News & Action Items
2/21/26 Updates and Calls to Action
Spartanburg County Council selling us out to Chinese data center company that will consume all of our natural resources! Take action NOW!
HOUSE passes convoluted TAX BILL H4216, which will be taken up by the SENATE soon! Read Mom and Pop Alliance's small business perspective and Palmetto State Watch article on the issue.
WEAR RED and join us during a Senate Medical Affairs Subcommittee meeting in the Gressette Building Room 209 at 9:30 a.m. Wednesday, March 4th to oppose a bill that BANS RELIGIOUS EXEMPTIONS to the MMR VACCINE for any student in public school or WHO RECEIVES PUBLIC MONEY THROUGH THE EDUCATION SCHOLARSHIP TRUST FUND! (We will only see more and more strings attached to these funds!)
CAN'T BE THERE? Send a letter to members of the subcommittee by emailing [email protected] (Please put the bill number in the subject line!)
CAN'T BE THERE? Send a letter to members of the subcommittee by emailing [email protected] (Please put the bill number in the subject line!)
Subcommittee will be considering these two bills:
S. 741 – Senator Kennedy: A BILL TO AMEND THE SOUTH CAROLINA CODE OF LAWS BY ADDING SECTION 44-37-55 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT NO VACCINE CAN BE MANDATED FOR INFANTS UNDER THE AGE OF TWENTY-FOUR MONTHS.
S. 897 – Senator Matthews: A BILL TO AMEND THE SOUTH CAROLINA CODE OF LAWS BY AMENDING SECTION 44-29-180, RELATING TO VACCINATION AND IMMUNIZATION REQUIREMENTS OF SCHOOL PUPILS AND DAY CARE CENTER CHILDREN, SO AS TO REMOVE THE RELIGIOUS EXEMPTION FOR THE MMR VACCINE FOR CHILDREN ATTENDING PUBLIC SCHOOLS; BY AMENDING SECTION 59-8-110, RELATING TO EDUCATION SCHOLARSHIP TRUST FUND DEFINITIONS, SO AS TO DEFINE AN ELIGIBLE STUDENT AS ONE WHO HAS HAD A MMR VACCINE OR A MEDICAL EXEMPTION; BY AMENDING SECTION 59-41-20, RELATING TO CHILDREN ELIGIBLE FOR GRANTS, SO AS TO INCLUDE A REQUIREMENT THAT AN ELIGIBLE CHILD HAS A MMR VACCINE OR MEDICAL EXEMPTION; AND BY ADDING SECTION 59-101-600 SO AS TO MANDATE A PERSON MUST HAVE A MMR VACCINE TO ATTEND A PUBLIC INSTITUTION OF HIGHER LEARNING.
S. 897 – Senator Matthews: A BILL TO AMEND THE SOUTH CAROLINA CODE OF LAWS BY AMENDING SECTION 44-29-180, RELATING TO VACCINATION AND IMMUNIZATION REQUIREMENTS OF SCHOOL PUPILS AND DAY CARE CENTER CHILDREN, SO AS TO REMOVE THE RELIGIOUS EXEMPTION FOR THE MMR VACCINE FOR CHILDREN ATTENDING PUBLIC SCHOOLS; BY AMENDING SECTION 59-8-110, RELATING TO EDUCATION SCHOLARSHIP TRUST FUND DEFINITIONS, SO AS TO DEFINE AN ELIGIBLE STUDENT AS ONE WHO HAS HAD A MMR VACCINE OR A MEDICAL EXEMPTION; BY AMENDING SECTION 59-41-20, RELATING TO CHILDREN ELIGIBLE FOR GRANTS, SO AS TO INCLUDE A REQUIREMENT THAT AN ELIGIBLE CHILD HAS A MMR VACCINE OR MEDICAL EXEMPTION; AND BY ADDING SECTION 59-101-600 SO AS TO MANDATE A PERSON MUST HAVE A MMR VACCINE TO ATTEND A PUBLIC INSTITUTION OF HIGHER LEARNING.
"Parental Rights" Act H4757 update:
(More videos and information can be found by scrolling down to the Alex Newman video on this page.)
As the lone dissenter, Representative Rob Harris, pointed out in his Substack video, what started off as a bad bill ended up as a bad bill, even with a few amendments intended to make it better. Here are a few bullet points on why this bill needs to be halted at all costs in the Senate:
(More videos and information can be found by scrolling down to the Alex Newman video on this page.)
As the lone dissenter, Representative Rob Harris, pointed out in his Substack video, what started off as a bad bill ended up as a bad bill, even with a few amendments intended to make it better. Here are a few bullet points on why this bill needs to be halted at all costs in the Senate:
- Current federal and state laws FERPA and SC Code 63-5-30, not to mention the federal and state constitutions, already guarantee parents many of the rights this bill purports to deliver. If parents cannot win access to their children's educational and health decisions in court using our current laws, restating those laws in a new Article for the SC Code will not improve their chances. Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the favor of parents who demanded access to their children's curriculum and the right to opt their children out of school curriculum promoting alternative ideas on sexuality and gender. Lots of language already in the code is repeated in the bill as if it is new: 64-7-620, 63-7-20, 15-1-310, 44-61-310 and others.
