SB 323 seeks to apply federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) laws to abortion providers to criminalize the procedure and further restrict birth control.
The so-called Unborn Child Protection Act, SB 323, could impose an effective total abortion ban in South Carolina. The bill targets abortion providers with anti-racketeering laws, potentially exposing both doctors and patients to decades in prison.
The bill, introduced in February and drafted by National Right to Life, the oldest antiabortion organization in the country, outlines legislation that would impose a near-total ban in South Carolina—where a strict six-week ban has already been in place since May of 2023. A hearing before the Senate Medical Affairs Subcommittee is scheduled for Oct. 1.
This is the first time racketeering laws have been applied in an attempt to restrict abortion. The federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) was enacted in 1970 as an attempt to limit large-scale organized crime, initially targeting blatantly unethical enterprises like the mafia.
The ACLU of South Carolina says the bill would not only liken providing abortion with committing homicide, but also threatens to “make it a felony to provide information about obtaining an abortion via the phone or internet.”
SB 323 defines “abortifacients” as mifepristone, misoprostol or “any other chemical or drug dispensed with the intent of causing an abortion,” and seeks to ban all of these substances. Most medication abortions are conducted via a combination dose of mifepristone and misoprostol, and despite attacks against mifepristone, misoprostol has remained relatively spared from legal challenges. Because of this, some doctors in ban-states have been shifting toward misoprostol-only abortions.
SB 323 is not the first state to take legislative action against misoprostol—Louisiana was the first when it increased the drug’s classification in 2024. But these new threats to the drug has the potential to jeopardize even these misoprostol-only abortions.
The bill’s amended definition of “contraception” also threatens to place harsher restrictions on birth control pills and other contraceptives. The antiabortion legislators’ new definition would delete anything preventing ovulation from the state’s current definition of a contraceptive, in effect excluding certain types of IUDs and emergency contraceptives.
“Medical emergency” is the only exception outlined in the bill, yet the provision notably specifies its exclusion of “psychological or emotional conditions.” Numerous data show that abortion bans do not reduce the number of procedures conducted—they just make them unsafe and inaccessible. When “South Carolina’s six-week ban went into effect in September 2023; as a result, the state had the second-largest decline (after Florida), with 2,700 fewer abortions provided in the state in 2024 than in 2023,” as reported by Guttmacher.
States with total or near-total bans have a significantly higher rate of maternal mortality than states where abortion is safe and accessible. In Texas, both maternal deaths and pregnancy-related sepsis have spiked since Dobbs, more than 56 and 50 percent respectively.
Implementing RICO in an abortion context would encourage civil suits against abortion seekers and providers, which has already been seen in states like Texas, where since 2021 the Heartbeat Act (SB 8) prohibits state officials from enforcing its near total abortion ban and instead encourages private citizens to sue anyone aiding in an abortion. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott also signed HB 7 into law on Sept. 17, further encouraging private suits against providers of medication abortion, even from out-of-state. It is not yet clear how much protection shield laws in other states will grant to providers.
The conflation of abortion providers with criminal organizations is an unprecedented legal challenge to people seeking and providing essential healthcare. In addition to encouraging civil suits, applying the RICO statute to abortion for the first time would further discourage abortion seekers and providers by creating even more legal uncertainty.
Without clear laws in place, people are unlikely to test its limits and risk imprisonment to seek essential healthcare.
“The bill is also a shocking attack on free speech. Referring someone for an abortion would be a felony, as would sharing information about how to get an abortion. Pro-choice websites would be illegal, and South Carolina attorneys tell AED that even giving someone gas money to get an out-of-state abortion could land you in prison for thirty years,” wrote Jessica Valenti and Kylie Cheung in Abortion, Every Day.
If the bill passes, under the RICO statute even working with or for abortion providers could result jail time. Even providing direction or advice to someone seeking an abortion would be punishable with up to thirty years in jail. Other states including Idaho and Texas have enacted laws to punish those aiding in “abortion trafficking” those seeking reproductive care.
“If passed, this would relegate everyone who becomes pregnant to the control of the state. All who care about the preservation of the rights that Americans have valued over the years must reject this bill,” said Lynn Teague, vice president of the League of Women Voters of South Carolina.
South Carolina is no stranger to antiabortion legislation. The origin state of Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, Republicans have been pushing for strict punitive abortion regulations since Roe, with increasing severity since the Casey decision in 1992. Currently, Republicans fill an estimated more than 70 percent of seats in the state legislature, with antiabortion Gov. Henry McMaster heading the state’s executive branch.
In addition to applying unsubstantiated racketeering laws to abortion providers, SB 323 seeks “to delete the definition of rape”—yes, it says that—and remove text from the bill ruling that “rape has the same meaning as criminal sexual conduct.” Not only are lawmakers trying to eliminate any means of obtaining an abortion in South Carolina, they are also attempting to relax the severity of rape charges. The bill also seeks to delete the state’s current incest exception to abortion laws.
At a time marked by the federal government’s dismissal of victims of sexual violence and refusal to release files connected to Jeffrey Epstein, removing the definition of rape is abuse of survivors’ experiences to advance harmful antiabortion legislation.
The application of a criminal racketeering statute to push for a total abortion ban is dangerous enough on its own, but the misinformation making its way into this proposed legislation poses extremely harmful consequences.
Research from KFF has shown how misinformation about forms of birth control, including some of the “abortifacients” newly defined in SB 323, shape public opinion and understanding of these contraceptives. The study showed that social media misrepresentations from antiabortion groups that assert emergency contraception and IUDs as abortifacients have the power to influence legislation, including bills like SB 323.
If antiabortion social media presence has such influence over public perception and lawmaking, one can imagine the harmful consequences of misinformation in real legislative text.
Great Job Cat Ross & the Team @ Ms. Magazine Source link for sharing this story.
