Legislature tackles flurry of abortion billsNational group is architect of state measuresBy Corey Hutchins, contributing writer MARCH 21, 2014 -- Just before the S.C. House overwhelmingly on Wednesday passed a bill banning an abortion at or after 20 weeks, S.C. Rep. James Smith tried to pump the brakes.
 From the floor, the Columbia lawyer and Democrat wanted to make sure everyone understood that passing such a measure could lead to a costly court battle that might end up blocking the bill from becoming law. The bill's sponsor, Republican Rep. Wendy Nanney (R-Greenville), indicated such a prospect didn't worry her. The legislation, called the “fetal pain” bill by proponents who claim that fetuses can feel pain at 20 weeks, passed 84-29, mostly on party lines.
Perhaps more than anything, the issue is over principle, as well as the election-year politics of providing the red meat of success to anti-abortionists. Why? Women's health advocates say abortions after 20 weeks are rare and tend to happen in hospital settings because of complications, not unwanted pregnancies. Consider:
- In South Carolina, none of Planned Parenthood’s clinics perform abortions after 20 weeks, according to Melissa Reed, vice president of public affairs for Planned Parenthood Health Systems Action Fund.
- State law already says clinics can only perform them within 18 weeks, and only a licensed ambulatory surgical facility that is licensed as an abortion clinic can “may perform abortions on patients who are up to 26 weeks after the first day of their last menstrual period.”
- The state's health agency states that there were 32 abortions after 20 weeks here in 2011.
Fetal pain bill supporter Holly Gatling, director of South Carolina Citizens for Life, says the bill is about creating a “compelling state interest” in making sure abortions can't be performed after 20 weeks anywhere in the state based on a claim that fetuses can feel pain by then. The Washington Post's GovBeat blog reports that a 2005 Journal of the American Medical Association review of scientific literature found that “the capacity for conscious perception of pain can arise only after thalamocortical pathways begin to function, which may occur in the third trimester around 29 to 30 weeks’ gestational age.”
Earlier this month, West Virginia became the first state with a legislature led by Democrats to pass a similar law.
Raft of measures
The vote in South Carolina on Wednesday, however, was just one piece in a raft of anti-abortion measures moving around this state's General Assembly. Last week, Senate panels debated four abortion bills in a single day. One would mandate that any physician performing an abortion here must be board certified in obstetrics and gynecology and have admitting staff privileges at a local certified hospital. And while a similar law in Mississippi was blocked by a federal court last year, the S.C. Senate Medical Affairs Committee approved the bill on Thursday.
 Two “personhood” bills in the Senate would call for the definition of life to begin when an egg is fertilized, which disturbs women's reproductive health advocates who worry it could make certain birth control measures like in vitro fertilization and hormonal birth control illegal in the state.
Perhaps the most controversial bill is one called the “Pregnant Women's Protection Act,” which would allow a woman to use deadly force if she has “a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to herself or her unborn child.”
Interestingly, the initial impetus for the measure wasn’t from South Carolina. It was from a national group, Americans United For Life, that tries to get states to introduce anti-abortion legislation.
In the group's 2013 legislative session report, AUL wrote, “Two states considered AUL’s Pregnant Woman’s Protection Act.” One was South Carolina; the other was Arkansas. In 2011, the national AUL group took credit for helping enact nearly 30 new anti-abortion laws in the states. That number has gone down in recent years, from 19 in 2012 to 16 last year. The group provides model bills or consults with lawmakers inside Statehouses.
The state already has a Stand Your Ground law. But South Carolina's only female senator, Katrina Shealy (R-Lexington), told the Charleston Post and Courier that she introduced the new bill for pregnant women as a “statement” in response to the Palmetto State's poor track record for crimes against women. The state leads the nation for the rate of women killed by men. Shealy told the paper she didn't know the bill would be construed as an anti-abortion measure, though she agrees with that position.
Victoria Middleton, director of the ACLU of South Carolina, told the Charleston City Paper she worried the AUL's “pregnant women's protection act” might hypothetically allow a woman to kill an abortion doctor. According to other pro-choice advocates, the measure would also sneak language into the S.C. law books saying life as begins at conception. That's because the bill defines “unborn child” as “the offspring of human beings from conception until birth.”
"Never seen this many anti-women bills"
The recent flurry of abortion bills is something reproductive health advocates say is different from previous years. Some view the model bill-mill-type national legislation that’s being used in South Carolina as election-year posturing by some conservative lawmakers who might want to tout a pro-life record back in their districts during campaign season.