- This bill is a seemingly duplicitous version of the Family Rights and Responsibilities Act (H3485) introduced by Josiah Magnuson in December 2022. This new "improved" version was introduced by Tommy Pope with more legalese making it difficult for a non-lawyer to comprehend. This is an obvious red flag. Terms like "substantial compliance", "good faith", "on its face", "proximately caused", and "imminent irreparable harm" give the State and legal system power to dismiss on subjective findings.
- Any good intentions of the bill are overpowered by the new hoops that parents will have to jump through to get legal relief for violations of the law. Caps on damages, built-in liability protections, additional remediation procedures that must be "exhausted" before a parent can seek remedy in court, and the new authority given to the state AG to opine on the substance of the parent's claims against a state entity are new measures that have the appearance of protecting state entities, not parents. The role of the attorney general is to defend the State, seems to be a conflict of interest in complaints against the State.
- Of particular concern is the provision that "authorized law enforcement officers or agents, in the performance of their duties" may "encourage or coerce a child to withhold information from the child's parent" or "withhold from a child's parent information that relates to the child's education or is relevant to the physical, emotional, or mental health of the child, including any request by a child to be treated in a manner that is inconsistent with his or her sex." Although one may assume that "agent" mentioned here is intended to be a law enforcement agent, anyone who desired to apply the new law to any other "agent" could reasonably win the argument. Agent is not defined in the article. Are we naive in believing that the courts would rule in favor of the intent over the "letter of the law"? Also, why is it even necessary to give law enforcement officers complete immunity to hide information from parents? Limits need to be placed here. 59-28-320(G)
- A parent will be presumed to have provided consent when (1) another parent has given express written consent or (2) if a government entity or other person has been granted authority to make decisions regarding the minor's care under state law.
- The bill requires that the AG commence (start) an investigatory or remedial effort within 30 days of receiving a complaint "that appears on its face to allege a violation" of parental rights but does not place a limit on the amount of time the investigation may drag out. The parent could appeal to the court for an injunction against the school or entity, but only if they can prove the threat of "imminent, irreparable" injury to the child. Otherwise, if they go to circuit court before exhausting administrative procedures, the case will be dismissed. 59-28-350(H)
- A violation of the parental rights outlined in the bill cannot be used to create a medical malpractice cause of action nor can it alter the "applicable standard of care" governing medical malpractice actions. 59-28-350(I)
- And here is a biggie... the new law expressly prohibits its application to a parental action or decision that would end life, but in the very next subsection, also prohibits its application in parental consent for a minor's abortion (SC Code 44-41-31) In that instance, someone classified as in loco parentis for the minor for more than 60 days has the right to consent for their abortion. South Carolina grants educators and school officials that title, giving them responsibility and authority over the students similar to that of a parent while the child is under their care during school hours. 59-28-320(D)
2/21/26 Bills in Subcommittee Meetings this Week
IF YOU'VE GOT SOMETHING TO SAY, SAY IT NOW!
Subcommittee meetings are your opportunity to be heard about a particular bill. You can physically go to the meeting in Columbia and sign up to speak for three minutes on the bill (more if you can arrange to have an attending legislator ask you pointed questions). You can also submit written testimony up until the day before. Go to www.scstatehouse.gov and on the right of the screen you will see subcommittee agendas posted. This is the best time to give feedback about a bill, support a good one and possibly stop a bad one. If the bill is approved by the committee you will need to reach out to your state legislator to give your opinion.
