Today, the constitutional rights of abortion patients in South Carolina took a significant blow as the United States Supreme Court refused to hear a challenge to a regulation that allows the state to inspect and copy abortion patients’ private medical records. Under the regulation, patients’ identities and medical information can now be catalogued by the state, and could possibly be disclosed in state licensing proceedings.

"Patients seeking reproductive health services in South Carolina can no longer be guaranteed of the confidentiality of their health care decisions or their medical records," said Bonnie Scott Jones, a staff attorney with the Center for Reproductive Rights and lead counsel on the case. "South Carolina is denying women their constitutional right to informational privacy, and the Supreme Court has turned a blind eye to that situation," added Jones.

Under the regulation, health inspectors can conduct unannounced raids on abortion providers, and can review and copy the medical records of their patients for any reason. Unsubstantiated or anonymous complaints can prompt such inspections, thereby enabling anti-choice activists to harass abortion providers and their patients. The Department of Health is authorized to disclose patients’ medical records in any proceeding involving the license of the abortion facility or its employees. The Center for Reproductive Rights plans to work with South Carolina abortion providers to prevent the disclosure of abortion patients’ identities under the provision.

Abortion providers in South Carolina already comply with state and federal laws governing similar health care providers. TRAP (Targeted Regulations of Abortion Providers) laws, like South Carolina’s regulation in this case, impose additional levels of government intrusion and oversight for this politically controversial procedure, thereby segregating abortion from mainstream medicine and restricting women’s access to these services. These excessive and unnecessary government regulations ultimately harm women’s health and inhibit their reproductive choices.

The petition to the Supreme Court followed a number of court battles over this law. In September 2002, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed a trial court holding that permitted state health inspectors to review, remove and copy patient medical records containing identifying information. In December, the Fourth Circuit reversed its initial decision to rehear the Center’s challenge before the court’s full panel of judges; later that month, however, it agreed to stay the law while the Supreme Court decided whether to take the case.

Twenty-five states and Puerto Rico enforce TRAP laws and in sixteen of these states, TRAP schemes apply to providers who perform abortions in the first trimester of pregnancy. At least seven states have introduced TRAP legislation so far in 2003. No other state allows their health department to copy and store abortion patients’ unredacted medical records.

Bonnie Scott Jones of the Center for Reproductive Rights and local cooperating attorney Randall Hiller represent the plaintiffs in Greenville Women’s Clinic v. Bryant, including Greenville Women’s Clinic and William Lynn, M.D.