SOUTH CAROLINA ABORTION CLINIC REGULATIONS WILL STAND By Dave Andrusko

SOUTH CAROLINA ABORTION CLINIC REGULATIONS WILL STAND

By Dave Andrusko

Concluding a fight begun in 1993, the United States Supreme Court without comment has refused to block a set of abortion clinic regulations enacted by the South Carolina legislature.

By refusing to hear the complaint filed by four South Carolina abortion providers against the Abortion Clinic Regulation Act, the High Court upheld an August 15, 2000, decision rendered by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. In that 2-1 decision, the appeals court determined that the 27 pages of regulations

* did not strike at the abortion right itself;

* may modestly increase the cost of abortion but have not been shown to burden a woman's right to have an abortion;

* permissibly regulated abortion clinics as a class while other clinics or medical practices are not; and

* served a valid state interest and were in fact little more than a codification of recommendations from national medical and abortion associations designed to ensure the health of women seeking abortions.

"These reasonable health and safety regulations will continue to stand," said South Carolina Attorney General Charles Condon, who described the Supreme Court's February 26 decision as "very good news."

Mary Spaulding Balch, NRLC's director of state legislation, said the regulations "are the most comprehensive in the country and set a high standard for other states seeking to pass abortion clinic regulatory legislation."

At a subsequent March 1 emergency hearing before a district judge, abortion clinics were given four months to comply. "They've known about these regulations for years and have had ample time to prepare," Deputy State Attorney General Emory Smith said in asking for immediate enforcement.

But Judge Henry Herlong disagreed, and gave abortion providers 120 days to comply. The original regulations called for a " reasonable" compliance time.

The state's position is that the regulations are intended to ensure that abortionists are properly trained and abortion clinics properly equipped. "The regulation does not look to strike at a woman's right to choose whether to have an abortion," lawyers for the state wrote. "Rather, these regulations look to protect the health of women who seek abortion."

But pro-abortionists described the outcome in near-apocalyptic terms. Bonnie Scott Jones, a lawyer with the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, represented abortion clinics in Greenville, Beaufort, and Charleston. "The Supreme Court has given a green light to regulate abortion out of existence," she told reporters.

Likewise, Candy Kerns, coordinator of the Greenville Chapter of NOW, told a local newspaper, "Those regulations were imposed for the sole purpose of putting abortion providers out of business." Kerns also told the Greenville News, "The Supreme Court said you can't outlaw abortion totally, so South Carolina tried to circumvent that with these regulations."

Unreported in newspaper accounts was the origin and history of the regulations, which were inspired by a television investigation of an allegedly filthy abortion clinic, and fiercely opposed every step of the way. [See sidebar.]

ABORTION CLINIC REGULATIONS INSPIRED BY TELEVISION INVESTIGATION

According to South Carolina Citizens for Life, in 1992 two employees of a prominent abortionist complained to the Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) that the abortion clinic was grinding the bodies of aborted babies in a kitchen sink disposal and rinsing these human remains into the public water system. Because first-trimester abortion facilities were not regulated, DHEC had no power to act. The clinic workers then approached the CBS television affiliate in Charleston with their information.

The Eyewitness News reporters broadcast a three-part series in November 1992 based on allegations the clinic workers made. As a result of the news reports, in 1993 the Abortion Clinic Regulation Act was introduced.

During hearings on the legislation, post-aborted women testified about filthy conditions in many abortion facilities, including " recovery" rooms with bloody cots, bloody sheets, and bathrooms with dirty toilets and no toilet paper. One woman testified that the abortionist had a dog in the procedure room with him.

The act, signed into law in 1995, authorized DHEC to write regulations for first-trimester abortion facilities. The process was exhaustive and was open to public input, both from the abortion industry and pro-life professionals.

Once developed, the regulations, as required, were approved by the General Assembly in 1996. Two abortion facilities and one abortionist filed their lawsuit in June 1996, one day before the regulations were to take effect. South Carolina Attorney General Charlie Condon and his staff defended the regulations in the U.S. District Court in South Carolina.

After U.S. District Judge William Traxler struck down the regulations,, Attorney General Condon appealed the decision to the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, where the regulations were upheld in August, 2000.

The abortion plaintiffs then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Attorney General once again defended the regulations and on February 26, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear a further appeal of the 4th Circuit decision.