South Carolina Bill Seeks Near-Total Abortion Ban

The South Carolina Medical Affairs Committee conducted a Senate hearing on Wednesday, October 1, 2025, to deliberate S.323, a proposed bill prohibiting abortion in most circumstances, with few exceptions. The bill may also extend to the restriction of other reproductive health care, such as birth control access and in vitro fertilization (IVF) services.

Also known as the Unborn Child Protection Act, the bill was discussed among Senate members in a public hearing held at the Gressette Building, drawing crowds of citizens and protesters to encircle the statehouse ahead of the 9:30 AM start time. Over the course of 8 hours, almost 80 advocates, lawmakers, patients, and medical experts took part in the hearing, voicing testimonies on both sides of the abortion debate.

Current Abortion Law in South Carolina

South Carolina’s abortion legislation, as it stands today, considers the termination of a pregnancy illegal after a fetal heartbeat is detected — oftentimes occurring before the pregnancy becomes known, at around 6 weeks of gestation. State Governor Henry McMaster signed the Fetal Heartbeat and Protection from Abortion Act into law on May 23, 2023. South Carolina is among the 18 states that uphold some of the most restrictive abortion laws, either as bans within the first 18 weeks of pregnancy or complete bans.

The state allows abortions post-heartbeat detection in certain cases, including rape or incest; however, the gestational age must be under 13 weeks, and the performing physician is required to report the crime to law enforcement within 24 hours of the procedure. The newly proposed S.323 bill would remove this exception entirely, only allowing abortion in cases of severe medical emergency during which the pregnant patient’s life is at risk. The exemption for fatal fetal abnormalities would also no longer apply.

Violating this law could land a person who has an abortion or aids in one up to 30 years in prison, equating the procedure to homicide. Additionally, anyone who provides information on how to carry out an abortion, creates or sells abortion-inducing medication, or helps facilitate out-of-state abortion access would face legal repercussions.

While Sen Cash assured those at the hearing that the bill would not affect access to IVF or emergency contraception, also known as the “morning after pill,” experts argued that because of its harsh criminal penalties, clinicians may still limit access to those options. As defined in the legislation, abortion would become illegal after “the point in time when it is possible to determine that a woman is pregnant due to the detectable presence of human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG).” Emergency contraception only works to prevent pregnancy before it happens, but during IVF, multiple eggs can be fertilized and disposed. Sen Cash emphasized that the bill does not mention making IVF unlawful, although the term is not mentioned at all, and specifically notes that contraceptives remain legal.

Bill Too Restrictive For Some Anti-Abortion Advocates

While pro-choice advocates who reject the state’s current abortion law spoke up against S.323, there were also several anti-abortion groups that, while pushing for more restrictive abortion legislation, opposed the proposed bill. Most of them cited the criminalization of pregnant women and the provision requiring volunteers at religious pregnancy crisis centers to testify in abortion cases.

In an official statement, Lisa Van Riper, president of South Carolina Citizens for Life, said, “Pro-lifers understand better than anyone else the desire to punish the purveyors of abortion who act callously and without regard to the dignity of human life, but turning women who have abortions into criminals, as [the bill] does, is not the way.”  Both the Palmetto Family Alliance and Pro-Life Greenville also withdrew their support of the bill in releases.

Some organizations, however, argued that the bill isn’t enough, saying that pregnancy should be considered as beginning at fertilization, not when hCG in the body is confirmed, as dictated in the proposal.

“A lot of people here today tell you that this bill goes too far,” said Matt Brock, executive director of Equal Protection South Carolina. “I’m here to tell you, according to the word of God, S.323 doesn’t go far enough.”

Mark Corral, president of the same group, added, “Failing to treat the murder of preborn children as homicide in the same way that we treat homicide of born persons violates God’s law, the US and state constitutions.”

Pro-Choice Speakers Reject Proposed Bill

Former Republican State Senators Katrina Shealy and Penry Gustafson, who were ousted in 2024, sat front row during the hearing. Each spoke against the bill, as well as questioned the lack of female representation on the committee. While the Senate currently includes 2 female Democrats, neither was present, leaving 8 members in attendance.

“The most jarring and cruel aspect is the complete removal of exceptions for rape and incest,” Ms Shealy said. “It sends a chilling message to victims that their trauma and bodily autonomy are irrelevant.”

Ms Gustafson, before temporarily being removed from the room for going over her speaking minutes, said, “I cannot comprehend how any of you truly believe that the 11-year-old girl who gets raped and impregnated by her grandfather, that she should be forced to have a baby and carry it.”

In an interjection, Mr Corral said, “I just want to remind the committee that there are 2 Republicans sitting here today that were on the wrong side of the issue, and they lost their seat.”

Clinicians and advocates supporting greater abortion rights in South Carolina recounted stories of fetal anomaly discoveries that, under this bill, would require the mother to carry an unviable pregnancy to term.

“This bill means that a woman like me, who has received the worst news of her life that her child had a fatal fetal anomaly and was going to die no matter what, would be forced to carry that child, holding on to false hope while needlessly suffering,” said Tori Nardone with the Women’s Rights and Empowerment Network.

Speaking to the panel, Natalie Gregory, MD, an OB-GYN based in Mount Pleasant, said, “I am faced with a legal minefield,” on the subject of doctors having to choose between the life of their patient and their license if the bill is signed into law, given the blurred legality of certain reproductive care services. The Act outlines the criminal and professional consequences physicians can face if any abortion clause is violated, sparking concern from medical experts throughout the hearing.

In a statement on behalf of Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, Director Vicki Ringer said, “This is the most extreme, heinous bill restricting reproductive health care that we have faced yet in South Carolina, and the fact that lawmakers are fast-tracking it for passage should raise alarm bells for every person in this state.”

 The hearing concluded with the committee taking no vote and the bill’s sponsor, Sen Cash, saying S.323 “needed more work,” swayed by a doctor who spoke on the bill’s requirement that states the necessity to resuscitate prematurely born babies is both nearly medically impossible as well as “torturous.” The legislation was proposed in February 2025 by Senators Richard Cash, Billy Garrett, and Rex Rice.

This article originally appeared on Clinical Advisor