Committee delays bill after debate over amended birth certificates and Save Women’s Sports language

A legislative subcommittee reviewed an amendment to state law that relocates provisions about birth-certificate changes into a different code section and clarifies when an amended certificate may permit someone to compete under Save Women’s Sports rules.

The amendment’s sponsor told the committee the bill’s substantive language was originally placed in the wrong code section and has been moved to 44-63-95 from 44-63-100. The proposal also adds language to the portion of the code related to the Save Women’s Sports law to specify that clerical errors or a "medically verifiable disorder of sexual development" can justify an amended certificate that would allow competition in accordance with that law.

Mister Cox, who identified himself during the hearing as the director of Vital Records, explained how the state processes and labels amended certificates. "It's going to say amended," he said, adding that amendment history is recorded and that the original record remains on file. He told the committee his office processes court orders unless there is a legal reason to dispute them, and reported that court-ordered changes to the sex field have averaged roughly 50 a year over the last three to four years, compared with about 10 a year before 2016.

Several senators raised practical concerns about downstream effects from allowing amended certificates. One senator said the bill "basically is a cleanup to get it in the right section and to clarify that we're not doing anything to change" protections for women's sports, while another argued that preventing adults who have transitioned from obtaining corrected documents is unnecessarily punitive and would deny them needed identification.

Lauren Edwards, an LGBTQ+ advocate who said she works directly with people seeking document corrections, told the committee such changes are often linked to medical care and safety. "This is a life or death situation," Edwards said, adding that people do not pursue medical transition for nefarious reasons and that being unable to correct identity documents increases the risk of discrimination.

Members also discussed access to birth records. The registrar said South Carolina is a closed-record state for birth certificates and that only entitled persons or law enforcement in criminal investigations may request verification. A member cited the code reference given in the hearing when asking how that restriction is implemented.

After extended questioning and requests for additional amendments and clarifications — including how the registrar would handle affidavit-based corrections, the age at which a person should be allowed to amend their certificate, and whether non-binary options should be accommodated — a committee member moved to carry the bill over to a later meeting to allow staff time to draft further amendments. The motion was seconded and approved. The committee adjourned without a final vote on the measure.