♪ opening music ♪ ♪ Welcome to This Week in South Carolina.

I'm Gavin Jackson.

This week the two candidates running for lieutenant governor, incumbent Republican Pamela Evett and Democrat, Tally Casey met to discuss the issues in the only debate this election season.

We give a recap on the topics discussed such as abortion, education and the economy.

But first with the Supreme Court and the Senate set to meet next week to deal with the abortion issue.

The Associated Press' Jeffrey Collins explains where current and future legislation stands.

Jeffrey, welcome back.

<Jeffrey> Hello, how are you today, Gavin?

<Gavin> Doing great.

Great to see you too.

Jeffrey, let's just start off where things stand right now with abortion in the state, there have been a lot of ups a lot of downs, especially for this journey for abortion access in the state.

Before we get into all of that, and what's on the horizon, kind of just give our listeners or viewers an idea of where we think stand right now with the current law and the status of that current law.

Currently, well, the law that's on the books, but not in effect right now, and I'll get to that, is a band around six weeks when cardiac activity is first detected, which is about six weeks after conception to put it.

They're commonly called heartbeat bills.

But that bill is actually right now, it's not in effect.

It's been suspended by the South Carolina Supreme Court as they, we hear a court challenge.

The arguments are actually on October 19.

There will probably be a decision made later on about whether or not that ban violates the right to privacy that we have or women have under the state constitution.

So right now, the current law in South Carolina reverts back to the 20 week ban that was signed towards the end of or about the middle of Governor Haley's terms in office back about, now, I think it was 2016, but it's right about the middle of her time.

So that's where we're at right now is we have a 20 week ban that's in effect as we wait to see what the South Carolina Supreme Court does.

<Gavin> And we can talk more about the Supreme Court in a moment, but let's get into what the legislature has been doing.

Set the stage for us there, Jeffrey.

We saw committees in both the House and the Senate meet over the summer to take up abortion.

Since the state, since the United States Supreme Court overturned about 50 years of abortion precedent with that Dobbs ruling.

Walk us through what happened in each chamber start with the House because that's where it really originated from the past, over this summer, and tell us what both chambers did and where we kind of stand right now.

<Jeffrey> Well, that House speaker created a special committee and they considered - they were the ones who actually crafted and wrote the original bill.

It started out in that committee as a ban on all abortions and also didn't have any exceptions for rape and incest.

By the time it got down to the House floor, it seemed very obvious that that couldn't even pass the House.

That without those exceptions, even the more conservative House, full House wasn't going to be able to pass it.

So the House at the end of August, they passed a bill that ended up having a total ban on abortion but with the rape and incest exceptions and as well as acceptance for the life of the mother.

So, the House sent it's bill over to the Senate, the Senate, you know they had they debated it last month, and in the end there was, they ended up having 24 votes for a total ban, which is enough is the majority of the Senate, but in the Senate, you know the rules are that any senator can filibuster if they choose and you need 26 votes to sit that Senator down.

So, Senator Tom Davis who joined with the Republican Women of the Senate and one other Republican senator Greg Hembree, they all don't - they couldn't support a total ban.

So Tom Davis stood up and said he was going to filibuster.

They didn't have the 26 votes to sit him down.

So in the end, what the Senate ended up doing was passing like a tweak to the sixth week ban, which increased, which decreased the number of weeks in which a woman has to seek an abortion after conception in a pregnancy caused by rape and incest from 20 weeks to 12 weeks, but also and senators say this may be the most important part of the bill is it also altered the language of that right to privacy problem that the Supreme Court is taking up next week.

Senators say they've secured it to where the state Supreme Court wouldn't have a problem with it if the house went along with it, but in the end, that bill got sent back to the House and the House pretty convincingly decided that they weren't going to go with the Senate's version.

<Gavin> Yeah, and speaking of the Senate for a little bit sticking with the Senate for little bit longer, Jeffrey.

We saw a lot of passionate debate over there too.

Especially when you look at people like Senator Tom Davis, Republican from Beaufort.

We saw Senator Katrina Shealy.

She's a Republican from Lexington County.

Just kind of give us an idea about just how hard they pushed back against what the House sent them in terms of making sure that there were exceptions, making sure that there were exceptions up to six weeks like what's currently on the books with the heartbeat law.

<Jeffrey> Well, and in the end, you know, these folks they want, they've just wanted more time.

