In Bingham v. Wilson, (D SC, Aug. 25, 2026), a suit brought by ob-gyn physicians, a South Carolina federal district court held that there is a genuine dispute as to whether exceptions in South Carolina’s Fetal Heartbeat and Protection From Abortion Act are unconstitutionally vague. The court said in part:
Plaintiffs contend that the Health Exception is vague because … “Serious Risk” and “Substantial and Irreversible Impairment of a Major Bodily Function” are not medical terms that are easily understood and applied by practicing physicians in obstetrics and gynecology…. They also argue that the Health Exception lacks a scienter requirement and instead relies on a “reasonable medical judgment” standard, which they assert worsens its vagueness and fails to provide sufficient guidance for permissible medical practices or enforcement of the Act….
Defendants argue that they are entitled to summary judgment because the terms of the Exception can be readily understood and have a plainly legitimate sweep…. Additionally, they argue that … statutory terms similar to the Health Exception have been utilized for decades….
The expert testimony before the Court shows that there is a genuine dispute as to whether the language in the Health Exception is vague….
Plaintiffs argue that the Fatal Fetal Anomaly Exception is vague, in particular because the statutory language “incompatible with sustaining life after birth” is susceptible to numerous interpretations…. Additionally, they again argue that the Fatal Fetal Anomaly Exception lacks a scienter requirement and does [not] provide sufficient guidance for permissible medical practices or enforcement of the Act. …
Defendants contend … the Fatal Fetal Anomaly Exception has an understandable core and a plainly legitimate sweep…. Additionally, they argue that even if the Fatal Fetal Anomaly Exception is vague, it is severable from the rest of the Act….
The expert testimony before the Court shows that there is a genuine dispute as to whether the language in the Fatal Fetal Anomaly Exception is vague….
… [T]he Court finds that a bench trial in this case is appropriate because it will allow the Court to more appropriately weigh competing evidence and expert testimony, subject to cross-examinations and objections….