Thursday 2/26/26
Senate Transportation Subcommittee:
S831 and H5071 - a bill to centralize control of the Department of Transportation under a governor-appointed Secretary and coordinating council, and remove the seven district commissioners which the Secretary currently serves. It further federalizes state highway planning and authorizes federal funding of projects (bill deletes language expressly prohibiting federal funding). The coordinating council, made up of several agency directors, will develop transportation plans and policy for the state, including metropolitan boundaries and rural districts in accordance with the provisos of the US Dept of Transportation. They will transfer "non-essential" roads to the counties for upkeep, funded by an increase in property taxes. The bill expands exemptions to procurement transparency, including the purchase and managing of information technology (Intelligent Transportation Systems) to be implemented in the restructuring of roadways. This is a fiscally irresponsible abdication of state sovereignty filtering down from the Big Beautiful Bill. It is a clear move towards 15 minute cities, restriction of travel, and mass surveillance. For more information go to https://palmettostatewatch.com/both-s-c-chambers-filed-bills-to-fix-scdot/
S831 and H5071 - a bill to centralize control of the Department of Transportation under a governor-appointed Secretary and coordinating council, and remove the seven district commissioners which the Secretary currently serves. It further federalizes state highway planning and authorizes federal funding of projects (bill deletes language expressly prohibiting federal funding). The coordinating council, made up of several agency directors, will develop transportation plans and policy for the state, including metropolitan boundaries and rural districts in accordance with the provisos of the US Dept of Transportation. They will transfer "non-essential" roads to the counties for upkeep, funded by an increase in property taxes. The bill expands exemptions to procurement transparency, including the purchase and managing of information technology (Intelligent Transportation Systems) to be implemented in the restructuring of roadways. This is a fiscally irresponsible abdication of state sovereignty filtering down from the Big Beautiful Bill. It is a clear move towards 15 minute cities, restriction of travel, and mass surveillance. For more information go to https://palmettostatewatch.com/both-s-c-chambers-filed-bills-to-fix-scdot/
2/3/26 Update on Parental Rights Bill
Parental Rights Bill made it through House 3M Committee. It will probably be debated on the House floor the week of February 17th. Although the definition of parent was changed, the other issues mentioned on the call to action remain. It still needs to be STOPPED or FIXED! Let your Representative know about these problems! Here are the two most concerning subsections:
(G) An employee of this State, except for authorized law enforcement officers or agents, in the performance of their duties shall not:
(1) encourage or coerce a child to withhold information from the child’s parent; or
(2) withhold from a child’s parent information that relates to the child’s education or is relevant to the physical, emotional, or mental health of the child, including any request by a child to be treated in a manner that is inconsistent with his or her sex.
Law enforcement and agents of any of the executive departments (DSS, DPH, etc.) given unmitigated authority to withhold information and force a child to withhold information from their parents. Clarification that limits this power to instances where the parent is under investigation for or has been convicted of abuse of a child would fix this part.
(G) An employee of this State, except for authorized law enforcement officers or agents, in the performance of their duties shall not:
(1) encourage or coerce a child to withhold information from the child’s parent; or
(2) withhold from a child’s parent information that relates to the child’s education or is relevant to the physical, emotional, or mental health of the child, including any request by a child to be treated in a manner that is inconsistent with his or her sex.
Law enforcement and agents of any of the executive departments (DSS, DPH, etc.) given unmitigated authority to withhold information and force a child to withhold information from their parents. Clarification that limits this power to instances where the parent is under investigation for or has been convicted of abuse of a child would fix this part.
AND
(6) An entity subject to the provisions of this section is immune from civil liability for damages, and no cause of action may be brought under this section, based solely on an alleged violation of this article or section 63‑5‑340 arising from that act or omission, if the entity, in good faith:
(a) relies upon a written consent, authorization, or direction executed by a parent as defined in this section; or
(b) acts in substantial compliance with this article or written guidance or regulations issued by the Department of Public Health or the Department of Mental Health implementing this section.
The Department of Public Health and the Department of Mental Health cannot be sued for "guidance" as it is only suggestive. (Think masking school children during the COVID-19 pandemic. That was a recommendation that individual school districts could adopt.) If the parent cannot bring a cause of action against the department or against the school or other entity because it is following the department's guidance, the parent is out of luck. Simply striking the word guidance should fix this part.
(a) relies upon a written consent, authorization, or direction executed by a parent as defined in this section; or
(b) acts in substantial compliance with this article or written guidance or regulations issued by the Department of Public Health or the Department of Mental Health implementing this section.
The Department of Public Health and the Department of Mental Health cannot be sued for "guidance" as it is only suggestive. (Think masking school children during the COVID-19 pandemic. That was a recommendation that individual school districts could adopt.) If the parent cannot bring a cause of action against the department or against the school or other entity because it is following the department's guidance, the parent is out of luck. Simply striking the word guidance should fix this part.
The number of bad bills moving through the statehouse right now are too numerous to count. Our Christian legislators feels pressure not to seem ridiculous by opposing every single bill. Encourage them to stay strong in their determination to fight for us no matter how exhausting it gets. Ask them to vote against anything that grows government, increases spending, taxes, regulations, fees, and dependence upon federal programs (as these result in oppression and enslavement), or poses a threat to Christian families. Pray for your legislators regularly. Tell them you appreciate their service and sacrifice. Believe in the power of God to influence and protect them.
Parental Rights and Private Providers bills seek to establish partnership between schools, government agents, and parents for the physical, social and emotional health of children.
Before reading the below summary of the two bills working their way through the South Carolina Statehouse, please watch the following video from Alex Newman, president of Liberty Sentinel Media, contributor to the New American Magazine and award-winning international journalist, educator, author, and consultant. If you are not familiar with the UNESCO plan for our children, you may not appreciate the dangers of these two pieces of legislation that are being implemented all over the country. Remember that the state can protect itself by rejecting the financial incentives/grants offered by federal socialist programs. An educated electorate can stop it at the local level by being a collective voice of opposition for our legislators.