I mean, I think in the case of, I think each of those senators ended up voting for the heartbeat bill, or they were supportive of the heartbeat bill at with the exception of Sandy Senn out of Charleston, and you know, so they, they just wanted to wait and see what the heartbeat ban would do, wait and see what happens in other places in the country, wait and see what happens maybe even with the South Carolina Supreme Court ruling and they fought actually, in the end, you know, they were able to state their place.

In fact, a lot of the anger involved in the House with the folks that wanted the total ban and are angry at the Senate is directed not less towards the women of the Republican Women of the Senate, but more towards Tom Davis for his role in filibustering.

<Gavin> So Jeffrey, like you said it went back to the House after the Senate amended it.

Add those changes, in there.

The House voted not to concur with those changes, didn't agree with it.

So they have a conference committee.

Now we go back to the Senate next week.

What's going to happen there?

What's the future of this bill?

<Jeffrey> Well, you know, after the House decided to not agree to the Senate's changes, within minutes of that vote, Senate President Thomas Alexander sent out a statement where he said he was very disappointed, I'm looking over the sheet, "Very disappointed that "passing the bill was going to be almost impossible now, "and it likely forecloses any changes in the abortion law "this year."

So take it at its face value, it seems like even though the Senate's going to come back on October 18, that they're going to reject what the House did, and then Alexander, Senator Alexander has a choice.

He can either appoint three conference committee members, or just let the bill go, and if he points to three conference committee members, that does keep the bill alive, technically, but October 18, is three weeks away from election day.

And, you know, the sine die, which allows the legislature to act in the special session ends, the Sunday after that.

So a conference committee would have almost no time to negotiate, and then they have to bring back each chamber to vote.

So I mean, there's a time crunch that almost precludes anything from happening at this point.

Almost.

<Gavin> Yeah, yeah.

We're never say never, especially at this point, especially in this issue.

There's so many factors going on there too, but it seems like a lot of work for us to get to this point and not have a definitive outcome.

Is that just because the personalities are just so big here, it's such a divisive debate when it's something like this.

I mean, you saw the Democrats really taking advantage of these Republicans who are there different factions there to kind of essentially help kill this bill?

<Jeffrey> I think, you know, you I've heard this a lot from people that it's the dog that finally caught the car.

That, you know, in essence, all the abortion debates that we've had over the years in South Carolina, going back to last century, have been sort of in theory, right.

I mean, you know, we were trying to, the legislature was trying to pass a bill that would cause the supreme, the U.S. Supreme Court to consider things, maybe roll back abortion, you know, rights a little bit at a time.

Well, now that the whole playing field is open, since Roe versus Wade was overturned, suddenly, whatever decision guy that got made in the General Assembly this year was gonna stick and stick immediately.

And I think, especially for some moderate Republicans that got them to say, well, you know, wait a second, do we want to, you know, are we there and ready for a total ban?

And I think they also saw things happen, like in Kansas, where, you know, voters rejected, what essentially would have given their legislature the ability to pass a total ban.

You know, there's also just the electoral atmosphere right now.

I mean, obviously, I think there will be a lot of people paying close attention in November on November 8, to see where people stand.

And that may determine whether or not we're having this debate again, in 2023.

<Gavin> Yeah, we're gonna see.

We've seen some reporting out there about how voter rolls have increased to a lot of men, a lot of women registering to vote, especially right after that decision was made in June.

But I want to wrap up here in the house, and, you know, speak about House Majority Leader Davey Hyatt, who we spoke with after that vote of non concurrence in the House.

He doesn't believe that this is the best we're gonna get from the Senate.

He didn't give us details about what could come out of the Senate.

But he was kind of trying to keep hope alive, but didn't really tell us much about what's going to change here between these two outcomes, these two bills that we saw.

But I mean, it doesn't seem that there could be any outcome because there's no way to get back to you know, what, what both side wants, both sides want.

<Jeffrey> They're very different.

The bills, I mean, obviously, total ban versus six weeks, there's, there's they're just very different.

And, you know, part of the conference committee process is if you can accept part of the bill in the House or part of the bill in the Senate, and you kind of pick and choose what you want, though, pieces you want out of it.

But if you go off that script, then you have to have what's called free conference, which requires two thirds approval before anything can happen pass that and two thirds is the magic number.

The Republicans are just a little shorter two thirds in both chambers.

I mean, that's why abortions become an issue in the governor's race.