 “I’ve been working in reproductive health advocacy for over five years, and I’ve never seen this many anti-women bills get this level of attention all within a two-week timeframe,” says Emma Davidson, associate director for strategic mobilization at the Columbia-based New Morning Foundation. Advocates like her take the position that if lawmakers really cared about decreasing rates of teen pregnancies, they'd focus their time on substantive bills, like reforming the state's Comprehensive Health Education Act.
Forrest Alton, CEO of the state Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, says even having those kinds of conversations with lawmakers can be difficult because the topic of reproductive health has become so politically charged and volatile here.
 “In my opinion, I think it is quite possible for somebody to be pro-life and pro-contraception,” said Alton, pictured at left. “That would seem to me to be a completely acceptable stance. But you don't see a lot of people standing up publicly and saying that.”
What's happening in South Carolina reflects a national trend in recent years, according to informed observers.
According to the Guttmacher Institute, which focuses on sexual reproductive health and rights, more abortion restrictions were enacted 2011 and 2013 than in the entire previous decade. Coincidentally, this comes at a time when abortion rates are at their lowest since 1976, the institute said.
Corey Hutchins is a contributor to Statehouse Report.
RECENT NEWS STORIES
|
Old filling station, Coosawatchie, S.C.
Back in the day when this facility was constructed, it was called a "filling station" more often than a "gas station." Now long closed in Coosawatchie, S.C., on what probably was an old part of U.S. Highway 17, it draws to mind days gone by when Interstates didn't rule the roadways. More from SouthernCrescent.org.
|
Heading toward the finish lineAhead in the House next week is expected to consider measures on ethics, while the Senate will move forward with discussions on a "Read to Succeed" bill and possibly a transportation measure. In committees:
- Education. The Education Oversight Committee’s Academic Standards and Assessments subcommittee will meet 10 a.m. March 24 in 433 Blatt to discuss reading, biology standards and accountability. Agenda. At 2 p.m. in the same room, the Public Awareness subcommittee will meet to discuss a parent survey, communications plan and its 2020 vision. Agenda.
- Senate Finance. The criminal justice subcommittee will meet 9 a.m. March 26 in 207 Gressette to review provisos.
- Senate Education. The K-12 subcommittee will meet 10 a.m. Wednesday in 308 Gressette to discuss several bills, including a strategy for First Steps, charter schools, kindergarten program assessments and bullying. Agenda.
- Sentencing Reform. The Senate Sentencing Reform Oversight Committee will meet March 27 after adjournment of the House and Senate in 308 Gressette. An agenda contained no other information.
- House meetings. There are several subcommittee meetings in the House throughout the week, but none of major importance. For details, click here.
|
The tangled web at DSS Watch closely what happens with the brewing inquiry into the state Department of Social Services and its embattled director, Lillian Koller. Word on the street is that the Haley Administration is pressuring GOP legislators to downplay what’s going on at the agency because it doesn’t want another state cabinet department to be used as fodder by Democrats in the fall during the election. This, however, is a needless worry, most say, because Dems are going to use DSS as another example of Haley’s ineffective leadership through cabinet appointments.
|
Back to the humidor Pretty slick move by House Speaker Bobby Harrell’s lawyers to try to keep a hearing secret that reportedly would seek to get Attorney General Alan Wilson booted as a prosecutor before the State Grand Jury inquiring into the speaker’s use of campaign funds.
Trying to return to the days of closed smoke-filled rooms? Political retribution? Well, if it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck ... A state judge ruled this morning that the hearing should be open. Put the cigars back in the humidor.
Letting the sun shine in A state Senate subcommittee moved forward this week with a proposed measure that would allow consumers to lease solar panels from installers and require utilities to develop programs with special options for nonprofits. Ann Timberlake, head of the Conservation Voters of South Carolina, writes, “At a time when most states are pushing back on renewable energy standards, South Carolina is moving forward. ... The compromise is the result of months of deliberations.”
|
Though illegal, political robocalls about to invadeBy Andy Brack, editor and publisher MARCH 21, 2014 -- The silly season of campaign advertising that invades our lives is about to start again with a refreshed robustness. Not only will your TVs and radios blare political punches and counterpunches, but your suppers, family time, peace and quiet are about to be turned upside down by the ringing of phones with annoying recorded political messages.  What’s most frustrating is that these robocalls are blatantly illegal in South Carolina, but the law is universally ignored, perhaps in part because of fingerpointing by the silos of state agencies that say it’s not their job to deal with the telephone annoyances.
