Yesterday, in a letter delivered to Attorney General Alan Wilson, Representative Bamberg of District 90 formally requested the office’s legal opinion on the constitutionality of H. 3020, dubbed as the “fetal heartbeat bill.”
In the letter that was also delivered to Governor Henry McMaster, House Speaker Jay Lucas, and Senate President Harvey Peeler, Representative Bamberg additionally requested an analysis of the bill’s potential cost in time and tax dollars to South Carolinians should it pass the Senate and, ultimately, be challenged in court.
H. 3020 would effectively end most abortions in the state of South Carolina as it bans all those that occur after the detection of a fetal heartbeat, something that can be found as early as five or six weeks into pregnancy.
Currently, H. 3020 sits in the Senate, but Governor Henry McMaster has made clear his intention to sign the bill should it pass.
Legislators and legal scholars on both sides have dismissed the bill as nothing more than a Republican charade meant to target Roe v. Wade and hinder a woman’s constitutional right to choose.
This move by Representative Bamberg is the latest Democratic effort to fight for the bodily autonomy of some of the state’s most vulnerable citizens, particularly poor women and women of color.
Read Representative Bamberg’s full letter below.
Dear Attorney General Wilson,
I respectfully and formally request that your office conduct a constitutional analysis of H. 3020, the “South Carolina Fetal Heartbeat Protection from Abortion Act,” currently before the South Carolina Senate and provide a written opinion for consideration.
Given the continued deliberation on this subject, many South Carolinians have expressed concern as to whether this legislation is in violation of a woman’s constitutional right to choose.
This legal precedent was established by the Supreme Court of the United States over 47 years ago in Roe v. Wade, reaffirmed 28 years ago in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and it is my understanding that this holding by our nation’s highest court is still the law of the land.
I commend the Office of the Attorney General for its work in monitoring the federal government, including its recent analysis of the constitutionality of the impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump. I have no doubt that your office is fully capable of also conducting an equally thorough analysis of H. 3020 so that members of the South Carolina General Assembly may make a legally informed decision on this important issue – which directly impacts the lives of South Carolinians.
As Governor McMaster has indicated that he would sign this bill should it pass the General Assembly, I believe it would be most prudent for the legislature to withhold taking further action on the bill until we receive the official legal opinion of the Office of the Attorney General.
By copy of this letter, delivered to President Peeler, I am humbly requesting that the Senate refrain from further consideration of this bill until the formal legal opinion/analysis has been comprehensively rendered and reported by the Office of the Attorney General. I share the concerns of my colleagues in the General Assembly over the efficacy and expense of passing H. 3020.
Similar bills have recently been enacted into law by 10 other states; all of them remain tied up in courts. Senator Sandy Senn succinctly expressed this concern recently, writing that “[South Carolina] should sit back and let those other states handle the expensive legal challenge to see whether federal law will change regarding abortions.”
It would be valuable to members of the legislature if the Office of the Attorney General can supplement its legal analysis with a projection of the legal fees and costs likely to be incurred by the taxpayers of our great state in defense of such a law in South Carolina, as well as an estimation of the time necessary for such a case to proceed through the federal docket.
These are important aspects to consider as we move forward with the state budgeting process because we need to have an approximation of how much funding must be taken from other areas to adequately prepare for the costs of extended litigation.
All members of the General Assembly swore an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. Until the U.S. Constitution changes, we are bound by it as it exists today.
I thank you in advance for your office’s diligence in ensuring that we are equipped with the legal tools necessary to make an informed decision on H. 3020 and most importantly, uphold our oath of office. The Office of the Attorney General may forward its opinion to my Columbia Office in room 335C of the Blatt Building.
Sincerely,
Justin T. Bamberg