I mean, Joe Cunningham points out that if he vetoes a Democratic nominee for governor points out if he becomes a governor, he can veto a bill and Republicans don't quite have that two thirds majority, even in a perfect world to overturn his veto.

And so you know that that two thirds problem is not only in the governor's race, but also in a possible free conference question with this abortion bill.

<Gavin> And Jeffrey since you brought up the governor's race, I'm gonna just jump into what we heard from the Lieutenant Governor's during that debate this past week.

Before we get to the Supreme Court, you know, I asked both, Pamela Everett, the current incumbent Republican lieutenant governor, and then Tally Parham Casey who's running with Joe Cunningham on the Democratic ticket.

What they would do, what kind of bill they would like to see when it comes to abortion.

And you know, it can be as broad or as narrow as you want it to be, but surprised that Lieutenant Governor Evette didn't really could talk about having a more restrictive bill.

She kind of said, we enjoy the bill that we currently have on the books, which is being challenged, kind of different than what we heard from Governor McMaster saying where he wants a full ban.

<Jeffrey> Well, I think that in the McMaster, you know, edit ticket, I mean, I think that they, they understand that that's probably the, they know that their position is out there and known.

So they aren't saying very much.

Of course, their opponents are making a big deal out of it, because it is a big deal to them.

I mean, it's one of the starkest differences you can find between the two candidates.

I mean, there's there's other ones but I mean, that's, you know, any anything that gets passed on abortion in South Carolina, Joe Cunningham says he's going to veto it and anything, and Henry McMaster said anything that gets passed on abortion he's gonna sign it.

So, <Gavin> Yeah, we're seeing some advertising coming out along those lines to at least from the Cunningham campaign.

But pivot to the Supreme Court first, Jeffrey.

We have a few moments left here.

Talk about this case of Planned Parenthood of South Atlantic and others challenging the current six week abortion ban that's on our books right now.

This law, this law that was signed in early 2021, is winding its way through the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

When the dobs decision came out this summer.

It was then dismissed and then the six week ban went into effect until about August 17th.

What is the state of play involving this case in that hearing, that's going to be before the Supreme Court next week in Columbia?

<Jeffrey> That was perhaps the biggest surprise of all of this abortion stuff that happened over the summer and into the fall is that the South Carolina Supreme Court unanimously agreed to suspend.

They didn't overturn it, but they said that South Carolina can enforce the heartbeat ban until they could hear this case.

And essentially what it comes down to is, it's a right to privacy.

South Carolina Constitution has a right to privacy for people.

And when they passed it in the 70s, it was tied to Roe versus Wade.

So when Roe versus Wade was overturned and knocked off the books, then there's a question about whether or not that right to privacy means that, you know, South Carolina lawmakers were, couldn't pass any additional abortion restrictions.

And as I mentioned before, South Carolina Senator said they saw that problem with some tweaks in it, but that, it doesn't look like it's going to get passed.

So come October 19, the Supreme Court justices are going to hear that case.

It'll probably be a couple of months before they rule.

But if they do rule that this right of privacy exist in the heartbeat ban is unconstitutional, then that will throw a massive wrench not only into the abortion debate, but probably judicial elections and a bunch of other things.

<Gavin> We'll see how that ends up anyway.

Yeah, we were talking about, I mean, it was surprising to see that unanimous decision there to grant that injunction in that order.

The justices wrote, we acknowledge and arguably close questions presented, which further supports the need to maintain the status quo by granting a temporary injunction.

Our decision to do so is primarily guided by the codification of Roe is what you're talking about in current state law.

So I guess it just comes down to what gets changed, possibly before then.

And then what they decide to do after that.

<Jeffrey> Well, you know, the legislature elects our judges in South Carolina all the way up to the state Supreme Court.

And you heard during that Senate abortion debate last month, there were messages being sent to those and they weren't exactly hidden messages being sent to those justices about you know what, why don't you think really hard about this, you know, during that debate.

So that will be very interesting to see what the South Carolina Supreme Court's willing to do.

<Gavin> And then Jeffrey, 30 seconds.

Any crystal ball, anything you can predict for us when it comes to the outcome of this entire abortion situation?

<Jeffrey> Um, I, you know, Shane Massey, the Republican Majority Leader in the Senate says, At this point, there's nothing else they can do.

Their position is set in stone and done.

So don't expect that, if nothing happens, don't expect another debate next year.

