interests in protecting fetal life and maternal health.

The judgment also included dissents from Justice Kittredge and Justice James, who argued that the Act does not infringe upon the privacy rights as defined by the state constitution. The majority cited precedents and legislative findings to support their decision, asserting that the Act's restrictions were not constitutionally unreasonable given the state's interests.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Court's decision referenced several key cases that inform the interpretation of privacy rights and abortion laws:

  • GRISWOLD v. CONNECTICUT (1965): Recognized marital privacy rights, laying the groundwork for later abortion rights.
  • EISENSTADT v. BAIRD (1972): Extended privacy rights to unmarried individuals, emphasizing personal autonomy in reproductive decisions.
  • ROE v. WADE (1973): Established a federal constitutional right to abortion, which was later overturned by Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022).
  • Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022): Overruled ROE v. WADE, returning the authority to regulate abortion to the states.
  • SINGLETON v. STATE (1993): Addressed the state's ability to forcibly medicate inmates, recognizing a limited privacy interest outside of search and seizure contexts.
  • Forrester v. State (2001): Examined whether the state must inform individuals of their rights against unreasonable invasions of privacy during searches.

These cases collectively illustrate the evolving nature of privacy rights and the balance courts must strike between individual autonomy and state interests. The majority leveraged these precedents to argue that the Act was an unreasonable infringement on privacy, primarily because it limited abortion access before women could make informed decisions about their pregnancies.

Legal Reasoning

The Court's reasoning centered on the interpretation of the privacy rights enshrined in Article I, Section 10 of the South Carolina Constitution. The majority interpreted "unreasonable invasions of privacy" broadly, extending it beyond the context of search and seizure to encompass personal medical decisions, including abortion. They argued that the Act's six-week ban was unreasonable because it occurred before many women realized they were pregnant, thus preventing informed choice and necessary medical consultations.

The Court balanced this infringement against the state's interests:

  • Protecting Fetal Life: The state has a legitimate interest in safeguarding the potential life of the unborn.
  • Maternal Health: Ensuring the health and well-being of the mother is a significant state interest.

The majority concluded that the Act did not sufficiently balance these interests with the constitutional right to privacy, deeming the restriction as an unreasonable intrusion.

Impact

This judgment has profound implications for abortion laws in South Carolina, effectively limiting access to abortions to before six weeks of gestation. It underscores the state's prioritization of fetal life and maternal health over individual privacy rights in reproductive decisions. Additionally, the decision may influence how future cases interpret the scope of privacy rights in personal medical decisions, potentially narrowing the breadth of such rights in state constitutions.

The ruling also reinforces the principle that while courts recognize privacy rights, these rights are subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of compelling state concerns. Consequently, states may enact stringent abortion laws as long as they can demonstrate that such laws are reasonable and serve legitimate purposes.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Unreasonable Invasion of Privacy

The term "unreasonable invasion of privacy" refers to any intrusion into an individual's personal life that the Constitution finds unjustifiable. In this case, the Court determined that the six-week abortion ban interferes with a woman's private medical decision-making process in a way that is not justified by the state's interests.

Balancing Test

The Court employs a balancing test to weigh an individual's privacy rights against the state's interests. This involves assessing whether the state's restrictions are proportionate and necessary to achieve legitimate goals, such as protecting fetal life and maternal health. If the restrictions are excessive or not well-justified, they are deemed unreasonable.

Legislative Precedence and Judicial Restraint

Legislative precedence refers to the actions and policies enacted by a state's legislature. Judicial restraint is the principle that courts should not overstep their authority by making policy decisions, leaving such matters to the legislative branch. In this judgment, the Court acknowledged the legislature's role but ultimately found the Act's restrictions unreasonable.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of South Carolina has affirmed the constitutionality of the Fetal Heartbeat and Protection from Abortion Act, ruling that it does not constitute an unreasonable invasion of a woman's right to privacy as protected under the state constitution. This decision emphasizes the state's authority to regulate abortion practices in alignment with its interests in protecting fetal life and maternal health, even when such regulations infringe upon individual privacy rights.

The judgment delineates the boundaries of privacy rights within the context of reproductive health decisions, asserting that these rights, while fundamental, are not absolute and must coexist with compelling state interests. As a result, South Carolina's abortion laws are now more restrictive, reflecting the judiciary's interpretation of the state constitution's privacy provisions and the legislature's policy priorities.

Moving forward, this ruling sets a precedent for how South Carolina courts may approach similar constitutional challenges, potentially influencing the broader landscape of privacy rights and abortion legislation within the state.

