The state House approved a bill Thursday, Jan. 29, 2026, that would extend rules for multi-stalled bathrooms and changing facilities in K-12 schools to public colleges in South Carolina. (File/Mint Images/Getty Images)
South Carolina lawmakers say H. 4756, misleadingly titled the “Student Physical Privacy Act,” is about protecting women and girls. In reality, the bill does something much more specific, and much more extreme.
It takes an existing K-12 budget proviso that restricts bathroom and locker room access, puts a one-year law (that must be reapproved annually with the budget) into permanent code, expands it to colleges and universities, and adds a new enforcement tool: civil lawsuits that would allow private citizens to sue schools.
That context matters because this is not a theoretical policy. The existing budget directive this bill copies is already being challenged in federal court.
A federal appeals court blocked South Carolina from enforcing the budget rule against the suing student while the case moves forward, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to undo that decision.
Even though the student later dropped a related appeal, the broader lawsuit over the budget clause itself is still pending.
So why widen a policy that is already being challenged in court? Why extend it to higher education and invite even more lawsuits before the courts have even decided whether the approach is lawful?
Even putting the lawsuit aside, the bill still fails on its central “promise.”
Women and girls do not gain privacy or protection by empowering institutions to question students’ bodies or appearances, investigate who “belongs” in which space, or demand proof of sex to use the restroom.
In fact, these policies create exactly the conditions that put girls at risk: adults acting as gatekeepers, students being reported based on how they look, and vulnerable young people pushed into humiliating and unsafe situations.
Violence is not prevented by signs on doors or by punishing schools for inclusion. Violence is prevented by consent education, trauma-informed policies, trusted reporting systems, and a culture where all students are treated with respect and believed when they speak.
The bill does none of that.
By creating a private right of action, the bill opens the door to harassment, profiling, and retaliation, especially against students who are gender nonconforming, transgender, or simply do not fit narrow expectations of what girls and boys are “supposed” to look like.
Cisgender girls who are tall, athletic, or masculine-looking are already targeted and questioned in bathrooms across the country. This legislation would give that suspicion the backing of state law.
Supporters frame the bill as “common sense,” but South Carolina institutions already have policies and laws to address harassment, voyeurism, and assault. Those rules focus on behavior: on what someone does, not who they are.
A student who violates another student’s boundaries should be held accountable, regardless of gender.
Most troubling of all, this bill sends a message to young people: your safety is conditional, your belonging is debatable, and your body is subject to state control. For girls (especially girls of color, disabled girls, LGBTQ+ girls, and those who already navigate systems that doubt and police them) this is not protection.
The legislation has already passed out of the House, and lawmakers have adopted amendments along the way.
But amendments don’t fix the central problem: the bill still doesn’t protect women and girls. It still pushes schools toward body-based gatekeeping, invites accusations based on appearance, and exposes girls to scrutiny while doing nothing to strengthen the prevention, reporting, and accountability systems that actually stop harassment and assault.
The Women’s Rights and Empowerment Network believes every student deserves safety, privacy, and dignity at school. That means investing in counselors, nurses, and prevention programs. It means clear, survivor-centered reporting processes. And it means policies grounded in evidence, not fear.
This bill fails that test. It does not make our schools safer. It does not protect women and girls.
And it does not reflect the values of a state that claims to care about the well-being of its children.
Courtesy of South Carolina Daily Gazette