In our book, there should be a special place in the hereafter for campaign consultants and candidates who use robocalls. Their enduring punishment should be to listen for eternity to automated calls from political parties that they don’t like. Unfortunately, the calls probably won’t stop unless people complain en masse. Robocalls are cheap, often costing less than a penny for each call that connects. Therefore, candidates will keep using them to communicate messages to buttress more expensive television and radio advertising and to try to drown out their opponents. The rule in political messaging is to do everything you can -- including making illegal calls -- to promote your candidate. A few months back, we outlined how state law (16-17-446) makes it illegal for campaigns to use robocalls unless a person specifically asks to receive them, which no one in their right mind would ever do. Two other exemptions are related to calls connected to debts, contracts or existing business relationships, neither of which seem to apply. The law calls for a civil penalty of $100 per violation, which can go up to $500 or 30 days in jail for a third or later violation. Adding to the confusion, though, is a 2012 Attorney General’s opinion that says “political telephone calls are acceptable to telephone answering machines but not to live answerers.” Meanwhile, one state agency attorney told us last week, “I don’t think that that those [political robo] calls are legal in South Carolina.” Pretty clear, right? Try to get it all in writing. The agency that oversees automated calls is the S.C. Department of Consumer Affairs. Its administrator described back in November about how robocalls that meet the exemptions outlined above have to identify the caller, why they’re calling and what they’re selling. No one, she said, had ever asked whether that applied to political robocalls.  So we asked. And what we got back in a Feb. 28 informal opinion is a masterful three-page letter of confusion that includes this convoluted sentence: “It is clear Adad (automatically dialed announcing device) calls, including political calls, that are not prohibited must provide the disclosures contained” in the law.
Yes, obfuscation, a big word that means we’re getting smoke blown up our skirts and pants legs. What all of this means in government-ese is that if political calls are allowed -- which they aren’t because they don’t meet the exemptions -- then they have to include disclosures. So, how does this impact the political process now? Fortunately, the folks at Consumer Affairs say they’re going to talk with the folks at the State Election Commission to see if they can let candidates know more about the political robocall law. Marci Andino, executive director of the commission, this week said she hadn’t yet heard from Consumer Affairs, which is in the same building as her office. And while she noted that her agency isn’t in charge of policing campaigns, she said the commission would link its “campaign dos and don’ts” page to the informal Consumer Affairs opinion on robocalls -- if the agency puts it online. (No word on that yet.) So what can you do? You can complain if your telephone starts ringing off the hook with annoying calls. Contact the S.C. Department of Consumer Affairs online or by calling 1-800-922-1594. Maybe if enough people complain and some candidates start getting fines, we’ll see a drop in these nuisance calls. State and local officials can avoid that special place in the hereafter by stopping the finger-pointing and working together to enforce the law and issue fines.
Andy Brack is editor and publisher of Statehouse Report. You can reach Brack at: brack@statehousereport.com.
|
Municipal Association of South Carolina  The public spiritedness of our underwriters allows us to bring Statehouse Report to you at no cost. This week's spotlighted underwriter is the Municipal Association of South Carolina. Formed in 1939, the association represents and serves the state's 270 incorporated municipalities. The Association is dedicated to the principle of its founding members: to offer the services, programs and products that will give municipal officials the knowledge, experience and tools for enabling the most efficient and effective operation of their municipalities in the complex world of municipal government.
|
Haley’s new food stamp position ignores realityBy Laura Morris
Special to Statehouse Report
MARCH 21, 2014 -- For anyone considering Governor Haley’s announcement that she intends to seek a federal waiver to institute a work requirement in three South Carolina counties under the SNAP program, two questions come immediately to mind: Is the governor as ignorant of the program as her words would lead one to believe or is she simply trying to score political points with ignorant SC voters? And why would she single out poor people in three counties with high unemployment rates and poor health for punishment.
