SC inmate’s 1993 case focused on privacy rights. Now a court could weigh it on abortion

Nearly 30 years ago, the South Carolina Supreme Court ruled that death row inmate Fred Singleton had a right to medical bodily autonomy after corrections officials tried to forcibly give him medication to make him “competent” for execution.

Thirty years later, the Singleton v. State case that was lauded by legal observers as a “first step” in developing South Carolina’s constitutional right to privacy could resurface in court, this time over the state’s six-week abortion ban and the debate over reproductive health care.

Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, the Greenville Women’s Clinic and two physicians filed a lawsuit in July over the state’s abortion ban citing privacy concerns by using a similar argument to Singleton v. State in their case against the state. South Carolina’s constitutional right to privacy from “unreasonable invasions of privacy,” along with its equal protection clause, has been the focal point of the lawsuit.

The S.C. lawsuit joins a barrage of others filed around the country over state privacy laws, including Georgia and Florida.

A circuit court judge granted the state’s request to send the case to the highest court in South Carolina, while also denying the plaintiffs’ request to place a temporary block on the six-week ban.

The lawsuit remains in limbo as the S.C. Supreme Court decides whether to hear the case, a process with an unknown length of time. On an almost parallel track, the Republican-led S.C. Legislature is positioned to pass a total abortion ban, with the uncertainty over whether all four current abortion ban exceptions will remain in place.

Convicted of murder, burglary, larceny, grand larceny of a motor vehicle and first-degree criminal sexual conduct, a jury sentenced Singleton to death in 1985.

In response, Singleton filed several petitions for post-conviction relief, often the last option to overturn a conviction. He asserted incompetency for execution, but was denied by several courts between 1986 and 1990.

In 1990, a judge ruled Singleton was unable to be executed on the basis of his mental incapacity from brain damage, vacating his death sentence and imposing a life sentence instead. The state appealed in 1991, sending the case to the S.C Supreme Court.

Pointing to errors in the judge’s decision, one issue arose in Singleton’s case that would impact South Carolina’s landscape on privacy: the ability of the state to implement forced medication of inmates to ensure competency for execution.

Expanding upon two other U.S. Supreme Court cases dealing with forced medication, Washington v. Harper and Riggins v. Nevada, the S.C. Supreme Court ruled that forced medication of an inmate solely for execution would violate South Carolina’s constitutional right to privacy. The 1993 decision asserted that inmates “must be free from unwarranted medical intrusions,” in addition to affirming medical ethics on giving medication for the purpose of execution.

“It’s a fundamental right and our South Carolina constitution is wonderful for having that in there,” Anna Maria Conner, a senior attorney with Disability Rights South Carolina, one group that represented Singleton, said of the state’s privacy laws. “It’s important to all of us, but it becomes so important for people with disabilities because they so often have to rely on other people to help them take care of themselves.”

On death row for nearly 40 years, Singleton is the longest-serving inmate on South Carolina’s death row as of Aug. 15.

Singleton’s role in the SC abortion suit

Singleton’s case highlights the importance of bodily autonomy, Conner said.

“Regardless of what lawsuit or what’s the question in today’s current lawsuit is again, how far do you want to go in saying that individuals don’t have the right to control their own bodies?” she said.

The argument over bodily autonomy remains a central component in the six-week abortion lawsuit, which depends mostly on how the S.C. Supreme Court interprets the state constitutional right to privacy if it chooses to hear the case.

Scott Bauries, a law professor at the University of South Carolina School of Law, noted the important aspect of state constitutions is that they provide for a broader scope of rights — not a narrower one.

Eleven states, including South Carolina, have a right to privacy with varying language enshrined in their constitution.

In its entirety, the S.C. Constitution assures “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures and unreasonable invasions of privacy.”

Calling Singleton v. State “really strong precedent,” Bauries said he expects it will be “front and center” in the plaintiffs’ arguments. He said the Singleton decision focuses on protecting the right of an individual to make their own medical decisions, which has made a particularly strong case for the plaintiffs since it recognized the rights of an incarcerated person on death row.

“It’s a strange reason to think that that right wouldn’t extend to a non-incarcerated person making a private decision with their family doctor,” Bauries said. “It just seems like a much easier question in the case of a pregnant person deciding whether or not to go forward with the pregnancy or not.”

Bauries said another S.C. Supreme Court case that could be at the center of the state’s argument to rival Singleton is Hooper v. Rockwell, the 1999 decision that upheld a family court’s termination of Amy Suttles Rockwell’s parental rights in order to protect her three children.

That decision could be extended to include “protecting unborn human life” as well, if the state decides to use that argument, Bauries said. If the state decides to use the precedent set in the decision, Singleton v. State and Hooper v. Rockwell could be “pitted against each other,” he said.

Defendants Attorney General Alan Wilson, Solicitor Walt Wilkins and the state of South Carolina have disputed the alleged violation of the state constitutional right to privacy. The state has asserted that the constitutional right to privacy should be understood in the limited context of “unreasonable searches and seizures,” and the provision has never been used to secure the right to an abortion.

Emphasizing the role of “original understanding,” in response, the state argues that the drafters of the state constitution’s right to privacy didn’t intend for the right to encompass abortion rights. Instead, the state’s argument cites the West Committee, a group tasked with revising the S.C. state constitution.

In its intensive study and revision, the committee recommended the added constitutional provision of “unreasonable invasions of privacy” to protect citizens from “improper use of electronic devices.”

The language was added in 1971 before the right to an abortion was enshrined by the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade, overturned this year. Calling it nearly “impossible,” the state argues that the West Committee couldn’t have predicted the inclusion of abortion rights under privacy protections, because it wasn’t an issue being considered at the time.

Genevieve Scott, senior counsel for the Center for Reproductive Rights and one of the attorneys working on the Planned Parenthood lawsuit, said she hopes the court will choose to “extend the precedent they’ve already set” by ruling with the plaintiffs.

Though the courts aren’t predictable, Scott said the constitution has “very explicit protections” that would support Planned Parenthood’s case.

“The search and seizure language is incredibly significant and important language that applies in other contexts, but that it doesn’t in any way negate or nullify the extremely important and explicit protections for the person,” Scott said. “What we are doing here is giving the South Carolina courts an opportunity to be able to weigh in on this incredibly important question about whether or not 50 years of the right to abortion by South Carolina women is going to be stripped away.”

Legislature’s abortion debate underway

The House Judiciary Committee is slated on Tuesday to weigh recommendations from a Republican-led panel to ban abortions performed in the state and eliminate rape and incest exceptions.

Meanwhile, the Senate Medical Affairs Committee will hold its first public listening session on anti-abortion legislation Wednesday morning. Public testimony will be limited to 100 people, according to the meeting notice.

The full House is scheduled to return for session Aug. 30 to debate a bill, and the Senate is expected to return after Labor Day.

This story was originally published August 16, 2022 at 5:00 AM.