- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message

South Carolina Supreme Court rules state consitution contains right to privacy, abortion
Posted on 1/5/23 at 11:49 pm
Posted on 1/5/23 at 11:49 pm
LINK
The South Carolina Constitution provides a right to privacy that includes the right to abortion, the state’s Supreme Court ruled on Thursday, saying “the decision to terminate a pregnancy rests upon the utmost personal and private considerations imaginable.”
The decision overturns the state’s law banning abortions after roughly the sixth week of pregnancy. More broadly, it is a victory for abortion rights in the South, where states have severely restricted access.
It is the first final ruling by a state Supreme Court on the state constitutionality of abortion since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June, which ended the right to abortion under the federal constitution that had been in force for half a century, and left the matter to the states.
Abortion rights groups responded to that decision by filing suits in 19 states, seeking to establish a right to abortion under state constitutions, in many cases citing explicit provisions in those documents protecting a woman’s privacy and equal rights. The South Carolina case was a critical first test — and success — for that strategy.
“This is a monumental victory in the movement to protect legal abortion in the South,” said Jenny Black, the president of Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, which was among the groups that filed the case.
The five justices ruled 3-2 that a state ban on abortions after roughly six weeks of pregnancy violated a provision in the state constitution which says that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures and unreasonable invasions of privacy shall not be violated.”
Even so, the court’s majority said that the right to abortion “was not absolute, and must be balanced against the State’s interest in protecting unborn life.”
The Republican-controlled state legislature may try to test what that means by passing other restrictions on abortion later in pregnancy, but it will be limited by the court’s new broad protection for abortion.
The state’s attorney general, Alan Wilson, said in a statement that he was working with the governor’s office to review “all our available options moving forward.”
The South Carolina Constitution provides a right to privacy that includes the right to abortion, the state’s Supreme Court ruled on Thursday, saying “the decision to terminate a pregnancy rests upon the utmost personal and private considerations imaginable.”
The decision overturns the state’s law banning abortions after roughly the sixth week of pregnancy. More broadly, it is a victory for abortion rights in the South, where states have severely restricted access.
It is the first final ruling by a state Supreme Court on the state constitutionality of abortion since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June, which ended the right to abortion under the federal constitution that had been in force for half a century, and left the matter to the states.
Abortion rights groups responded to that decision by filing suits in 19 states, seeking to establish a right to abortion under state constitutions, in many cases citing explicit provisions in those documents protecting a woman’s privacy and equal rights. The South Carolina case was a critical first test — and success — for that strategy.
“This is a monumental victory in the movement to protect legal abortion in the South,” said Jenny Black, the president of Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, which was among the groups that filed the case.
The five justices ruled 3-2 that a state ban on abortions after roughly six weeks of pregnancy violated a provision in the state constitution which says that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures and unreasonable invasions of privacy shall not be violated.”
Even so, the court’s majority said that the right to abortion “was not absolute, and must be balanced against the State’s interest in protecting unborn life.”
The Republican-controlled state legislature may try to test what that means by passing other restrictions on abortion later in pregnancy, but it will be limited by the court’s new broad protection for abortion.
The state’s attorney general, Alan Wilson, said in a statement that he was working with the governor’s office to review “all our available options moving forward.”
Posted on 1/5/23 at 11:51 pm to Eurocat
quote:
The state’s attorney general, Alan Wilson, said in a statement that he was working with the governor’s office to review “all our available options moving forward.”
Sounds like they need to amend their state constitution at this point.
Posted on 1/5/23 at 11:52 pm to Eurocat
quote:
and left the matter to the states.
As it should be.
Posted on 1/5/23 at 11:52 pm to Eurocat
I guess I'm too smooth-brained to understand how murder is equivalent to
quote:
unreasonable invasions of privacy
Posted on 1/5/23 at 11:53 pm to Eurocat
What a monumental loss for humanity.
Posted on 1/6/23 at 12:01 am to Eurocat
Absolutely evil. A right to privacy means privacy to kill your child?
Posted on 1/6/23 at 12:10 am to Eurocat
quote:
the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures and unreasonable invasions of privacy shall not be violated
Except if it’s the unborn baby’s right to privacy. Go ahead and violate the shite out of that.
Posted on 1/6/23 at 12:12 am to Eurocat
This allows for a right to privacy that lets you kill babies but not a right to privacy to take ivermectin for Covid
Posted on 1/6/23 at 12:12 am to Knartfocker
quote:
I guess I'm too smooth-brained to understand how murder is equivalent to
quote:
Dahmer's neighbor was just a Karen. He had a right to his private matters in his own apartment!
Posted on 1/6/23 at 12:14 am to FooManChoo
Worthless and morally bankrupt judges. I guess I should move to South Carolina and start Arkanciding people I don’t like and when the authorities show up at my doorstep I’ll tell them to kindly frick off and respect my privacy.
Posted on 1/6/23 at 12:19 am to Eurocat
Leftists don't really believe in the right to privacy. They've proven that over and over again
What they really believe in is abortion.
What they really believe in is abortion.
Posted on 1/6/23 at 12:28 am to Eurocat
quote:
”the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures and unreasonable invasions of privacy shall not be violated.”
So the Supreme Court of South Carolina really believes that it’s an unreasonable invasion of privacy to tell someone they can’t slaughter an unborn child? Really? Oh, and by the way, you can slaughter the baby for up to 6 weeks so the state is not even banning abortion. It’s an absurd ruling that opens the door for any manor of unintended consequences.
Posted on 1/6/23 at 12:57 am to Eurocat
If anyone cares to read part or all of the 147-page opinion (long by SC Sup Ct standards) it is available here:
SCCourts.org
SCCourts.org
Posted on 1/6/23 at 5:47 am to Eurocat
So I’m guessing the right to keep private the murder you decide to do is okay too? Nobody else’s business who you kill
Posted on 1/6/23 at 6:59 am to Eurocat
Now we get to see how much the "states' rights" meme was genuine or a lie to hide real goals


