Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the HB4756 Privacy Bathroom topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
South Carolina House Advances Contested Privacy/Bathroom Bill after Heated Floor Debate
Summary
The House gave second reading to House Bill 4756, a privacy measure governing multi-occupancy restrooms and locker rooms in public schools and institutions, after contentious debate and amendment votes; the roll-call ended 96–19. Supporters said it protects girls' privacy; opponents said it marginalizes transgender students and raised enforcement and equity concerns.
House members advanced House Bill 4756 in a contentious floor debate at the South Carolina State House, giving the measure its second reading by a roll-call vote of 96 to 19.
The bill, described by supporters as a privacy measure for “locker rooms, restrooms, showers” and other intimate spaces, was the subject of multiple amendments and several hours of debate. Lawmakers adopted amendment 23, which limits civil standing for lawsuits under the bill to employees or students, and amendment 40, which requires at least one single-user restroom and changing facility in public K–12 and higher-education buildings. A proposal to require changing tables broadly (amendment 26) was debated and ultimately tabled.
Supporters framed the measure as a practical way to protect students’ privacy. Representative Cromer said the legislation is “about the right of women and girls to privacy in intimate spaces” and argued it removes a “chilling effect” that discourages reporting of harassment. Representative Moore, a proponent, told colleagues the bill applies only to multi-occupancy facilities and stressed it contains exemptions for parents and people assisting children or persons with disabilities, saying the bill does not criminalize students and that funding penalties would apply only under narrow conditions.
Opponents said the bill singles out and harms transgender students and diverts attention from other policy priorities. Representative King said, “This is not about a bathroom. This is about whether every child in South Carolina is worthy of dignity,” and warned the measure could lead to bullying and administrative burdens. Representative Waters and others argued the bill would disproportionately affect small and vulnerable student populations and questioned enforceability and unintended consequences.
During amendment debate, Representative Hartnett acknowledged he did not have a fiscal impact statement for an amendment requiring single-user facilities, saying, “I do not have a fiscal impact statement.” Proponents countered that many schools already have single-occupancy facilities and that the fiscal impact may be limited.
The House put the measure to a roll-call vote for second reading; the Clerk recorded 96 yes and 19 no. The bill will proceed under the House’s calendar rules for further consideration.
