Subcommittee Hears Testimony For and Against House Bill 4756, No Vote; Hearing Recessed

Columbia, S.C. — The House subcommittee charged with reviewing school policy on intimate spaces gathered for hours of public testimony Monday on House Bill 4756, the South Carolina Student Physical Privacy Act, with witnesses sharply divided and no vote taken.

Representative Travis Moore, chair of the Artificial Intelligence Cybersecurity and Special Law Subcommittee, opened the hearing and summarized the bill as an effort to codify language already in a budget proviso that would require multi-occupancy restrooms and changing facilities in public K–12 schools and public institutions of higher learning to be designated and used according to a person’s biological sex as observed or clinically verified at birth. The measure would allow single-user facilities, include limited exceptions for custodial work and emergencies, prohibit use of funds for noncompliant facilities, impose a penalty of 25% of funds appropriated under the supporting article for violations, and create a private cause of action for some encounters.

Why it matters: Sponsors said H.4756 provides clarity and consistent protections for students in intimate spaces; opponents said it would stigmatize transgender and gender-nonconforming students, invite costly litigation and create practical enforcement problems for schools.

Supporters’ case: Speaker Pro Tempore Tommy Pope, the bill’s primary sponsor, described H.4756 as an effort to "codify" prior proviso language and protect student privacy. Sarah Beth Nolan, legal counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom, told the committee that the bill gives schools clarity and legal backing and cited circuit-court decisions in other jurisdictions, saying the language is "constitutionally sound, workable, and provides safety for all." Nolan also noted litigation remains pending over related proviso language in state courts.

Opponents’ case: Dozens of witnesses opposed the bill on multiple grounds. Mark Baer, a registered nurse and LGBTQ advocate, told the panel, "The trans community trans women are women," and said the legislation would exclude and harm transgender people. Jessica Spearman Childs, a parent of a transgender child, said the proposal "is not about privacy" and warned it would "make a bathroom into a courtroom," inviting lawsuits over hypothetical encounters. Jace Woodrum, executive director of the ACLU of South Carolina, said educators already manage privacy and urged lawmakers to reject the measure as unnecessary and harmful; he framed the bill as the kind of law that research links to worse mental-health outcomes for transgender youth.

Practical and legal questions: Committee members pressed witnesses on legal risk and fiscal impact. Representative Tiffany Spann Wilder asked about conflicting federal-court precedents; witnesses and the chair acknowledged litigation is ongoing in state and federal courts and that the Fourth Circuit has reached different outcomes in related cases. Chair Moore said the committee had not yet received an official fiscal-impact statement from affected schools or universities and that staff would provide any such analyses once available.

Concerns for special needs students and enforcement: Educators and advocates for students with disabilities warned the bill does not specify what reasonable accommodations would look like in practice and could place students and staff in legally vulnerable positions when physical assistance or alternative communication is required. Several witnesses questioned how districts would enforce the policy without assigning staff to police restrooms or investing in costly renovations.

Public testimony was sharply split: Witnesses for the bill described local incidents and said the measure would protect girls’ privacy and dignity; witnesses against the bill recounted experiences of harassment and argued the bill would widen stigma, target students who do not fit narrow gender norms and create threats to vulnerable students’ mental and physical well-being.

Next steps: With more than two dozen people still signed to testify and a hard stop in the room schedule, Chair Moore recessed the hearing and said the subcommittee will reconvene next Tuesday to continue testimony. No motion or vote on H.4756 occurred Monday.

A staff note: Committee staff said they had requested fiscal-impact information from affected institutions and will provide those assessments to members when they are received.