Parental Rights Act
Representative Tommy Pope is the primary sponsor of H4757, a “Parental Rights” bill that has now has more than 50 cosponsors. The bill defines “parent” and grants the "parent" certain delineated rights from the State. The bill is being marketed as an affirmation of parental rights in medical decision making and in the education of their own children. It is supported by conservative organizations like Alliance Defending Freedom and SC Policy Council. Alliance Defending Freedom International has it's headquarters in Vienna Austria and operates in over 100 countries. It has held special consultative status with the United Nations since 2010, enabling ADF to influence international policy discussions as a defender of Christian religious principles.
Although I appreciate the impetus for this bill, I am deeply concerned about a few things.
(a) a biological parent, adoptive parent, or person with legal custody, excluding an individual whose parental relationship to the child has been legally terminated; or
(b) an individual who has been granted decision‑making authority over the child by court order or under state law.
What is "decision-making authority" according to the bill?
(3) “Decision‑making authority” means the power granted by the State to a nonparent to make important decisions regarding a child, including decisions regarding the child’s education, religious training, healthcare, extracurricular activities, and travel.
Although I appreciate the impetus for this bill, I am deeply concerned about a few things.
- Definition of "Parent" - Appears twice in the bill and includes anyone given decision making authority by the state.
(a) a biological parent, adoptive parent, or person with legal custody, excluding an individual whose parental relationship to the child has been legally terminated; or
(b) an individual who has been granted decision‑making authority over the child by court order or under state law.
What is "decision-making authority" according to the bill?
(3) “Decision‑making authority” means the power granted by the State to a nonparent to make important decisions regarding a child, including decisions regarding the child’s education, religious training, healthcare, extracurricular activities, and travel.
- As it reads now, the Parental Rights Bill (H4757) would dismiss any court case in which one parent has provided consent to receive physical or mental health services despite the declination of consent from another. The law will err on the side of implied consent, protecting entities from lawsuits when one parent disagrees.
- This bill protects schools and other State entities that follow Department of Public Health and Department of Mental Health guidance rather than the rights of the parents to determine whether public or mental health "measures" are in the best interest of their children. A court case against an entity for using DPH recommendations will be summarily dismissed.
- This bill makes it clear that the provisions of the Parental Rights Act cannot be used to create a medical malpractice cause of action or be used to alter any existing medical standards of care, statute of limitations, statute of repose, procedural requirements, or damages governing medical malpractice actions. 59-28-350(H)(6) Public and mental health officials and medical industry aren't constrained by the parental rights detailed in the bill? See standards of care for transgender and gender diverse people.
- Arbitration through the Attorney General is also a roadblock for parents seeking quick remedies with legal enforcement. The AG's office serves to protect the State and its agencies, not the citizens. Procedures for legal disputes about a department's violation of this article should conform to those set forth for all other disputes in the Administrative Procedures Act.
- Section 59-28-320(G) appears to give law enforcement officers or "agents" carte blanche permission to withhold information or force children to withhold information from their parents. This authority needs to be limited to cases where the parent is being investigated for their treatment of the child or other child.
The language of the bill is confusing even to the most well-educated of our legislators, which makes deciphering its implications very challenging. If it takes lawyers to interpret a hidden meaning or purpose behind the provisions of the bill, it doesn't pass the sniff test and should be set aside until these concerns can be addressed or remedied by the legislators' legal counsel.
Private Providers Act H3974
More information about Full Service Community Schools can be found by clicking HERE.
Alex Newman's assessment of these "Parental Replacement Centers" can be found HERE.
DEI training for Applied Behavior Therapists can be found HERE.
Alex Newman's assessment of these "Parental Replacement Centers" can be found HERE.
DEI training for Applied Behavior Therapists can be found HERE.
Congress seeks to take control of 5G rollout!
Call to Action taken from Children's Health Defense Website (1/29/2026):
Major federal actions are moving right now, each designed to fast-track cell tower expansion and weaken local authority:
Take Action Now
Major federal actions are moving right now, each designed to fast-track cell tower expansion and weaken local authority:
- FCC Docket 25-276, a sweeping rulemaking proposal that would dramatically expand federal preemption, force rapid approvals, eliminate meaningful community participation, and allow wireless facilities to be placed almost anywhere.
- H.R. 2289, a bill that would let federal agencies and telecom companies override local governments, eliminate key environmental (NEPA) and historic-preservation (NHPA) reviews, and make it easier to expand cell towers and equipment with little notice or public input.
- H.R. 1343, H.R. 1588, H.R. 1665, H.R. 1681, H.R. 1731, and H.R. 6046, Congress is advancing six bills that would greatly expand federal control over wireless deployment and limit the ability of local governments to regulate where wireless facilities are installed.
Take Action Now
- Tell Congress to vote NO on H.R. 2289
- Tell the FCC and Congress not to adopt new FCC rules
- Tell Congress to oppose H.R. 1343, H.R. 1588, H.R. 1665, H.R. 1681, H.R. 1731, and H.R. 6046
- Alert your local officials (mayors, city council members, zoning and planning board members, as well as any additional officials whom you know personally). and ask them to submit comments on your community’s behalf. Share our sample letter (available in Microsoft Word, Google Doc, and PDF format) which can be adapted to the particulars of your community.
