South Carolina subcommittee hears sharply split testimony on bill to restrict multi-occupancy restrooms and sleeping quarters

Columbia — A South Carolina Senate subcommittee heard more than a dozen witnesses on Senate Bill 199, a proposal to require public schools and public institutions of higher learning to designate multi-occupancy restrooms, changing facilities and certain sleeping quarters by sex. Supporters said the legislation would protect girls’ privacy and safety; opponents said it would single out and harm transgender and non-binary students, create enforcement and litigation risks, and leave ambiguous protections for students with disabilities.

Senator Everett Stubbs opened the session by outlining ground rules and time limits and said the committee planned to hear at least six witnesses from each side before pausing for additional questions. Staff summarized the bill’s principal provisions: it would apply to both K–12 districts and public colleges, allow certain exceptions (custodial or maintenance work, medical assistance in an emergency and actions necessary to prevent a serious threat to order or safety), and create a private cause of action allowing an aggrieved individual to seek declaratory or injunctive relief and recover reasonable attorney fees if a violation is sued within two years.

“Girls deserve privacy and protection in their private spaces, period,” the bill sponsor told the panel in brief remarks, framing the measure as a codification and expansion of a budget proviso that currently covers K–12 schools. Supporters who testified echoed that claim as they urged the committee to codify uniform, sex-based rules for multi-occupancy facilities and overnight accommodations on school-authorized trips.

Sarah Beth Nolan, legal counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom, said the bill would preserve single-user restrooms and provide school administrators a statutory framework for managing locker-room timing and housing assignments. “This bill would require that public schools and public institutions of higher learning designate multiple occupancy restrooms and changing facilities for use by one sex,” she said, adding that the measure includes a cause of action to address violations.

Proponents cited safety concerns for girls and recounted national incidents they said show harms when private spaces are not segregated by biological sex. Elizabeth Enns, who testified in favor, urged lawmakers to place “the safety of our kids first” by codifying the existing proviso into statute.

Opponents argued the bill would have the opposite effect for some students, particularly transgender and non-binary youth. Christina Pacozzi, executive director of the Harriet Hancock Center, testified on behalf of a parent whose child is non-binary and described how school accommodations had previously allowed the child to use a single-user restroom in the office. She warned the bill would “accelerate bullying by peers and result in violent situations” and said it would limit where her child could safely go in the community.

Jace Woodrum, executive director of the ACLU of South Carolina and a transgender man, told the committee the measure was unnecessary and posed enforcement problems: “Will overburdened teachers be stationed outside of restrooms to monitor? Will underfunded districts be forced to invest dollars in renovations?” he asked, saying the bill’s expansion into higher education could force transgender adults to use facilities inconsistent with their gender.

Multiple witnesses also raised concerns about ambiguity for students with disabilities. Troy Hall of Able South Carolina said the bill’s accommodation language is too vague and risks inconsistent implementation that could undermine access to education and necessary supports.

Panel members questioned witnesses about enforcement mechanics, the definition of “sleeping quarters,” and the likely costs to districts from litigation and renovations. Witnesses repeatedly said many operational details would require clarification: for example, a testimony referenced a house amendment defining sleeping quarters as "a room with a bed in which more than one individual is housed overnight," but committee members asked staff to confirm precise statutory language.

No formal action on the bill was taken. Chairman Stubbs told speakers who were not heard that they would have priority at a follow-up subcommittee hearing, and staff provided an email address for written submissions: seducomm@scsenate.gov. The committee recessed after a voice vote on a motion to adjourn.

What’s next — The subcommittee signaled it will schedule at least one more hearing to allow additional testimony and to give staff and the sponsor time to consider clarifying amendments on scope, definitions, disability accommodations, and enforcement.

Sources — The article is based on sworn testimony and question-and-answer exchanges at the S.199 subcommittee hearing, including statements by committee chair Senator Everett Stubbs, the bill sponsor (introduced to the record as Senator West Clymer), and witnesses Christina Pacozzi, Sarah Beth Nolan (Alliance Defending Freedom), Ashley Peel (Alliance for Full Acceptance), Katie D’Atilio (Women’s Rights and Empowerment Network), Troy Hall (Able South Carolina), Elizabeth Enns, Debbie Baker (South Carolina Federation of Republican Women), and Jace Woodrum (ACLU of South Carolina).