South Carolina Defends Heartbeat Law in Court to Keep Saving Babies
A federal lawsuit challenging provisions of South Carolina’s Fetal Heartbeat and Protection from Abortion Act remains unresolved as U.S. District Judge Richard Gergel considers constitutional arguments concerning the law’s medical exceptions.
The case, Bingham v. Wilson, was filed January 8, 2025, by five obstetrician-gynecologists who contend that certain provisions of the 2023 Heartbeat Act are unconstitutionally vague. Three of the doctors subsequently dropped off the case.
The physicians are challenging two exceptions to the law: one permitting abortion under specified medical emergencies and another involving unborn children diagnosed with fatal fetal anomalies.
The plaintiffs argue that the language of these exceptions makes it difficult for physicians to determine when an abortion is legally permissible without risking criminal prosecution or professional disciplinary action.
REACH PRO-LIFE PEOPLE WORLDWIDE! Advertise with LifeNews to reach hundreds of thousands of pro-life readers every week. Contact us today.
South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson and other state officials are defending the law. Governor Henry McMaster also intervened in the litigation to support the state’s position.
On Friday, the final witness was pro-life physician Tom Austin, a Midlands area obstetrician-gynecologist who testified he is able to understand the law and apply it appropriately.
In an interview with SCCL, Dr. Austin said the attorney for the pro-abortion doctors “tried to imply that I did not provide comprehensive healthcare because I do not perform abortions. She seemed to be staking her case on whether or not [I] follow ACOG (American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists) guidelines.” Dr. Austin said he responded that ACOG, a pro-abortion organization, “does not make law.”
The central question is whether the medical exceptions provide physicians with sufficiently clear legal standards to satisfy the Constitution’s due process requirements.
Federal Judge Allows Constitutional Challenge to Proceed
The lawsuit initially included claims that South Carolina’s abortion restrictions violated the physicians’ First Amendment religious freedom rights. In May 2025, Judge Gergel dismissed the religious freedom claim but allowed the constitutional challenge concerning the clarity of the medical exceptions to proceed.
On August 25, 2026, the judge denied motions for summary judgment filed by both sides, determining that additional examination of the evidence was necessary before resolving the constitutional questions.
That decision did not declare the Fetal Heartbeat Act unconstitutional. Instead, it allowed the litigation to proceed toward trial. According to publicly available court activity records, proceedings in a bench trial began October 28, 2026. In a bench trial, the judge rather than a jury determines the outcome.
South Carolina Defends Its Pro-Life Law
The state maintains that the Fetal Heartbeat Act provides constitutionally adequate guidance to physicians through its statutory definitions and standards of reasonable medical judgment. The physicians contend that uncertainty about the medical exceptions could cause delays in treating women experiencing serious pregnancy complications.
The lawsuit does not directly challenge the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade and returned substantial authority over abortion regulation to the states. Rather, the litigation concerns whether specific provisions of South Carolina’s law meet constitutional requirements governing the clarity of laws that carry criminal penalties.
Fetal Heartbeat Act Remains in Effect
South Carolina’s Fetal Heartbeat and Protection from Abortion Act, enacted in 2023, generally prohibits abortion after a fetal heartbeat is detected with exceptions for the life of the mother, medical emergency, fatal fetal anomaly, and rape or incest reported to law enforcement. The Fetal Heartbeat law has played a significant role in reducing the number of abortions performed in South Carolina. Since the peak number of abortions in 1988, passing pro-life laws has shown a correlation with an 82 percent decline in the number of abortions occurring in South Carolina.
As of October 30, 2026, no final federal court ruling has been verified that strikes down the Fetal Heartbeat Act or its challenged medical exceptions.
The case remains an important legal development for South Carolina as the state continues defending its authority to regulate abortion following the historic Dobbs decision.
The original physicians who filed the federal litigation were Dr. Natalie Dawn Bingham, “Jane Doe,” Dr. Patricia Seal, Dr. Jessica Tarleton, and Dr. Katee L. Wyant. Only Dr. Bingham and Jane Doe remain as plaintiffs. Jane Doe petitioned the court for anonymity based on her fear of harassment. Here is a copy of Judge Gergel’s order granting Jane Doe, a self-described abortionist, anonymity.
Post and Courier reporter Ian Grenier who covered the bench trial in Charleston reported Thursday, “Her practice only performs an abortion after six weeks when two other doctors agree it meets one of the exceptions and in the ‘most severe’ cases.
South Carolina Citizens for Life will continue monitoring the litigation and its potential impact on the protection of unborn children and their mothers.
Case reference: Bingham v. Wilson, No. 2:25-cv-00163-RMG, U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina.
LifeNews Note: Holly Gatling is the executive director for South Carolina Citizens for Life.