- Spread the word by distributing this flyer and start conversations.
Bills to Watch This Week!
In the HOUSE (Call, text, or email your STATE REPRESENTATIVE) to voice your opinion ASAP!)
TWO ABORTION BILLS on the calendar for WEDNESDAY (Jan. 14, 2026) AT NOON
In addition to YOUR representative, contact members of the JUDICIARY Subcommittee ASAP to voice your support or opposition! (Contact information provided below)
H4760 (Abortion Inducing Drugs) This bill prohibits anyone except the pregnant woman and her chosen administering physician and pharmacy from causing the murder of her pre-born child through the use of an abortion inducing drug. Anyone who causes a woman to abort her baby by abortion inducing drugs without her consent is guilty of a felony and must be imprisoned for no more than 5 years or be fined no more than $50,000 or both.
H3537 (SC Prenatal Equal Protection Act) This bill defines all pre-born babies as persons from the moment of fertilization which grants to them the same civil rights afforded by the Constitution and by the laws of the nation and state. Anyone, including the mother of the pre-born child, who participates in the abortion of the child, would be guilty of murder, the penalties of which (30 years to life in prison without parole or execution) would be the same for any other premeditated murder. Exceptions would be spontaneous miscarriage or attempts to save the mother's life where reasonable steps were taken to save the life of the child also. The Act would not be retroactive to include women or physicians, etc who committed abortions prior to ratification.
The crime addressed in the bill scheduled to be heard first, H4760 (Abortion Inducing Drugs) already exists in the SC Code of Laws 16-3-1083 (Violent crime - assault - against the body of the mother with intent to kill the unborn child). It is believed by the authors of the Prenatal Equal Protection Act (H3537), Equal Protection SC, that the intent of committee leadership in offering this duplicitous bill is to run out the clock in subcommittee, preventing a hearing on its pro-life competitor.
HOWEVER, it is possible that H4760 (Abortion Inducing Drugs) would substantially REDUCE THE PENALTIES FOR INTENTIONAL MURDER OF THE PRE-BORN by unsolicited chemical abortions from a MANDATORY 30 YEARS TO LIFE in prison to NO MORE THAN 5 YEARS AND/OR UP TO A $50,000 PENALTY!
CONTACT the Judiciary Subcommittee TODAY:
Representative Jay Jordan: 843-229-1874 (cell) [email protected]
Representative Wes Newton: 803-734-3120 (work) [email protected]
Representative Cody Mitchell: 803-427-6487 (cell) [email protected]
In the HOUSE (Call, text, or email your STATE REPRESENTATIVE) to voice your opinion ASAP!)
TWO ABORTION BILLS on the calendar for WEDNESDAY (Jan. 14, 2026) AT NOON
In addition to YOUR representative, contact members of the JUDICIARY Subcommittee ASAP to voice your support or opposition! (Contact information provided below)
H4760 (Abortion Inducing Drugs) This bill prohibits anyone except the pregnant woman and her chosen administering physician and pharmacy from causing the murder of her pre-born child through the use of an abortion inducing drug. Anyone who causes a woman to abort her baby by abortion inducing drugs without her consent is guilty of a felony and must be imprisoned for no more than 5 years or be fined no more than $50,000 or both.
H3537 (SC Prenatal Equal Protection Act) This bill defines all pre-born babies as persons from the moment of fertilization which grants to them the same civil rights afforded by the Constitution and by the laws of the nation and state. Anyone, including the mother of the pre-born child, who participates in the abortion of the child, would be guilty of murder, the penalties of which (30 years to life in prison without parole or execution) would be the same for any other premeditated murder. Exceptions would be spontaneous miscarriage or attempts to save the mother's life where reasonable steps were taken to save the life of the child also. The Act would not be retroactive to include women or physicians, etc who committed abortions prior to ratification.
The crime addressed in the bill scheduled to be heard first, H4760 (Abortion Inducing Drugs) already exists in the SC Code of Laws 16-3-1083 (Violent crime - assault - against the body of the mother with intent to kill the unborn child). It is believed by the authors of the Prenatal Equal Protection Act (H3537), Equal Protection SC, that the intent of committee leadership in offering this duplicitous bill is to run out the clock in subcommittee, preventing a hearing on its pro-life competitor.
HOWEVER, it is possible that H4760 (Abortion Inducing Drugs) would substantially REDUCE THE PENALTIES FOR INTENTIONAL MURDER OF THE PRE-BORN by unsolicited chemical abortions from a MANDATORY 30 YEARS TO LIFE in prison to NO MORE THAN 5 YEARS AND/OR UP TO A $50,000 PENALTY!
CONTACT the Judiciary Subcommittee TODAY:
Representative Jay Jordan: 843-229-1874 (cell) [email protected]
Representative Wes Newton: 803-734-3120 (work) [email protected]
Representative Cody Mitchell: 803-427-6487 (cell) [email protected]
Updates 4/14/25:
Please come to our meeting tonight and bring a friend!
CALL TO ACTION!