Posted on 1/6/23 at 7:08 am to Open Your Eyes
quote:A fetus is not recognized by the law as a legal “person.” As such, it HAS no “rights,” whether to privacy or anything else.
Except if it’s the unborn baby’s right to privacy.
Should it? That is a different discussion.
Posted on 1/6/23 at 7:15 am to AggieHank86
quote:
A fetus is not recognized by the law as a legal “person.” As such, it HAS no “rights,” whether to privacy or anything else.
Not true in all states. In Alabama, someone killing a pregnant woman can be charged with two murders.
Posted on 1/6/23 at 7:17 am to Perfect Circle
quote:the pro-life side has a lot of intelligent arguments in its favor. This is one of the dumbest.
Not true in all states. In Alabama, someone killing a pregnant woman can be charged with two murders.
That’s sort of law does not confer “rights” upon a fetus. It punishes the behavior of the wrongdoer for actions inconsistent with good public order.
You can also be charged with a crime for damaging the property of another person. That property does not have “rights.”
Now, some genius will assert that I claim a fetus is nothing more than property. Those persons do not understand analogies.
This post was edited on 1/6/23 at 7:20 am
Posted on 1/6/23 at 7:21 am to Perfect Circle
quote:
In Alabama, someone killing a pregnant woman can be charged with two murders.
Crimes are violation of the sanctity of the state where they're committed. It's not a personal violation.
That's why criminal cases are State of x v. Defendant and not [name of victim] v. Defendant.
Posted on 1/6/23 at 7:26 am to Eurocat
Our state Supreme Court and the SC General Assembly are constantly at odds and have been for quite a long time, due to the arcane manner and method of judicial selections here in SC. Justice Few's opinion basically said an outright abortion ban would be constitutional, as it would clearly define that life begins at conception as a "state interest". He's basically telling the legislature how they screwed up, which is common in Columbia.
Popular
Back to top

27