I'm not sold on that.

This is South Carolina.

They'll have another abortion debate next year.

I suspect.

Something, somehow.

<Gavin> Planning to look forward to always when we're talking about the legislature in South Carolina.

That's Jeffrey Collins.

He's Associated Press reporter here in Columbia.

Jeffrey, thanks as always, <Jeffrey> Thank you Gavin for having me.

<Gavin> This past week, S.C.E.T.V.

South Carolina Public Radio and the Post and Courier hosted the candidates for lieutenant governor Incumbent Republican Pam Evette and Democrat Tally Casey for debate here in our Columbia Studios.

Here's a recap from some of those key moments from the debate, starting with their response to how they would change current abortion laws, <Tally Casey> After fighting for freedom abroad, I never thought I'd have to come home and fight for basic freedoms here.

But Henry McMaster wants to ban all abortions without exceptions for rape, incest, or the life of the mother.

Joe Cunningham and I want you to have more freedoms not less.

We want to eliminate the state income tax, give teachers the pay raise they deserve and we will protect a woman's right to choose.

>> You know, in 2021, we passed a bipartisan heartbeat bill.

You know, we all probably sign that bill, that bill is something I stand behind.

I think that works well for the people of South Carolina.

What definitely concerns me is that in 1992 Bill Clinton talked about safe, legal and rare.

And our opponents just months ago, were celebrating inside of abortion clinic, if you go on to their website, they actually tell people how to go get an abortion.

And even more disturbing to me is that they advocate for abortion.

You know, two months pass with the medical community says his pain tolerance for a baby in the womb.

I think that's a little bit radical.

I think it's very important that we protect women's right to choose in South Carolina.

And we should be leading on this issue.

South Carolina is looking to establish one of the most restrictive bans in the country.

If it were up to me, I would go back to the precedent set by Roe v. Wade, which was the law of the land for the past 50 years, our daughters should not have less rights than their mothers and grandmothers.

I think that what is happening is the other side here is just engaging in fear mongering.

We are not seeking to permit partial birth abortions, or abortion on demand.

We're just seeking basic freedoms for women to have the ability to make healthcare decisions within their own control, or with consultation with their doctor.

We're not we don't think it's the government's job or the government's business to tell women what to do with their bodies, or to tell doctors how to treat their patients.

And from the very first day I found out I was pregnant, it was my job to keep my children from feeling pain.

And so I think we have to really focus on one thing that our opponents are talking about.

The medical community says that a child in the womb feels pain at 15 weeks.

They're advocating, as she just said for Roe v Wade, which puts abortion at 20 weeks, that's five weeks that a child can feel pain that they're advocating for that.

That's horrific to me.

That's horrific to the people of South Carolina.

What the lieutenant governor is advocating for is not a pro life position, but actually pro birth.

And in South Carolina, the governor is abandoning these children at the womb, we have one of the highest infant mortality rates, we have one of the highest maternal mortality rates, and the impact is most severe on our minority population.

A black woman in South Carolina is three and a half times more likely to die after giving birth than a white woman.

It is not the government's role to go into a doctor's office and tell a woman and her doctor what to do with her own body.

That's just simply not the role of the government.

I think it's unfair to say that the governor doesn't care about teachers.

I've heard the ads from Joe Cunningham and Tally Casey talking about how in the next eight years, should they ever get the seat that they would want to raise teacher pay by $10,000.

Well, Governor McMaster in six years raise teacher pay by $10,000.

And what he's trying to do is bring transparency to how schools are funded.

The last bill that was passed, definitely puts money into the classroom, and to the teachers and not in middle middle management, and the bureaucracy that revolves around our school districts.

And we want to make sure that our public schools are fully funded for the first time.

They haven't been fully funded since the 2007 2008. school year since my first child was born.

He's now in high school.

We haven't had public schools that are fully funded.

Joe Cunningham will be an education governor for once.

We have been endorsed by the South Carolina Education Association, and S.C. for Ed, and we are ready to help teachers on day one critical race theory as a concept not taught in K through 12 schools in South Carolina, but lawmakers have spent hours debating this and finally, put a stop to it coming through a budget advisor.

Do you fear that this kind of action will have a chilling effect on how history is taught in South Carolina?

Skyler, the discussion about critical race theory is it confuses me because critical race theory is actually a legal concept.

That's a class in law school.