S. 534 is now on the Senate calendar and could hit the Senate floor as soon as tomorrow! Please call your state senator today to let him/her know that you oppose the removal of State Treasurer Curtis Loftis!
ARTICLE FROM PALMETTO STATE WATCH
VIDEO FROM FITS NEWS
Please come to our meeting tonight and bring a friend!
CALL TO ACTION!
S. 534 is now on the Senate calendar and could hit the Senate floor as soon as tomorrow! Please call your state senator today to let him/her know that you oppose the removal of State Treasurer Curtis Loftis!
ARTICLE FROM PALMETTO STATE WATCH
VIDEO FROM FITS NEWS
What is so bad about having to prove your identity before using the internet? What is a social credit score and how bad is surveillance? Watch this video.
|
Updates 2/23/25
Thanks to everyone who reached out to their legislators about last weeks CTA! Gearing up for some major battles at the statehouse again this week! The House Regulations Committee carried over the bad election regulations D.5192, D.5193, D.5196, D.5502, D.5203, and D.5204 to be discussed at a later date. Thanks to all of you who contacted members of the committee about the concerns laid out in the SC Safe Elections Substack article. The house passed H3431, the social media restriction and regulation bill, with only about half of the Freedom Caucus members voting against it. The attack ads accusing them of protecting child predators began immediately. The bill is now headed to the SC Senate, where hopefully a courageous soul will stop the bill in its tracks. Good bills were not included in this Call to Action because of the urgency of stopping the "school choice", CON CON, and limitation to social media access bills. H3457 (Human Life Protection Act) will get a hearing in a house judiciary subcommittee on Tuesday, March 4th. The public is welcome to comment during the meeting. H3309 is awaiting a subcommittee hearing in the senate. Please become acquainted with this bill also. Details below. |
|
Call to Action Alert - Thursday 2/20/25
Please text your representative if they are listed in on the House Regulations, Administrative Procedures, Artificial Intelligence and Cybersecurity Committee before 9 a.m. to stop these BAD ELECTION regulations! Explanation can be found here! D.5192, D.5193, D.5196, D.5502, D.5203, and D.5204 |
|
Breakdown of Bills:
S 62: For a thorough explanation of the K-12 Education Lottery Scholarship (universal school control) bill click here. H 3431: Read the bill by clicking here. The World Economic Forum and United Nations agenda continue to implement a global agenda for digital control of all access to social and economic necessities by working with STATE legislatures. We should NEVER agree to a bill that forces proof of identity prior to use of the internet. This is a part of the stepwise process towards complete enslavement. Watch this video. H 3007, 3008 and 3558: Our state repealed all resolutions that had been made for a constitutional convention to balance the federal budget in 2004. It would be worthwhile to look up Title 1, Chapter 1, Section 1510 of the SC Code of Laws to see why. We made the mistake of passing resolutions for a convention last year. We need to renew the repeal of those resolutions also. Watch this video which explains the dangers of a Constitutional Convention (CON CON). H 3101 and 3622: Ban on Guardians ad Litem - These bills restrict the use of non-attorney guardians ad litem in child custody cases. They will grant near-monopoly status to law firms in the guardian ad litem industry, and will do away with lay guardians ad litem who actually tend to have a better track record and are not profit motivated. Click here for reference documents mentioned in the "On the Brink of a CON-CON" video.
|
S 28: Was amended to address our concerns!
S 54: Medical Informed Consent Act - Go to the Health and Medical Freedom page for an explanation of this bill. As of right now:
- there are no laws prohibiting SC employers from mandating vaccines or other "health measures",
- pharmacists can deny any medication at any time and without any reason,
- the Dept. of Public Health can isolate and quarantine individuals or groups of people for as long as it wants, targeting anyone who refuses testing, physical exams, vaccines and treatments, whether they are exposed to or symptomatic with the disease or not,
- the director can issue an emergency order to restrain persons for up to 25 days without due process and proof of necessity, and
- it is a FELONY offense to violate quarantine and isolation orders implemented by the department, but for some reason, although you'll always have that record and never be able to carry a firearm again, the fine is no more than $1000 and imprisonment no more than 30 days!
S 244: Tort Reform. Please watch this video for an explanation of this important bill for small business owners.
Other Concerning Bills
H 3309: SC Energy Security Act (Summary provided by former SC Rep. Jonathan Hill)
This bill has been passed by the house and is on its way to the senate. It needs major amendments in subcommittee before it will be acceptable.
The bill is a warmed-over version of H.5118 of 2024. Ultimately, that bill died when the House
and Senate could not agree on what the bill should say. Now the House version of the bill has
been re-filed and fast-tracked for 2025. Nothing major has changed: it’s still a terrible bill.
This bill redefines the mission of the Public Service Commission (PSC) to include actively
planning for the state's energy needs rather than merely regulating the public utilities, to create
more economic development incentives and build economic development further into the state's
regulatory fabric.