Case Details

PLANNED PARENTHOOD SOUTH ATLANTIC; Greenville Women's Clinic; Katherine Farris, M.D. ; and Terry Buffkin, M.D., Petitioners, v. STATE of South Carolina; Alan McCrory Wilson, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of South Carolina; Edward Simmer, in his official capacity as Director of the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control; Anne G. Cook, in her official capacity as President of the South Carolina Board of Medical Examiners; Stephen I. Schabel, in his official capacity as Vice President of the South Carolina Board of Medical Examiners; Ronald Januchowski, in his official capacity as Secretary of the South Carolina Board of Medical Examiners; George S. Dilts, in his official capacity as a Member of the South Carolina Board of Medical Examiners; Dion Franga, in his official capacity as a Member of the South Carolina Board of Medical Examiners; Richard Howell, in his official capacity as a Member of the South Carolina Board of Medical Examiners; Theresa Mills-Floyd, in her official capacity as a Member of the South Carolina Board of Medical Examiners; Jennifer R. Root, in her official capacity as a Member of the South Carolina Board of Medical Examiners; Christopher C. Wright, in his official capacity as a Member of the South Carolina Board of Medical Examiners; Scarlett Anne Wilson, in her official capacity as Solicitor for South Carolina's 9th Judicial Circuit; Byron E. Gipson, in his official capacity as Solicitor for South Carolina's 5th Judicial Circuit; and William Walter Wilkins III, in his official capacity as Solicitor for South Carolina's 13th Judicial Circuit, Respondents, and G. Murrell Smith, Jr., in his official capacity as Speaker of the South Carolina House of Representatives; Thomas C. Alexander, in his official capacity as President of the South Carolina Senate ; and Henry Dargan McMaster, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Intervenors.
Year: 2023
Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Judge(s)

JUSTICE HEARN

Attorney(S)

M. Malissa Burnette, Kathleen McColl McDaniel, and Grant Burnette LeFever, of Burnette Shutt & McDaniel, PA, of Columbia, for Petitioners. Julia A. Murray and Hannah Swanson, of Washington, DC; for Petitioners Planned Parenthood South Atlantic and Katherine Farris, M.D. Genevieve Scott and Astrid Ackerman, of New York, NY; for Petitioner Greenville Women's Clinic and Terry Buffkin, M.D. Jacquelyn S. Dickman, Ashley Caroline Biggers, and William Marshall Taylor, Jr., of Columbia, for Respondent Edward Simmer, in his official capacity as Director of the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control. Robert E. Horner and Erin G. Baldwin, of Columbia, for Respondents Anne G. Cook, in her official capacity as President of the South Carolina Board of Medical Examiners; Stephen I. Schabel, in his official capacity as Vice President of the South Carolina Board of Medical Examiners; Ronald Januchowski, in his official capacity as Secretary of the South Carolina Board of Medical Examiners; George S. Dilts, in his official capacity as a Member of the South Carolina Board of Medical Examiners; Dion Franga, in his official capacity as a Member of the South Carolina Board of Medical Examiners; Richard Howell, in his official capacity as a Member of the South Carolina Board of Medical Examiners; Theresa Mills-Floyd, in her official capacity as a Member of the South Carolina Board of Medical Examiners; Jennifer R. Root, in her official capacity as a Member of the South Carolina Board of Medical Examiners; and Christopher C. Wright, in his official capacity as a Member of the South Carolina Board of Medical Examiners. Robert David Garfield and Steven R. Spreeuwers, of Crowe Lafave Garfield & Bagley, LLC, of Columbia, for Respondent Byron E. Gipson, in his official capacity as Solicitor for South Carolina's 5th Judicial Circuit. Amanda K. Dudgeon and James Matthew Johnson, of Chandler & Dudgeon, LLC, of Charleston, for Respondent Scarlett Anne Wilson, in her official capacity as Solicitor for South Carolina's 9th Judicial Circuit. Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Solicitor General Robert D. Cook, Deputy Solicitor General J. Emory Smith, Jr., and Assistant Deputy Solicitor General Thomas Tyler Hydrick, all of Columbia, for Respondents the State of South Carolina, Alan McCrory Wilson, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, and William Walter Wilkins III, in his official capacity as Solicitor for South Carolina's 13th Judicial Circuit. Kevin A. Hall and Matthew Todd Carroll, of Womble Bond Dickinson LLP, of Columbia, for Respondents-Intervenors G. Murrell Smith, Jr., in his official capacity as Speaker of the South Carolina House of Representatives, and Thomas C. Alexander, in his official capacity as President of the South Carolina Senate. Chief Legal Counsel Thomas Ashley Limehouse, Jr., Senior Legal Counsel William Grayson Lambert, and Deputy Legal Counsel Erica Wells Shedd, of Columbia, for Respondent-Intervenor Henry Dargan McMaster, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of South Carolina. Randall Scott Hiller, of Randall S. Hiller, P.A., of Greenville; Kimberly A. Parker, of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, LLP, of Washington, DC; and Jessica Notebaert, of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, LLP, of Boston, MA; all for Amici Curiae American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Medical Association, American Academy of Family Physicians, American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Physicians, National Hispanic Medical Association, and Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. Brennan Tyler Brooks, of Law Office of B. Tyler Brooks, PLLC, of Greensboro, NC, and Matthew Staver, of Liberty Counsel, of Maitland, FL; for Amici Curiae Frederick Douglass Foundation and National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference. Andrew C. Nichols, of Charis Lex P.C., of Reston, VA; and Timothy J. Newton, of Murphy & Grantland, P.A.; of Columbia, for Amicus Curiae Christian Medical and Dental Associations. Barry L. Johnson and William Lamar Johnson, II, of Johnson & Davis, P.A., of Bluffton, for Amicus Curiae American Center for Law & Justice. Samuel Darryl Harms, III, of Greenville, for Amicus Curiae Elliot Institute. Henry Wilkins Frampton, IV, and Denise M. Harle, of Leesburg, VA; for Amici Curiae American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists and Dr. Christine Hemphill. Larry Shawn Sullivan, of Sullivan Law Group, LLC, of Myrtle Beach, and John G. Knepper, of Law Office of John G. Knepper, LLC, of Cheyenne, WY; for Amicus Curiae Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine.

Comments