Next Week's Legislative Rollercoaster Ride!

As we approach the next legislative week in South Carolina, we're faced with a deluge of proposed bills that threaten to complicate our state laws further. Many of these bills appear to unnecessarily expand government bureaucracy without offering tangible benefits or enhancing our freedoms. Given our current resources, it's a challenge to scrutinize every bill in detail. We're hopeful that as our community grows, we'll be able to expand our team and provide more comprehensive bill analyses.

For the moment, we've managed to review a selection of bills that are up for discussion next week. Our goal is to equip you with the necessary information to critically evaluate the decisions of our majority conservative general assembly, which seems inclined to pass more laws that could increase the size of South Carolina's government and extend the state's policing powers.

Below is an overview of some of the key bills we'll be examining this week.

H.5066

Fair Access to Insurance Requirements
House Judiciary Committee, Feb 27 @ 10:00 am 

Conservative Challenges: Centers on concerns about government intervention in the insurance market. Establishing a state-funded program to provide liquor liability insurance will lead to market distortions, undermining private insurance providers and setting a precedent for further state involvement in areas traditionally served by the private sector. Additionally, concerns about the financial sustainability of such a fund and the burden on taxpayers arise.

This proposed bill, titled "Fair Access to Insurance Requirements," as outlined in the provided text, appears to be an attempt to create a government-backed program for providing liquor liability insurance through the state of South Carolina.

Creation of a Special Fund: The establishment of the "Fair Access to Insurance Requirements Fund" within the State Treasury, separate from the general fund, indicates a state-managed financial mechanism to support this insurance program.

PAUSE: This bill proposes to "add" a new law, the creation of the State another government fund (creepy), and, worse, a state-managed insurance program. Why? Why do the people of SC need a government to manage a liquor liability insurance program? Providing liquor liability insurance is beyond the appropriate scope of government functions, and the government should instead leave insurance provision to the private sector.

Why not instead repeal and fix laws and regulations related to liquor liability, such as modifying the criteria for liability or caps on damages, which could reduce the overall risk and, consequently, the cost of insurance? Reducing regulations can be an effective strategy for the government to help make liquor liability insurance more affordable without creating new laws or establishing a government-managed insurance fund.

PAUSE: In 2017, the South Carolina state legislature passed a law requiring bars and restaurants to maintain liability insurance with coverage of at least $1 million annually. The law, introduced by senators Gerald Malloy and Luke Rankin, was meant to empower victims.

But bar and restaurant owners said it had the unintended effect of penalizing good faith business owners. Rates for liquor liability insurance skyrocketed as a result. Source

H.3295

Competency-Based Education: Read our review of this disaster here. Senate Education Committee, Feb 28 @ 10:00 AM. 

H.4589

Municipal Election Protests
House Judiciary Committee, Feb 27 @ 2:30 PM.

Conservative Challenge: Removing the holdover provision for incumbents will lead to rapid changes in leadership before the resolution of election disputes, undermining the continuity and stability of local government operations. 

Currently, if an election result is challenged, the incumbent officeholders remain in their positions until the challenge is resolved. The bill proposes to eliminate this rule, allowing winners to assume their positions immediately after the election, even in the event of a dispute. 

Problem: Why would we allow the possibility for a candidate to take office when there is a chance the election results were flawed? Ensuring that every vote is counted and every legitimate contest is thoroughly investigated is crucial for maintaining electoral integrity. Allowing a candidate to take office amidst significant doubts about election integrity will erode public trust in the electoral system and the legitimacy of the government itself. 

H.4590

Early Voting Hours
House Judiciary Committee, Feb 27 @ 2:30 PM.

Conservative Challenges: Increased administrative costs and logistical challenges for local election offices, along with concerns about the integrity and security of the extended voting process. 

Early voting hours problem: Extending voting hours necessitates additional resources, such as staffing, security, and equipment. Longer operational hours will lead to fatigue among election workers, increasing the likelihood of errors in vote counting and processing. Why not adhere to 2 U.S. Code § 7 - Time of election? Extending voting hours increases the chances of election result errors. 

S. 859

Skills-Based Hiring
Senate Finance Committee, Feb 27 @ 3:00 PM

Conservative Challenge: Further devaluation of formal education and its implications for job quality and performance standards. 

The bill establishes the State Employment Skills-Based Hiring Act and requires the Department of Administration’s Office of Human Resources to periodically review the educational, experiential, and training requirements for all jobs in the executive branch to determine if these requirements can be reduced without sacrificing service quality. The bill directs the office to modify these requirements as deemed suitable and requires a report to be provided to General Assembly leaders and the Governor, detailing any jobs suitable for a reduction in requirements that are established in law or regulation. 