In addition, this bill authorizes another public/private partnership between Santee Cooper and
Dominion Energy for power plant construction. It directs and "encourages" all three major
utilities in the state to begin the process of building new power generation plants of various
types, and to consider once again building nuclear facilities. The bill promises that they may
immediately begin charging ratepayers for nuclear construction costs even before construction
has even been approved by the Public Service Commission, and even if the projects are
abandoned before completion. This bill further authorizes utilities (including Santee Cooper) to
apply for any available grants to fund nuclear site research.
This bill allows businesses that are big enough to qualify and which are selected by the SC
Department of Commerce to pick their own power company regardless of where they locate.
Finally, this bill creates a legislatively controlled "Energy Policy Research and Development
Institute" within the University of South Carolina to do energy research for state lawmakers. This
"institute" is designed to collaborate with "SC Nexus," a clean energy/tech/economic
development initiative which began last session under the Biden administration, and which
came with grant funding.
Fiscal Impact: $23,494,500 (H.5118 was $2,587,418)
Objections:
● Grows government—this bill creates a new "Energy Policy Research and Development
Institute" as an energy research arm of the legislature housed within the University of
South Carolina.
● Contradicts separation of powers—this bill contains language forcing the
legislatively-controlled Public Service Commission to act even more like a judicial body,
blurring the lines between all three branches—executive, legislative, and judicial.
Worse, the bill prohibits the PSC from using experts to dig up their own evidence, and
instead limits the PSC’s decisions to rely strictly on the evidence submitted by the utility
companies on the record. If key information is left out, the PSC cannot consider it in any
ruling. This rigs the system in favor of the utility companies and against the ratepayers,
and protects the legislators who are ultimately responsible for rate hikes from blame.
● Constitutes legal plunder—this bill contains a huge economic development incentive to
enormous businesses that may be recruited to relocate to or expand in South Carolina.
Companies are already able to develop economic incentive rate packages with the
various utilities, including the government-owned Santee Cooper, but if this bill passed,
they could literally pick their own utility, effectively creating a free market just for that one
company, while all other companies in South Carolina are forced to pay for electricity
under whatever monopoly power district they happen to be located in.
● Infringes on rights or liberties—South Carolina operates under an energy monopoly
where customers cannot choose their service provider or fire them if the service or
product is too expensive or unsatisfactory. This bill doubles down with even more central
planning, instead of recognizing the basic right of customers to freely associate and do
business with the providers they choose.
● Non-government alternatives exist—this bill contains all sorts of directives and
encouragements for privately owned utilities, and creates a 10-year energy plan for the
entire state. It should be the job of the utilities driven by the market. The state-driven
energy monopoly has stifled innovation and distorted or silenced market signals,
resulting in the highest electric utility rates in the southeast.
● Increases debt—this bill authorizes Santee Cooper (a state-owned utility) to incur
massive amounts of new debt for the construction of new energy facilities. It authorizes
Santee Cooper to enter a new public/private partnership for said construction with
Dominion Energy. South Carolina did this once before, leading to the failed the V.C.
Summer nuclear construction project. Ironically, that project was between Santee
Cooper and SCANA, which was subsequently purchased by Dominion. Lawmakers tied
the hands of regulators and locked ratepayers into the deal regardless of whether the
power plants were ever finished, thus removing any incentive TO finish. The construction
projects failed abysmally, SCANA went bankrupt and had to sell to Dominion, several
people went to jail, and the ratepayers are still to this day on the hook for billions of
dollars of debt for a project that will never be completed. While the state reeled in the
aftermath, lawmakers discovered that not even they could provide relief from these debts
due to the Base Load Review Act, and the only thing they could do was repeal the act.
This bill will essentially re-enact it!
This bill has been passed by the house and is on its way to the senate. It needs major amendments in subcommittee before it will be acceptable.
The bill is a warmed-over version of H.5118 of 2024. Ultimately, that bill died when the House
and Senate could not agree on what the bill should say. Now the House version of the bill has
been re-filed and fast-tracked for 2025. Nothing major has changed: it’s still a terrible bill.
This bill redefines the mission of the Public Service Commission (PSC) to include actively
planning for the state's energy needs rather than merely regulating the public utilities, to create
more economic development incentives and build economic development further into the state's
regulatory fabric.
In addition, this bill authorizes another public/private partnership between Santee Cooper and
Dominion Energy for power plant construction. It directs and "encourages" all three major
utilities in the state to begin the process of building new power generation plants of various
types, and to consider once again building nuclear facilities. The bill promises that they may
immediately begin charging ratepayers for nuclear construction costs even before construction
has even been approved by the Public Service Commission, and even if the projects are
abandoned before completion. This bill further authorizes utilities (including Santee Cooper) to
apply for any available grants to fund nuclear site research.
This bill allows businesses that are big enough to qualify and which are selected by the SC
Department of Commerce to pick their own power company regardless of where they locate.
Finally, this bill creates a legislatively controlled "Energy Policy Research and Development
Institute" within the University of South Carolina to do energy research for state lawmakers. This
"institute" is designed to collaborate with "SC Nexus," a clean energy/tech/economic
development initiative which began last session under the Biden administration, and which
came with grant funding.
