Bill targeting telehealth abortions passes House. Some Republicans wanted more.

COLUMBIA — The House approved legislation Wednesday designed to strengthen South Carolina’s existing ban on mailing drugs that cause an abortion, which Democrats said went too far but a hardline faction of the chamber’s GOP supermajority argued didn’t go far enough.

The 81-31 vote followed more than five hours of floor debate. One Republican voted “no.” One Democrat voted for the bill. Seven legislators were there but didn’t vote.

Legislators made two changes: One makes it illegal to hold a fundraiser or hand out money to buy the pills. As a deterrent, the money could be seized. A court could also order an organization to stop. But no prison time could result.

The other amendment approved during the debate threatens up to life in prison for giving the pills to a pregnant woman, intending to end a pregnancy, without her knowledge. That crime was put on par with killing or injuring the mother, though without allowing the death penalty.

It’s already illegal for providers in South Carolina to mail the two pills that end a pregnancy. Even during the first six weeks of pregnancy, when abortions remain legal in the state, the drugs must be handed over in-person. State law explicitly bans the prescribing of abortion-inducing pills through a telehealth visit.

But people are getting around that ban by ordering the pills after virtually consulting with a doctor in a different state with laws shielding them from prosecution, legislators said.

“This is the closing of a loophole that further demonstrates what has been the policy in South Carolina, which is anti-abortion,” Rep. Jay Jordan, a Florence Republican, said of the bill.

SC Republicans advance bill that targets telehealth abortions

The bill would make mifepristone and misoprostol illegal to possess without a prescription from a South Carolina doctor by making them Schedule IV drugs, a category that includes Valium and Xanax.

Proponents stressed that nothing in the bill would ban the drugs. They could still be used to induce abortions — if prescribed in-person during the window allowed in state law — or for non-abortion health care, including miscarriages and other emergencies.

Having the drugs without a prescription could bring a sentence of up to five years in prison and a $5,000 fine.

However, the bill specifies that a pregnant woman could not be prosecuted for having the drugs for her own use.

The bill creates a right of the family, including the biological father, grandparents and siblings, to sue an out-of-state doctor or company providing the drugs, if they knew the pills were going to someone in South Carolina.

Not far enough

Rep. Josiah Magnuson, a member of the ultra-conservative Freedom Caucus, argued the proposal doesn’t do anything to actually prevent people who are already violating state law from getting the pills.

“It doesn’t save one life,” the Campobello Republican said. He was among four Republicans who didn’t vote on the bill.

About 20 Republicans, mostly Freedom Caucus members, tried unsuccessfully to turn the bill into a total abortion ban from conception. Other failed proposals would have banned the drugs entirely for abortions or criminalized women for seeking the pills.

Magnuson argued it’s not fair to punish doctors who illegally prescribe pills via a virtual visit and the spouse or partner who provides the pills but not prosecute the pregnant woman.

That’s “crossing a bridge we have historically refused to cross,” Jordan said.

Some women seeking abortion pills are in “very desperate and dire situations,” he said.

Many anti-abortion groups have publicly opposed proposals in the Senate and House that prosecute the pregnant mother. They note that in some situations, the woman is coerced by a partner to get an abortion, sometimes violently.

Senators reject SC abortion ban proposal touted as strictest nationwide

In November, a Senate panel rejected a total ban that would punish mothers as well as remove exceptions. Further restricting mail-order abortion pills, however, has support from Senate GOP leaders.

Any law the Legislature passes addressing the drugs is meaningless unless the state actually enforces it, which hasn’t been the case with existing law, said Rep. John McCravy, who has long pushed for a ban on abortion from conception.

“We need prosecutors in this state to have a backbone when it comes to protecting life,” said the Greenwood Republican, a non-Freedom Caucus Republican who voted with the group to try to turn the bill into an abortion ban.

In the end, however, McCravy voted for the bill. Even though he wanted more, he still supported strengthening existing law, he said.

However, Equal Protection South Carolina, a group that advocates for a strict abortion ban, said in a Wednesday statement it wouldn’t support the bill because it didn’t do enough.

“South Carolina must not settle for symbolic legislation,” said Mark Corral, the group’s president. “We must pursue real justice — justice for all— by establishing equal legal protection for every human being from conception.”

The group backs a separate bill by Rep. Rob Harris of Spartanburg County, who was the lone Republican who voted “no” Wednesday. His proposal, which isn’t going anywhere, would intentionally punish women for having an abortion by extending all legal protections to the womb from fertilization.

Too far

Democrats argued reclassifying the drugs would make it harder to get medication for other reasons. Even though the pills would still be available, doctors could no longer keep them on hand to give to people at appointments or to quickly grab in emergencies, said Rep. Spencer Wetmore, a Folly Beach Democrat.

The bills can induce labor or stop heavy bleeding in a mother after her baby is born, Wetmore said. When she gave birth, she had complications that required those drugs, she said. As did Rep. Beth Bernstein, the Columbia Democrat said.

“As someone who had difficulties during her delivery — significant issues that were considered life-threatening — these medications need to be readily accessible,” Bernstein said.

If a woman is bleeding heavily after delivering her baby, her doctor needs to be able to administer the medication as quickly as possible, Bernstein said. That’s not possible with a Schedule IV drug, which requires more administrative hurdles, she said.

“We are talking about actual lives that are being impacted by making this a Schedule IV drug,” Bernstein said. “If the purpose of the bill is to prevent people from getting an abortion, then there are other ways to do it without changing these medications to Schedule IV.”

Restricting access to the drugs could endanger more women’s lives, Planned Parenthood South Atlantic said in a statement.

South Carolina ranks eighth worst nationally for women dying during pregnancy, childbirth or soon after.

“In a state already grappling with one of the nation’s worst and most complex reproductive health crises, advancing this bill is reckless and cruel,” said Katherine Farris, the nonprofit’s chief medical officer, in a statement.

Rep. Sarita Edgerton also had complications when delivering her son. But she attributed her difficult labor, which caused her to flatline, to residual complications from an abortion she had years before. She doesn’t want other people to go through the same thing, she said.

“I went through so much psychological damage, emotional damage that can’t be quantified by a number,” Edgerton said. “I will tell you, these are not numbers. They’re women.”

She and other Republicans pointed repeatedly to a report that claimed one in 10 women who took the pills had major complications within the month afterward. That report has faced pushback from doctors and researchers for failing to disclose the source of the data used and relying on overly vague information that doesn’t actually reflect the number of medical complications. Other studies have refuted the findings.

The Food and Drug Administration approved the drugs to end a pregnancy through 10 weeks’ gestation. The risk of serious complications from the drugs is less than 1%, the FDA has found.

Editor’s note: This article was corrected Thursday, Feb. 5, to reflect that one Republican voted against the bill.