Bill H.4763, Helping Alleviate Lawful Obstruction (HALO) Act sounds like one of those bills nobody is supposed to question. Protect first responders from harassment. Who wants to be the person standing there arguing against that? Nobody with common sense. That is part of why bills like this move so easily, without people questioning the bill's body. People hear the intent, nod along, and move on. Meanwhile, the actual language sits there waiting for somebody to read it and call out the glaring problems.
We are thankful for first responders. That should go without saying, but apparently, in politics, when it comes to questioning anything related to first responders, it has to come with a disclaimer. And questioning a bill presented to protect them is treated like some form of betrayal.
First responders deserve protection, and thank goodness, SC laws provide them with legal protection. That is where the conversation should begin, because H.4763 does not walk into an empty field. It steps into an area where laws already exist for threats, assault, interference, obstruction, and disorderly conduct. So the obvious question is, why do we need this bill that bakes in interpretive wiggle room?
Once you get into the weeds, the bill starts to feel like yet another step toward wider discretionary power, especially for law enforcement.
First, let’s take a look at some of the definitions.
We got the first responder and the healthcare worker.
First responders include law enforcement officers, firefighters, emergency medical technicians, and paramedics.
Health care workers include registered nurses, physicians, physician assistants, medical directors, and employees, agents, or volunteers of any healthcare provider who are employed, under contract, or otherwise authorized by a healthcare provider to perform duties directly associated with the care and treatment rendered by the healthcare provider.
Next, (2) "Harass" means to wilfully engage in a course of conduct directed at a first responder which serves no legitimate purpose and intentionally causes and would cause a reasonable person in his position to suffer substantial mental and emotional distress in that first responder.
What counts as unlawful for first responders vs. healthcare workers?
First Responders
Section (B) It is unlawful for a person, after receiving a verbal warning not to approach from a person he knows or reasonably should know is a first responder who is engaged in the lawful performance of a legal duty, to knowingly and wilfully violate the warning to stand a reasonable distance from the first responder with the intent to: (1) impede or interfere with the first responder's ability to perform his duty including but not limited to, obstructing a first responders' movement, distracting a first responder from administering medical care to another, or effectuating a lawful arrest; or (2) offer or attempt to cause physical harm or injury to a first responder with apparent present ability under circumstances reasonably creating fear of imminent harm or injury. In performance of a legal duty, the first responder may direct a person to stand a reasonable distance away, not to exceed twenty-five feet.
This section does NOT include “harass.”
Health Care Workers
Section (C) It is unlawful for a person, after receiving a verbal warning not to approach from a person he knows or reasonably should know is a healthcare worker providing medical care within a healthcare facility or on a healthcare facility campus, to knowingly and wilfully violate the warning and approach or remain at a distance that would not allow safe and unencumbered treatment of the patient as determined by the healthcare facility with the intent to: (1) impede or interfere with the healthcare worker's ability to perform his duty including, but not limited to, obstructing a healthcare worker's movement or distracting a healthcare worker from administering medical care to another; (2) offer or attempt to cause physical harm or injury to a healthcare worker with apparent present ability under circumstances reasonably creating fear of imminent peril; or (3) harass the healthcare worker.
This section does include “harass.”
Does this mean that you can harass first responders and not healthcare workers?
Now, let's look at some concerning words.
reasonable distance
reasonably should know
including but not limited to
distracting
after receiving a verbal warning not to approach from a person
as determined by the healthcare facility
impede or interfere
unencumbered treatment of the patient as determined by the healthcare facility
reasonably creating fear
harass
All of these words are red flags because none of them give you a fixed line. They hand the line to whoever is enforcing the law and whoever is judging it later.
Let’s also highlight concerns in section C geared towards healthcare workers.
So imagine you’re in a hospital and a healthcare worker is treating a loved one. You start asking questions and want to stay close to see what’s happening. At some point, a healthcare worker says, “Step back.”
From there, these can happen under the bill:
The worker can decide the distance, and it’s whatever the facility considers “safe and unencumbered treatment.”
You have to comply after the warning.
If you move closer, watch out, because that could be considered interference or harassment.
This example may be jumping straight to worst-case dystopia. But that’s where the danger lies: an unintended worst-case scenario.
People love to pretend that legal language applies only to the problems they care about. But in the real world, when a law's text contains subjective, vague, and ambiguous standards, it opens the door to applying them beyond the situations people had in mind.
The bill's writing is kind of weird. It has a ton of phrases that are an argument waiting to happen in a courtroom, and lawyers are going to love every minute of it. Maybe we should call this “the lawyer employment bill”.
Another issue, doesn’t this bill violate free speech?
Bills like this have a way of laying the groundwork. Today it is twenty-five feet. A few years from now, it will become something broader, tighter, and harder to challenge.
We understand the need for this protection. The real question is whether current laws are being enforced, and whether this bill’s language creates more room for interpretation than the public realizes.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not constitute legal or professional advice. ConservaTruth assumes no liability for any actions taken based on this content. Readers are encouraged to review the bill text themselves. Read more.
Subscribe to ConservaTruth's Email Newsletter for curated insights on South Carolina's legislative activities and conservative viewpoints, delivered straight to your inbox! With vetted and easy-to-understand information, our newsletter empowers you to become an informed and engaged citizen, actively participating in safeguarding our cherished Constitutional values. Don’t miss out on crucial updates—join our community of informed conservatives today!
Comments