Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Education Privacy topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

House debates H.4756 "Student Physical Privacy Act," adopts clarifying amendments and tables multiple substitutes

South Carolina House of Representatives · January 28, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Lawmakers debated H.4756, a proposal to designate multi-occupancy school restrooms and changing facilities for exclusive use by the sex listed at birth; the House adopted committee changes clarifying enforcement and funding rules, then tabled multiple amendments, including proposals to require single-stall facilities and a one-year study.

Columbia, S.C. — The South Carolina House spent much of its Jan. 28 floor session debating H.4756, the "South Carolina Student Physical Privacy Act," a bill that would require multi-occupancy restrooms and changing facilities in public K‑12 schools and public institutions of higher learning to be designated for use exclusively by the sex assigned at birth.

Representative Travis Moore, sponsor of the committee amendment, told members the bill "attempts to safeguard the physical privacy of minors and public school students in shared intimate spaces" and described provisions that would prohibit requiring students to share multi‑occupancy restrooms, locker rooms and overnight sleeping quarters with members of the opposite sex. Moore also explained exceptions for emergency care, custodial duties and coaching when no one is in a state of undress, and said the measure allows institutions to provide single‑occupancy or family restrooms.

Why it matters: The bill would convert earlier proviso language into statewide statute and attach financial consequences for noncompliance. Moore said the committee amendment clarified how any fiscal penalty would work and aligned K‑12 application with current Department of Education practice.

Key actions and clarifications • Committee amendment adopted: The committee amendment rewritten on the floor clarified the target of the statutory penalty to refer to funds "appropriated by the General Assembly," added an explicit tie to the Americans with Disabilities Act for reasonable accommodations, permitted single‑occupancy and family restrooms, and added severability language.

• Amendment 25 adopted: Moore explained amendment 25 as a technical and implementation clarification that makes withholding of funds for K‑12 prospective rather than retroactive, and designates the South Carolina Commission on Higher Education to oversee compliance for public colleges and universities. Moore said the Department of Education does not apply the withholding to federal funds in practice; he said the amendment "conforms the K‑12 language to what the department of education is currently doing."

• Several amendments tabled: Members debated numerous floor amendments addressing single‑stall facilities, exceptions for people who have completed gender reassignment surgery, mediation and school protocols. Representative Hartnett argued amendment 27 — which would have required a single‑stall changing facility in all school buildings — was meant to "give people like my friend an opportunity to protect their dignity." The House voted to table amendment 27 by roll call, 82‑30. Additional Hartnett and related amendments were also tabled (amendment 28 tabled 80‑30; Waters' amendment 2, proposing a one‑year evidence study, tabled 80‑31; amendment 3 tabled 86‑30; amendment 5 tabled 85‑32; amendment 6 tabled 85‑30).

Debate highlights and concerns Supporters framed H.4756 as translating prior budget proviso into statute and as protecting student privacy. Moore emphasized that the bill mirrors language that has been in effect in the Appropriation Act and that the Department of Education has, to date, not withheld funds under those provisos.

Opponents and some amendment sponsors urged study, mediation, and careful crafting to avoid unintended consequences. Representative Waters, who offered multiple amendments, said "Data matters" and argued for a study-led approach: "Studying these things is not a delay. It's diligence." Other members pressed on enforcement mechanics, whether federal funds could be affected, how districts would implement policies and who would bear renovation costs for single‑stall facilities.

What happens next The House completed a series of roll‑call votes tabling the floor amendments and later recessed to reconvene for the governor's State of the State address. The underlying bill remained on second reading and subject to further consideration on subsequent calendars; committee and amendment text will be available in the House journal and committee reports for members and the public to review.

Sources: Floor debate and roll‑call votes during the Jan. 28 House session.