Fiscal Impact: $23,494,500 (H.5118 was $2,587,418)
Objections:
● Grows government—this bill creates a new "Energy Policy Research and Development
Institute" as an energy research arm of the legislature housed within the University of
South Carolina.
● Contradicts separation of powers—this bill contains language forcing the
legislatively-controlled Public Service Commission to act even more like a judicial body,
blurring the lines between all three branches—executive, legislative, and judicial.
Worse, the bill prohibits the PSC from using experts to dig up their own evidence, and
instead limits the PSC’s decisions to rely strictly on the evidence submitted by the utility
companies on the record. If key information is left out, the PSC cannot consider it in any
ruling. This rigs the system in favor of the utility companies and against the ratepayers,
and protects the legislators who are ultimately responsible for rate hikes from blame.
● Constitutes legal plunder—this bill contains a huge economic development incentive to
enormous businesses that may be recruited to relocate to or expand in South Carolina.
Companies are already able to develop economic incentive rate packages with the
various utilities, including the government-owned Santee Cooper, but if this bill passed,
they could literally pick their own utility, effectively creating a free market just for that one
company, while all other companies in South Carolina are forced to pay for electricity
under whatever monopoly power district they happen to be located in.
● Infringes on rights or liberties—South Carolina operates under an energy monopoly
where customers cannot choose their service provider or fire them if the service or
product is too expensive or unsatisfactory. This bill doubles down with even more central
planning, instead of recognizing the basic right of customers to freely associate and do
business with the providers they choose.
● Non-government alternatives exist—this bill contains all sorts of directives and
encouragements for privately owned utilities, and creates a 10-year energy plan for the
entire state. It should be the job of the utilities driven by the market. The state-driven
energy monopoly has stifled innovation and distorted or silenced market signals,
resulting in the highest electric utility rates in the southeast.
● Increases debt—this bill authorizes Santee Cooper (a state-owned utility) to incur
massive amounts of new debt for the construction of new energy facilities. It authorizes
Santee Cooper to enter a new public/private partnership for said construction with
Dominion Energy. South Carolina did this once before, leading to the failed the V.C.
Summer nuclear construction project. Ironically, that project was between Santee
Cooper and SCANA, which was subsequently purchased by Dominion. Lawmakers tied
the hands of regulators and locked ratepayers into the deal regardless of whether the
power plants were ever finished, thus removing any incentive TO finish. The construction
projects failed abysmally, SCANA went bankrupt and had to sell to Dominion, several
people went to jail, and the ratepayers are still to this day on the hook for billions of
dollars of debt for a project that will never be completed. While the state reeled in the
aftermath, lawmakers discovered that not even they could provide relief from these debts
due to the Base Load Review Act, and the only thing they could do was repeal the act.
This bill will essentially re-enact it!
September 19, 2024 Action Items (Watch this video for more details!)
- Download and print the document "Shekels with Shackles" to read and to present and discuss with your pastor and Christian private school and homeschool parents and educators.
- Schedule a coffee or lunch meeting with your state representative and senator. Bring them a copy of their Freedom Index scorecard and discuss bills that you believe should be filed or defeated in the upcoming session. Examples:
- ensures medical freedom and guts Title 44 emergency powers
- rescinds the Convention of States Resolution (Robert Brown video);
- increases Election Transparency (Elections Update);
- rejects federal "relief" funds and international "treaties" with globalist organizations;
- frees education, healthcare, etc systems from national associations and accrediting associations that currently control them; and
- reverses gun control measures snuck into the "Constitutional Carry" bill from last session (see February 2nd update below);
- proposes a constitutional amendment ballot referendum to allow direct state funding of private schools (stand against ESA vouchers);
- consolidates health agency decision making power into the hands of one unelected Secretary of Health and Policy (health czar);
- grows government regulation and involvement in private enterprise; and
- promotes wasteful spending and increases hidden taxes through fees, fines, and licensing.
- Attend upcoming meetings. See the Calendar of Events.
Videos from SC Senate Medical Affairs Pandemic Preparedness Hearing
September 12, 2023
Dr. Edward Simmer is determined to continue pushing the vaccines, masks, and anything else the CDC and WHO recommend. Ignoring the evidence and entreaties presented at the meeting, he continues to endanger South Carolinians on behalf of the CDC and the WHO. If you want him replaced, call, write, and email Gov. McMaster's office and let him know that the governor's speeches condemning medical tyranny mean nothing if someone like Dr Simmer is given the power to control our government officials' response to "public health emergencies."
Starting at 22:27 he clearly evades the question about his support of childhood COVID-19 vaccination. The very next week he stressed to healthcare providers the importance of focusing COVID-19 vaccination efforts on young children, pregnant women and the elderly. This presentation was sponsored by Prisma Health.
Click Here for Original Senate Medical Affairs Meetings on COVID-19 Response 9/15/21 and 9/22/21
Local News Sources