COLOMBIA – Democrats left the South Carolina House on February 17, while Republicans were preparing to pass a tough bill that would ban most abortions in the state, a long-awaited vote that will create some legal challenges in the coming months. .
The Democratic minority said it would refuse to participate in a process it considers fundamentally flawed by voting or debating the bill.
“We don’t have time to debate the ban on unconstitutional abortion,” said SC House minority leader Todd Rutherford, D-Columbia. “Providing COVID relief and improving the implementation of vaccination should be our priority now.”
The Democratic caucus of the Chamber of Deputies is now leaving the chamber in protest against the ban on abortion. @RepRutherford says he will not participate in debate or vote. #scpol pic.twitter.com/WJqAMAs3LD
– Jamie Lovegrove (@jslovegrove) February 17, 2021
The legislation, known to its supporters as the “fetal heartbeat” bill, would ban abortion after about six to eight weeks of pregnancy. The passage would add South Carolina to nearly a dozen states that have passed similar laws, all of which have been suspended in court.
The Senate passed the bill last month, while Republicans capitalized their expanded majority in that chamber to overcome Democratic objections that had blocked their efforts to pass similar bills in previous years.
The House has already approved a similar measure by a 70-31 vote in 2019, prompting both Republicans and Democrats to recognize that it would inevitably pass again in 2021.
Republican Governor Henry McMaster has repeatedly promised to sign the bill as soon as it arrives at his desk, which is expected to happen this week.
Anti-abortion activists say their goal is to get the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse or at least significantly amend its historic decision Roe v. 1973 Wade, who concluded that women have a constitutional right to access abortion with some restrictions.
So far, the high court has shown some reluctance to consider a drastic ban on abortion. Judges have yet to pass a Mississippi law that would ban abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy, a less extreme measure than the South Carolina bill.
South Carolina law includes some exceptions for rape or incest, if the mother’s life is in danger or if the fetus has a fatal anomaly that would make it impossible to live outside the womb.
The rape or incest exception includes a clause that requires doctors to report these cases to the local sheriff and state health agency, including the woman’s name and contact information.
This move that attracted the conviction of South Carolina’s lone sheriff, Kristin Graziano of Charleston County, argued that it would traumatize rape victims again.
Current South Carolina law prohibits abortion after about 20 weeks, but links the age of the fetus to conception, rather than the woman’s monthly cycle. Since that date cannot be scientifically determined, the ban actually refers to what doctors consider a gestational age of 22 weeks.
About an hour before the House meeting, a small group of protesters gathered outside the Statehouse building, urging lawmakers to reject the bill.
“They are trying to approve this project while everything is very loud now, hoping that people will not pay attention,” said Anika Roldan, an 18-year-old Irmo. “I just want to get to the point where we are loud enough for them to hear what we are saying.”
Holding large banners that said “Laws out of my body”, “Abortion is health” and “We are not going back”, several rally participants were only willing to give their first names – a nod, they said, to the requirements that would be placed on women to reveal personal information about themselves in cases of incest and rape.
“We really just want to show our strength and solidarity with women in South Carolina and across America,” said a woman who identified herself only as Amy. “What is happening in that building is not right.”
The bill also attracted some backlash from the right, as conservative groups urged lawmakers to withdraw exceptions from the bill. But other anti-abortion groups were opposed to doing so because it would delay the process by forcing the House and Senate to reach an agreement before the bill became law.
This story is developing. Check back for updates.
Adam Benson contributed to this Columbia report. Follow Jamie Lovegrove on Twitter @jslovegrove.