Started By
Message
locked post

South Carolina Supreme Court rules state consitution contains right to privacy, abortion

Posted on 1/5/23 at 11:49 pm
Posted by Eurocat
Member since Apr 2004
16532 posts
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.”
Posted by Mickey Goldmill
Baton Rouge
Member since Mar 2010
26353 posts
Posted on 1/5/23 at 11:51 pm to
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 by DMAN1968
Member since Apr 2019
12574 posts
Posted on 1/5/23 at 11:52 pm to
quote:

and left the matter to the states.


As it should be.
Posted by Knartfocker
Member since Jun 2020
1656 posts
Posted on 1/5/23 at 11:52 pm to
I guess I'm too smooth-brained to understand how murder is equivalent to
quote:

unreasonable invasions of privacy
Posted by imjustafatkid
Alabama
Member since Dec 2011
62361 posts
Posted on 1/5/23 at 11:53 pm to
What a monumental loss for humanity.
Posted by FooManChoo
Member since Dec 2012
45554 posts
Posted on 1/6/23 at 12:01 am to
Absolutely evil. A right to privacy means privacy to kill your child?
Posted by Open Your Eyes
Member since Nov 2012
10333 posts
Posted on 1/6/23 at 12:10 am to
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 by The Boat
Member since Oct 2008
175588 posts
Posted on 1/6/23 at 12:12 am to
This allows for a right to privacy that lets you kill babies but not a right to privacy to take ivermectin for Covid
Posted by Errerrerrwere
Member since Aug 2015
41892 posts
Posted on 1/6/23 at 12:12 am to
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 by BuzzSaw 12
The Dark Side Of The Moon
Member since Dec 2010
6769 posts
Posted on 1/6/23 at 12:14 am to
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 by L.A.
The Mojave Desert
Member since Aug 2003
65261 posts
Posted on 1/6/23 at 12:19 am to
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.
Posted by Gavin Elster
Member since Mar 2020
3297 posts
Posted on 1/6/23 at 12:28 am to
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 by Obtuse1
Westside Bodymore Yo
Member since Sep 2016
30009 posts
Posted on 1/6/23 at 12:57 am to
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
Posted by Nosevens
Member since Apr 2019
17032 posts
Posted on 1/6/23 at 5:47 am to
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 by SlowFlowPro
With populists, expect populism
Member since Jan 2004
465169 posts
Posted on 1/6/23 at 6:59 am to
Now we get to see how much the "states' rights" meme was genuine or a lie to hide real goals

Posted by AggieHank86
Texas
Member since Sep 2013
44345 posts
Posted on 1/6/23 at 7:08 am to
quote:

Except if it’s the unborn baby’s right to privacy.
A fetus is not recognized by the law as a legal “person.” As such, it HAS no “rights,” whether to privacy or anything else.

Should it? That is a different discussion.
Posted by Perfect Circle
S W Alabama
Member since Sep 2017
7673 posts
Posted on 1/6/23 at 7:15 am to
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 by AggieHank86
Texas
Member since Sep 2013
44345 posts
Posted on 1/6/23 at 7:17 am to
quote:

Not true in all states. In Alabama, someone killing a pregnant woman can be charged with two murders.
the pro-life side has a lot of intelligent arguments in its favor. This is one of the dumbest.

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 by SlowFlowPro
With populists, expect populism
Member since Jan 2004
465169 posts
Posted on 1/6/23 at 7:21 am to
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 by SCLibertarian
Conway, South Carolina
Member since Aug 2013
40875 posts
Posted on 1/6/23 at 7:26 am to
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.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 7Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram