The court's decision is expected to prompt further debate, particularly regarding its implications for women's rights and access to reproductive healthcare.

The ruling is part of a broader trend among Republican lawmakers to restrict abortion access, reflecting ongoing national debates over reproductive rights.

The ruling sparked mixed reactions; anti-abortion groups celebrated it as a victory, while abortion rights advocates criticized it for its potential harm to families and healthcare access.

Despite the ruling, a federal lawsuit is ongoing, with five OB-GYN doctors challenging the law's vague definitions and their implications for patient care.

State Attorney General Alan Wilson described the decision as a win for the rule of law, asserting that local legislators should define state policies rather than external interest groups.

Planned Parenthood challenged the law, arguing its language was ambiguous and allowed abortions until the nine-week mark, but the court sided with the state's interpretation.

The ACLU of South Carolina expressed concerns over the ruling, highlighting its potential negative impact on residents and medical professionals.

Supporters of the law argue that recognizing a fetal heartbeat is crucial for protecting vulnerable individuals, emphasizing the moral dimensions of the ruling.

Planned Parenthood noted that if the law allowed abortions up to nine weeks, 86% of its patients seeking the procedure would still be able to access it.

The South Carolina Supreme Court upheld the state's 'fetal heartbeat' law, which bans abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, a significant ruling issued on May 14, 2025.

This law, initially proposed in 2021, was revived by Governor Henry McMaster following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Associate Justice John Few noted that the law was not framed as a later prohibition during legislative discussions, which contributed to the court's decision.