Problem: Why is this necessary? The reports will likely justify proposing future regulations to lower or negatively alter the specific skills and competencies required for the job, especially given the current output of "factory worker" graduates from SC schools. 

H.3988

Pharmacists and Pharmacy Technicians 
House Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs Committee, Feb 27

READ OUR BLOG POST ON H3988-HERE

Conservative Challenges: The government should not be involved in medical decisions. Allowing pharmacists to administer tests and vaccines or to dispense certain medications without a practitioner's order will blur parental and individual boundaries, compromising patient care. 

This is a very bad bill, and South Carolinians do not need it. Pharmacists and pharmacy technicians (includes the administration of “ALL” vaccines as authorized in this section must not be to a person under the age of 12 years.)

Who's accountable for adverse reactions and injuries? Particularly if it's about embedding Prep Act language that strips away liability.

This bill tries to make it lawful for pharmacists to administer ALL vaccines, not just the flu, to minors.

Without explicit language demanding parental consent in this proposed law, it sets a dangerous precedent open to interpretation, jeopardizing parental rights.

The bill wrongly presents as vshots are 100% safe, effective and necessary, which is misleading and what makes this bill hazardous.

A pharmacist, or their supervising tech or intern, likely won't lose their license for merely omitting a consent form or not reporting to the patient's doctor.

Currently, prescriptions are a crucial legal safeguard ensuring minors receive vaccines with parental consent. This bill dismantles that safeguard, potentially leading to more minors being vaccinated without their parents' approval.

Read Jonathon Hill’s Bad Bill list to review the challenges. 

URGENT: Parents in South Carolina should contact the House 3M Committee and voice their opposition to this bill. This is indeed not a parental-friendly bill.

S. 965

Vaccination Discrimination Prevention Act
Senate Medical Affairs Committee, Feb 28 @ 10:00 AM.

Conservative Challenges: The government should not be involved in medical decisions. 

It's indeed baffling, the rationale behind this bill seems to get lost amidst its convoluted language and apparent loopholes. It begs the question, why not opt for a simpler solution like rescinding the laws that grant such extensive powers to state agencies in the first place? Simplifying the legal framework by removing redundant or overreaching laws could offer a clearer, more streamlined approach, cutting through the bureaucratic red tape that often hampers efficiency and clarity. This bill, with its loopholes, seems to miss the mark on addressing the root of the issue. A more straightforward strategy might just be the breath of fresh air needed.

LOOPHOLES:

• Does not include SC Higher Education, which is pushing the vaccines. Terms like "political subdivisions" and "school districts" could clarify whether colleges and universities are included. 

• Allows for vaccination mandates if a state or its political subdivisions, including school districts, is subject to a federal requirement that could result in the loss of federal funds due to the absence of such mandates. This creates a significant exception, particularly for entities that rely heavily on federal funding and are subjected to federal mandates for vaccinations. 

• In cases where federal requirements allow for testing as an alternative to vaccination, the bill permits employers to require weekly COVID-19 testing for unvaccinated employees, contractors, or vendors. This provision creates an alternative compliance pathway that somewhat circumvents the direct mandate for vaccination but still imposes a requirement related to COVID-19 mitigation.

• States that it does not prevent employers from encouraging, promoting, administering vaccinations, or offering incentives for vaccination. This provision allows for indirect pressure or encouragement to get vaccinated, creating a softer form of influence on vaccination status. 

• Does not explicitly detail a specific enforcement mechanism for the provisions against COVID-19 vaccination mandates.

Legislation Action

As we delve into the upcoming legislative week, it's crucial for every Conservative South Carolinian to engage actively. We've scrutinized the bills and provided insights to illuminate the challenges they pose. It's high time to reach out to your representatives, be it in the House or the Senate, and express your concerns. The essence of South Carolina, our shared principles, is at stake if we stand by while laws that contradict our conservative values are passed. Such legislation not only shapes our daily lives but also the foundational structure of our constitutional republic. By not participating, we risk losing the very core of our democratic ideals.

Disclaimer: Please remember, while we strive to offer thorough analyses, we're not lawyers (THANK GOODNESS)—just a group of South Carolinians committed to our mission. We encourage you to read the bills for yourself and form your own opinions. It's through informed and active participation that we can truly make a difference.

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!