 No waiver is required, as the Governor should be well aware. SNAP already has work requirements. Most SNAP recipients are either already working or are not expected to work because they: are children or senior citizens; have a disability; care for a family member who is disabled; or care for a child under six years old while another household member is working. SNAP also has several provisions designed to encourage individuals who are not working to enter the workforce. The most significant of these is a 1996 provision limiting how long non-employed, working-age, and non-disabled adults without children can receive benefits. This population can only access SNAP for three months in a three-year period, unless they are working at least 20 hours per week, participating in a workfare or comparable program to “work off” the food stamp benefit. This is easily verified on the USDA web site which states clearly
“The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) limits the receipt of SNAP benefits to 3 months in a 3-year period for able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs) who are not working, participating in, and complying with the requirements of a work program for 20 hours or more each week, or a workfare program. Individuals are exempt from this provision if they are:
- Under 18 or 50 years of age or older,
- Responsible for the care of a child or incapacitated household member,
- Medically certified as physically or mentally unfit for employment, pregnant, or
- States may request a waiver of this provision for people in areas with an unemployment rate above 10 percent or for those in an area with insufficient jobs.”
South Carolina is currently operating its SNAP program under such a waiver, which the government was required to request by September 2013. This waiver was provided in the law to assist people who find themselves in circumstances just like those in the three counties targeted by Haley — they can’t get jobs because the jobs are not there.
As it is so easy to acquire the knowledge that work is already required by federal law, one must conclude she is counting on our ignorance for what she sees as political gain in an election year.
The rationale for penalizing one group of individuals simply because they reside in an area with poor health and low employment opportunities is less understandable. Citing increased BMI among the poor from a study that pointed out the insufficiency of SNAP benefits is hardly an answer. Is anyone actually advocating that we cure our diabetes epidemic by starvation? Surely not. That the federal government will approve a waiver that so blatantly discriminates against a group of citizens is inconceivable, and to make such a request is an embarrassment. I hope Governor Haley will reconsider this and bring other resources to those counties to assist in improving their health and job opportunities. Giving them access to health insurance through expansion of Medicaid would be a good start.
Mount Pleasant resident Laura S. Morris is a former U.S. Senate staffer who worked on food stamp legislation and casework for 22 years.
|
More money doesn't mean better educationTo the editor:
Without subscribing in any way to the concept of "minimally adequate" education [Brack, "Minimally adequate isn't good enough"], some of the commentary just assumes the benefit of more state spending, without offering any supporting evidence. Nationally, such a correlation does not exist. As is shown in other underperforming school districts (such as Newark, NJ) which spends far more per pupil than SC, just throwing $$$ at a dysfunctional educational system trying to educate kids from dysfunctional families does not work. -- Rick Saunders, Charleston, S.C.
Drop us a line. We love hearing from our readers and encourage you to share your opinions. But you've got to provide us with contact information so we can verify your letters. Letters to the editor are published weekly. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.We generally publish all comments about South Carolina politics or policy issues, unless they are libelous or unnecessarily inflammatory. One submission is allowed per month. Submission of a comment grants permission to us to reprint. Comments are limited to 250 words or less. Please include your name and contact information. Send your letters to:
|
From low jobless rate to hijinks with DSS Nullification falters. Thank goodness the weeks-old debate over ways to delay implementation of the Affordable Care Act is over and the Senate can move on to things that matter. More.
Unemployment rate. Hats off to all who helped the state’s unemployment drop to 6.4 percent. Good work by Republicans -- and Democrats.
Hurley. A big Palmetto State welcome to the state Democratic Party’s new executive director, 27-year-old Conor Hurley. We hope you know what you’re getting yourself into.
McConnell. Lt. Gov. Glenn McConnell may have an inside track to be the College of Charleston’s next president, but if he is selected, he won’t be all that popular among students and faculty members. More.
Childs. Wonder if little-known Republican Meka Childs really wants the endorsement of her former boss, unpopular one-term State Superintendent Mick Zais, in the race for top educrat. More.
Harrell. We understand why House Speaker Bobby Harrell wants anything related to the investigation into campaign spending to be secret, but anyone in public life can’t expect that. Plus, it’s Sunshine Week, not the best time to keep things on the QT.
Koller. Some unasked-for advice for embattled DSS Director Lillian Koller: Testify before the Senate Oversight Committee as soon as possible about the mess at your agency because the longer you wait, the worse it is going to get. Stop hiding behind doctors and lawyers.
Haley. So let’s get this straight, governor. You want billions of dollars to continue to build a mixed-oxide nuclear fuel factory in South Carolina, but you don’t want billions of dollars from the same federal government to get better health care for 200,000 people? More.
Abortion politics. Congratulations South Carolina wingnuts. You’ve been punk’d by national groups trying to get somebody -- anybody -- to back extremist legislation on abortion.
|