On October 1, 2025, the South Carolina Statehouse in Columbia became the focal point of a heated national debate as lawmakers, activists, doctors, and citizens gathered for an emotionally charged hearing on the so-called Unborn Child Protection Act. The proposed legislation, officially Senate Bill 323, aims to make South Carolina’s abortion laws the strictest in the nation by banning nearly all abortions and removing longstanding exceptions for rape, incest, and fatal fetal anomalies.
The Senate Medical Affairs Committee convened in the Gressette Building for an eight-hour session that saw nearly 80 people testify from both sides of the aisle. The bill, sponsored by Senators Richard Cash, Billy Garrett, and Rex Rice, quickly drew national attention for its uncompromising stance. Under the proposed law, women could be prosecuted for obtaining abortions, those who assist minors in traveling out of state for the procedure could be criminally charged, and the sale, manufacture, or possession of abortion-inducing medication would be illegal. Violators could face up to 30 years in prison, and doctors found in violation risk losing their medical licenses. According to SC Daily Gazette, the bill also criminalizes telling someone how to get an abortion, a provision critics said would chill speech and support networks alike.
Outside the Statehouse, the scene was just as intense. Hundreds of protesters rallied beneath banners and signs, some praying in groups, others holding up a giant inflatable intrauterine device as a symbol of reproductive rights. The line to enter the hearing wrapped around the building, underscoring the depth of public engagement and concern. Willow Martin, a Columbia barista, expressed her fears about the bill’s impact on corporate policies that support employees seeking out-of-state abortions. "Provisions in the bill criminalizing those who aid South Carolina minors traveling out of state for an abortion could cause the company to end that policy," she told SC Daily Gazette.
Inside, the testimony was raw and personal. Mothers, doctors, and lawmakers recounted stories of pregnancies gone tragically wrong, the trauma of carrying nonviable fetuses, and the fear that new restrictions would force women to risk their health or leave the state for care. "When I think of the impact that this bill would have, I imagine my friends’ faces disappearing from Christmas cards and Thanksgiving tables," said Meg Southern Syms, referencing friends who needed abortions for life-threatening conditions. Dr. Natalie Gregory, an OB-GYN from Mount Pleasant, voiced the uncertainty doctors would face: "I am faced with a legal minefield."
The bill’s supporters, meanwhile, invoked religious and moral arguments. Raymond Mulholland, a member of the Greenville County Republican Party, stated, "Simply put, I am convinced innocent human life should be protected." Some, like Matt Brock of Equal Protection South Carolina, argued the bill didn’t go far enough, urging legislators to classify abortion as homicide from the moment of fertilization. "A lot of people here today tell you that this bill goes too far, I'm here to tell you according to the word of God, S.323 doesn't go far enough," Brock said, as reported by Greenville News.
Yet, what made the day especially remarkable was the division within the anti-abortion movement itself. Prominent groups such as South Carolina Citizens for Life, Palmetto Family Alliance, and Pro-Life Greenville publicly opposed the bill—not because it was too lenient, but because it threatened to criminalize women. Lisa Van Riper, president of South Carolina Citizens for Life, issued a statement: "Turning women who have abortions into criminals, as (the bill) does, is not the way." Steve Pettit, president of Palmetto Family Alliance, echoed those concerns, pointing out that the bill would force staff at faith-based pregnancy crisis centers to testify against women they had tried to help. "For these reasons, we are unable to support this bill as proposed," Pettit said.
The debate spilled into the political sphere, with former Republican Senators Katrina Shealy and Penry Gustafson—members of the so-called "Sister Senators" coalition that had previously filibustered abortion bans—returning to the Statehouse to voice their opposition. Shealy, who lost her seat after standing against a six-week ban in 2023, called the bill "a dangerous piece of legislation that threatens the health and safety and fundamental rights of South Carolina’s women, girls and families." She specifically criticized the removal of exceptions for rape and incest, stating, "This bill's most jarring and cruel aspect is a complete removal for rape and incest. It sends a chilling message to victims that their trauma and bodily autonomy are irrelevant." Gustafson, too, condemned the lack of female representation on the committee, asking pointedly, "Where are the women on this committee?" before being escorted out by security for exceeding her allotted time.
As the hearing wore on, tempers flared. Multiple people were escorted out by Senate security, including Gustafson herself, who returned to her seat after a brief removal. Audience members interrupted speakers, and emotions ran high on both sides. Despite the drama, no vote was taken on the bill that day. Senator Richard Cash, the bill’s lead sponsor, acknowledged that more work was needed, specifically citing testimony from a doctor who warned that requiring the resuscitation of extremely premature infants would be "not only impossible but torturous."
Questions also arose about the bill’s broader implications. Would it affect access to in vitro fertilization (IVF) or emergency contraception? Cash insisted that neither would be impacted, explaining that the bill defines abortion as occurring only after a diagnosable pregnancy, which comes after the window for emergency contraception. Still, doctors and Democratic senators cautioned that the threat of severe penalties could lead to a chilling effect, with healthcare providers erring on the side of caution and denying services like IVF or emergency contraception out of fear of prosecution.
Expert testimony highlighted the deep divides. Steve Crampton of the Thomas More Society argued that the bill simply restores protections for the unborn to what existed before Roe v. Wade, while Dr. Kacey Eichelberger, a certified OB/GYN, warned that removing "mercy clauses" for rape, incest, and fatal fetal anomalies would force families to suffer needlessly. "For people in the midst of their greatest suffering, this proposed legislation is cruel," Eichelberger said.
As the dust settled, both sides recognized that the fight was far from over. Senate Minority Leader Brad Hutto, D-Orangeburg, expressed doubt that there were enough votes to pass such a harsh measure, while anti-abortion advocates debated how far the law should go. What was clear, however, was that the hearing marked a pivotal moment in South Carolina’s—and the nation’s—ongoing struggle over reproductive rights, with the voices of women, doctors, and even longtime anti-abortion activists reshaping the contours of the debate.
With the Senate panel pledging to revisit the bill in future sessions, the outcome remains uncertain. But for those who lined the halls, braved the crowds, and spoke their truths—on both sides—the stakes could hardly be higher.