What a title—Medical Informed Consent! Wow, S.54 has to be a bill about defending medical freedom, right? Until you start reading the fine details—which everyone should.
S.54 should be an alarm to every citizen about how easily the government can quarantine you for simply saying, "Nah, I don’t want to be tested," or "Nah, I don’t want that vaccine"—even if you were informed of the risks and said no.
At first glance, a bill titled "Medical Informed Consent Act" suggests individuals will finally have the right to make their own medical decisions without coercion. But the moment you read past the title, the intent vanishes into thin air. Instead of protecting medical freedom, S.54 creates a backdoor for forced medical compliance—contradicting its own premise.
Let’s start with Section 44-4-510 and Section 44-4-530. These sections pretend to empower individuals with informed consent, but the moment you say no, you can be isolated or quarantined indefinitely. Where? Who knows.
For how long? Ok, well, let’s look at Section 44-4-530(B)(4): "An asymptomatic quarantined individual must be confined for no more than twenty-one days." How does the state determine who is "asymptomatic" if you refuse to test? And if they can’t determine it, what stops them from keeping you quarantined indefinitely under the guise of uncertainty?
Section 44-4-510 (2) states that refusing a test creates "uncertainty" about infection status, which justifies quarantine. Not proof of infection—just uncertainty. That means if you refuse testing, you’ve already given the government legal authority to detain you.
If consent leads to coercion, it’s not voluntary—it’s forced compliance.
Then there’s Section 44-4-530, which explicitly states that if you refuse a vaccine, even for religious or health reasons, you can be isolated. Some language in Section 44-4-530 has been stricken from the bill, but the core issue remains—the state still has the authority to isolate or quarantine individuals who refuse vaccination, testing, or treatment. Take a look at Section 8, 44-4-420 (B) (3).
The bill grants broad discretion to quarantine anyone "exposed" to a disease, even if asymptomatic. This effectively turns informed consent into a legal trap.
Next problem—Section 6, 44-4-130(H): "Department" means the Department of Public Health or any person authorized to act on behalf of the Department of Public Health."
Step on the brakes. Does this mean that anytime the law refers to the "Department," it’s not just talking about the agency itself, but also anyone they decide to authorize? So now, appointed officials, agents, employees—maybe even contractors—could wield the same authority as the department?
This kind of language opens the door for unelected bureaucrats and third parties to make decisions with the same power as a state agency. And just to be clear—this is not current law. They want to add this.
Next up, S.54 violates South Carolina’s One Subject Rule, which requires that bills focus on a single legislative issue. Instead, S.54 juggles multiple distinct policy areas that do not logically fit under the subject of medical informed consent.
If passed, S.54 would be legally vulnerable to being struck down for violating the state constitution. What a waste of taxpayer dollars.
Another major issue? The reinforcing of federal laws, agencies, and regulatory standards.
For example, S.54 defines vaccines based on FDA approval or Emergency Use Authorization, meaning that whatever the federal government decides to approve automatically applies to South Carolina.
South Carolina has no independent medical sovereignty—federal agencies set the rules.
S.54 wrongly classifies vaccines as “indemnified products” (16-17-780), recognizing federal liability shields like the PREP Act and the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA).
The problem? Vaccines are not truly indemnified products.
By defining them this way, the bill reinforces federal protections for vaccine manufacturers, blocking lawsuits.
Under the 1986 NCVIA, vaccine makers cannot be sued for injuries—they are shielded from liability. Instead, injured individuals must go through the federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), a bureaucratic system that pays out only a fraction of claims.
By reaffirming federal liability protections, S.54 legitimizes the lack of accountability in the vaccine industry instead of challenging it.
Why are we doubling down on existing Medical Freedom Violations?
One of the most alarming aspects of S.54 is that a lot of its worst provisions are already state law—and instead of repealing them, this bill cements and expands them. S.54 reaffirms these draconian laws that already undermine medical freedom.
This bill ensures that these dangerous precedents remain in place.
How about instead we get rid of them?
This bill is a mess of contradictions, unintended consequences, and expanded government powers.
If this bill were about true informed consent, it would not punish refusal.
If this bill were about vaccine mandates, it wouldn’t include quarantine laws, employer rules, or pharmacy regulations.
If this bill were about protecting South Carolinians, it wouldn’t lock us into federal control over state medical policies.
Instead of protecting individual rights, S.54 creates a legal framework that allows the government to isolate individuals for refusing state-approved medical procedures. It’s a Trojan horse—one that pretends to defend medical freedom while quietly erasing it.
Solutions
Eliminate vaccine requirements all together.
Get rid of the emergency powers laws.
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. 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