COLOMBIA – A federal judge said on March 8 that she will decide “soon” whether to grant a longer abortion bloc in South Carolina, saying she must first determine whether the governor and the state mayor should be allowed to intervene. in case.
While U.S. District Court Judge Mary Geiger Lewis decides whether to grant an injunction blocking the law, her restraining order that temporarily lifted the ban in February and was extended on March 5 remains in effect until March 19.
The injunction would provide a longer-lasting suspension of the ban than the temporary restraining order, which was granted a day after Republican Governor Henry McMaster signed the bill.
McMaster and House Speaker Jay Lucas, R-Hartsville, recently filed requests to intervene and make their own arguments in support of the law, in addition to South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson, who is representing the state in the case.
If Lewis decides that McMaster and Lucas are allowed to intervene, she said she should first review her arguments before issuing her decision on the injunction.
Although Lewis did not immediately decide on the injunction, she continued to express skepticism about the constitutionality of the law.
“I don’t think there has been any change in the law in the past two weeks that would change the situation,” said Lewis.
South Carolina law prohibits abortion after a fetal or embryonic “heartbeat” is detected, which usually occurs around 6 to 8 weeks of pregnancy. Most abortions in the state are performed after six weeks of pregnancy, and opponents of the ban note that many women may not even realize that they are pregnant by this time.
If Lewis grants the injunction, as expected, it will start what is likely to become a legal process for years.
Supporters of the abortion ban say its ultimate goal is to get the United States Supreme Court to take the case and substantially reverse or alter its precedent that women have a constitutional right to access abortion before a fetus is viable outside of the uterus.
A fetus is generally not considered viable outside the womb until about 24 weeks of pregnancy.
Planned Parenthood immediately filed the lawsuit hours before McMaster signed the bill into law. Wilson said he believed the law was constitutional and “deserves a vigorous defense in the United States Supreme Court, if necessary.”
Nearly a dozen other conservative states have recently passed similar bills, all of which have been suspended in court. The United States Supreme Court has yet to decide whether to consider a Mississippi law that prohibits abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy.
If Lewis grants the preliminary injunction, Wilson could appeal to the upper Fourth Circuit or pursue more extensive arguments in Lewis’s court.
In addition to disputes over the constitutionality of the ban, the arguments on March 8 revolved around “divisibility” – whether other parts of the new South Carolina law could remain in effect if the ban were lifted.
This includes a section of the bill that requires doctors to conduct an ultrasound and inform the pregnant woman that she is allowed to see him before having an abortion.
Julie Murray, a lawyer who represents planned paternity, argued that the rest of the law is closely linked to the section that prohibits abortion after six weeks and that the judge should overturn the entire law.
“It is not for this court to do the job of the Legislature to draft legislation that is in conformity with the Constitution,” said Murray.
Deputy Attorney General Emory Smith, arguing in court on behalf of Wilson and South Carolina’s thirteenth circuit attorney, Walt Wilkins, contested that these other sections of the law could be kept constitutional separate from the ban and therefore should remain in force.
Lewis indicated that she supported Planned Parenthood in this dispute, saying that the ultrasound requirement “is not independent of the ban on abortion” and she could not see how these two parts of the bill are not “inextricably linked”.
Asked after the hearing about Lewis’ questions and comments that seemed to suggest that she did not believe his arguments, Smith said he would not predict an outcome in the case.
“All I will say is that we present the arguments, develop them based on our court records and present them as best we can,” said Smith. “We believe they are solid, but now it is in the hands of the judges and it is up to her to decide how she wants to govern.”
Three local lawyers were initially named as defendants in the lawsuit because they represent the cities that have the only three abortion clinics in the state: Wilkins of Greenville, the attorney for Columbia’s 5th Circuit Byron Gipson and the solicitor for Charleston’s Ninth Circuit Scarlett Wilson.
Gipson announced in court last month that he would not object to the injunction and would not advocate a ban on abortion. He recently made a deal with Planned Parenthood not to investigate or prosecute any abortions that occur while lawsuits continue.
Smith revealed on March 8 that attorney Wilson has not yet taken a position on the case and may soon enter into a similar settlement with planned Paternity.
Malissa Burnette, another lawyer who represents Planned Parenthood, said after the hearing that she has no problem with Lewis’ decision to take some more time to adjudicate the preliminary injunction and expects an order to arrive later this week.
“She is very meticulous,” said Burnette. “I respect the fact that she takes this into account and I know that she will study everything. Everyone had a chance to speak up.”
Follow Jamie Lovegrove on Twitter @jslovegrove.