And so now I don't think it's, it's appropriate to have critical race theory taught to K through 12 students.

But I think it's really even talking about at this point is, is fear mongering.

It's not something that's happening in our schools, I don't think it's something we need to worry about.

But we do think it's important to focus on the curriculum that's taught in schools, there's a place for curriculum and not for activism.

So critical race theory is something that has brought a lot of letters and phone calls into our office.

Teachers have talked about the fact that they're uncomfortable with some of the curriculum that's being taught.

And parents have brought it to our attention.

So to say that it's not happening in our schools.

I don't think it's a fair assumption, because it's coming to us actually, from the ground.

I don't think anything should be taught in a school that alters history, I think, what we talk about is that, you know, if history isn't taught properly, history tends to repeat itself right.

We've heard that over and over again.

And I think it's really unfair to make anybody, anybody feel bad about parts of them their heritage, or their culture that they were born into, and cannot walk away from.

<Gavin> We're talking about domestic violence problems, skyrocketing drug overdose deaths, on top of a mental health care system that just can't keep up with it.

What do you believe is causing this crisis?

And how can we fix it in South Carolina?

Tally: I would have to disagree with the statement that the governor is doing a great job related to anything regarding health care.

South Carolina has one of the worst health care systems in the country.

And it's time for us to do something about it.

And whatever Governor McMaster has done on the eve of an election, well, what is he been doing for the past five years?

Yes, we have a mental health care crisis and mental health should be addressed.

We also need to expand Medicaid so that hundreds of 1000s of South Carolinians have access to health insurance.

This is not just a, this is not just a health issue.

But it's also an economic issue.

We're talking about creating 40,000 new jobs by expansion of Medicaid, and it will be paid for 95% by the federal government.

And these are our tax dollars.

This is this is money we've already spent, and it's going to insure people in other states by not opting in the governor is just playing politics here, politics with people's lives and some in some cases.

And so it's time for us to expand Medicaid and to offer South Carolinians more freedom to keep themselves healthy, whether it's physical health or mental health.

So, you know, four years ago, we had this exact same question come up, and I stand by what I said then you talk to other states who have expanded Medicare, they're not doing well with it.

It's not really a fair statement to say that it's free money coming from the federal government, that money has to be paid back, you know, this state funds proximately, six major things, you know, we fund K through 12.

We fund higher education, we fund roads, what out of that list of critical things will we take away to now shift money to Medicaid?

Right?

You know, I, you know, I've heard in their ads that they want to eliminate income tax.

The numbers just don't add up.

As an accountant.

You can't eliminate tax.

You can't increase Medicaid, and you can't keep all the vital things that are happening in South Carolina and going.

It just doesn't add up.

I needed respond to that.

<Gavin> I'm sorry, you can't.

You can do it in this question.

If you want too.

Tally, the question to you is about how comfortable you are with marijuana becoming decriminalized, legalized or legalized for medical use, similar to what has been proposed and Senator Tom Davis is bill that passed the Senate this year.

Tally: Joe and I believe that marijuana should be legalized both medical and recreational.

And this is not a controversial issue.

More than half of South Carolinians believe that marijuana should be legalized recreationally and over 90% of South Carolina's belief believe that medical marijuana should be legalized.

That bill that you were talking about would have been passed if it weren't for the governor's interference.

There are 39 other states who have already done this, and they are reaping the benefits from revenue.

They've eliminated the tax waste and the waste of police resources and going after people for possession.

And in addition, we want to expunge the records of those who have convicted of simple possession so that those individuals can reunite their familial familial tie is so that they can get a job so that they can get a school loan, and so that they can have a second chance.

So the governor was very clear, you know, he would be willing to sit down and look into medical uses for marijuana.

He also said he would like to sit down with law enforcement as law enforcement would bear the biggest brunt of making sure that these, this new law would be enforced properly.

When it comes to recreational, you know, it is never yielded.

And it's talking to lieutenant governors and states that have legalized recreational marijuana.

It has never yielded the revenues, that it has said it would.

And the collateral effects of what has happened through recreational marijuana we're seeing every day.

<Gavin> To stay up to date throughout the week.

Check out the South Carolina Lead.

It's a podcast that I host twice a week on Tuesdays and Saturdays that you can find on South Carolina publicradio.org or wherever you find podcasts.

For South Carolina ETV, I'm Gavin Jackson, Be well, South Carolina ♪ ♪