{"id":324409,"date":"2025-01-11T15:20:19","date_gmt":"2025-01-11T21:20:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.liveaction.org\/news\/?p=324409"},"modified":"2025-01-10T22:36:16","modified_gmt":"2025-01-11T04:36:16","slug":"doctors-sue-south-carolina-pro-life-religious","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/doctors-sue-south-carolina-pro-life-religious\/","title":{"rendered":"Five doctors sue South Carolina, claiming pro-life law violates their religious freedom"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

A group of physicians is suing the state of South Carolina in an effort to challenge the state’s laws protecting preborn children from abortion. They claim the current exemptions in the law, which allow abortions to be committed due to health or fatal fetal anomalies, are too vague, and violate their religious freedom.<\/p>\n

A press release<\/a> from the Lawyering Project announced the lawsuit, with OB\/GYN Drs. Dawn Bingham (a fellow and trainer for the pro-abortion American College of OB\/GYNs<\/a>, and former political candidate<\/a>), Jane Doe, Patricia Seal, Jessica Tarleton (member of Physicians for Reproductive Health<\/a>, with a mission to “ensure access to abortion care”), and Katee Wyant named as plaintiffs.<\/p>\n

When two pro-life bills advanced through the legislature in 2022, before Roe v. Wade<\/em> was overturned, Bingham publicly opposed them. One of the bills required women to be informed about abortion pill reversal before undergoing a chemical abortion, while the other was intended to protect all preborn children from abortion.<\/p>\n

“[T]his legislation is actively denying a woman\u2019s future in exchange for one that is scripted for her by the state. Thus, denying her humanity and free choice to make healthcare decisions,” Bingham said at the time.<\/p>\n

Bingham is a strident advocate for abortion. After the reversal of Roe<\/em>, Bingham signed a joint statement<\/a> as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ (ACOG) Vice Chair and Legislative Chair, South Carolina Section, District IV, condemning both the Dobbs<\/em> decision and South Carolina’s Fetal Heartbeat and Protection from Abortion Act<\/a>. The statement called abortion “essential to reproductive health,” and “a standard of care, evidence-based component of reproductive health care.” It also states that “pregnancy is not a benign condition,” and adds that because pregnancy brings changes that can compromise health or even cause death, “There are situations where pregnancy termination in the form of an abortion is the only medical intervention that can preserve a patient\u2019s health or save their life.”<\/p>\n

Interestingly enough, South Carolina’s pro-life law, the Fetal Heartbeat and Protection from Abortion Act<\/a>, signed<\/a> in 2023, protects preborn children from abortions after detectable heartbeat, but contains several exceptions, including (as ACOG mentions above) life or health of the mother. It also allows abortions in cases of medical emergencies, fatal fetal diagnosis, and cases of rape or incest up to 12 weeks gestation (if the crime was reported to police).<\/p>\n

However, induced abortion \u2014 which intentionally and directly<\/em> kills a defenseless and voiceless human being in the womb \u2014 cannot reasonably be considered “health care.” And surely there is no worse way to “deny the humanity” of a human being than to lobby for the right to destroy him:<\/p>\n