South Carolina’s heartbeat law stands tall. On May 14, 2025, the state’s Supreme Court unanimously upheld a law restricting abortions at around six weeks, when a fetal heartbeat flickers into existence.
The court’s decision cements a six-week abortion restriction, defining the cutoff as when an ultrasound detects cardiac activity or rhythmic fetal heart contractions.
Breitbart reported that Planned Parenthood’s challenge, claiming the law applied after nine weeks, was rejected outright. The ruling clarifies the General Assembly’s intent to protect life early in pregnancy.
Despite Planned Parenthood’s flip-flop—calling it a “six-week ban” over 300 times before arguing for nine weeks—the court saw through the semantic smoke.
Associate Justice John Few minced no words: “We could find not one instance” of the legislature framing the law as a nine-week restriction.
This zinger exposes Planned Parenthood’s legal gymnastics as a desperate bid to dodge accountability. The court’s unanimity underscores the law’s clarity.
The law, however, isn’t a blanket ban. Exceptions allow abortions up to 12 weeks for rape or incest, and in cases of medical emergencies or fatal fetal anomalies. These provisions aim to balance compassion with the sanctity of life.
Doctors violating the law face stiff penalties: felony charges, up to two years in prison, and a $10,000 fine. This teeth-baring enforcement mechanism signals South Carolina’s resolve to uphold its pro-life stance. Actions, it seems, have consequences.
Gov. Henry McMaster hailed the ruling as a “decisive victory” for unborn children. His statement radiates conviction, framing South Carolina as a leader in defending life. The governor’s enthusiasm reflects a broader conservative push to prioritize fetal protection.
Planned Parenthood, predictably, cried foul. “Justice did not prevail today,” they lamented, claiming the ban forces women to carry pregnancies against their will. Their hyperbole ignores the law’s exceptions and the democratic process that birthed it.
The group’s rhetoric about “life-threatening infections” and deaths lacks evidence in the court’s record. It’s a classic progressive tactic: tug heartstrings, skip facts. South Carolina’s law, by contrast, rests on legislative clarity and judicial affirmation.
Five OB-GYNs have filed a separate lawsuit, arguing the law’s language is too vague, putting them at risk of criminal charges. Their fear highlights a practical challenge: navigating legal lines in high-stakes medical decisions. The court, however, found the law’s intent crystal clear.
The heartbeat law’s definition of cardiac activity is precise, tied to ultrasound detection of rhythmic heart contractions. This scientific grounding undercuts claims of ambiguity. Still, doctors’ concerns merit attention to ensure fair application.
Planned Parenthood’s earlier filings betray their strategic shift. Labeling the law a “six-week ban” hundreds of times before pivoting to a nine-week argument suggests political posturing, not principle. The court wisely ignored this bait-and-switch.
The unanimous ruling sends a message: courts won’t rewrite laws to suit activist agendas. South Carolina’s legislature spoke clearly, and the judiciary respected that voice. It’s a refreshing rebuke to judicial overreach.
The law’s exceptions reflect a nuanced approach, acknowledging real-world complexities while prioritizing life. Rape, incest, and medical emergencies carve out space for empathy within a pro-life framework.