South Carolina Statehouse Blog

With the current condition of the economy, many states, including South Carolina, are taking matters into their own hands. Just a couple weeks back, Representative Michael Pitts and Representative Jeff Duncan conducted a trade mission to Germany. The goal of this mission was to meet with several businesses to discuss their future operations in South Carolina. Representative Pitts was willing to talk with me about the trip and the following article is based off our discussion.

This trip was sponsored by South Carolina’s Department of Commerce and, as stated above, its goal was to try to get different foreign companies to either commit to come to South Carolina or commit to continue their current operations in South Carolina.

One company that Representatives Pitts and Duncan met with was Körber, a precision machine producer.

The scheduled 30-minute meeting with one of the owners of Körber ended up stretching into a “couple of hours of good conversation.” During this conversation, the owner described how the Körber company is limited in its physical expansion in Germany so the ability to expand in South Carolina is a huge benefit to them.

Not only will Körber bring more than 75 new jobs to South Carolina, these jobs that they will bring will offer higher salaries.

“The average job pays around twenty to twenty-five dollars an hour with Körber,” Representative Pitts explained.

Another company they met with was Michelin whose North American headquarters is located in Greenville, South Carolina. By the end of this meeting, both Representatives were reassured about Michelin’s commitment to keep their headquarters located in South Carolina.

“The personal contact of an elected official showing that direct personal interest, as opposed to a staffer, had a very visible impact on those owners and I think it will pay positive dividends in the future.”

Representatives Pitts and Duncan were also able to meet with some of the suppliers of these two companies.

“Michelin and Körber were both very willing to contact their suppliers and ask if they would talk with us about locating some of their industry in South Carolina,” Representative Pitts said.

These meetings were also successful and the suppliers are currently looking into the possibility of moving some of their operations to South Carolina. One of the major incentives for relocating to South Carolina would be a cut in transportation costs.

When asked about how successful this trip was, Representative Pitts answered that he believes this trip could have generated billions of dollars in revenue for South Carolina. He elaborated by stating that not only will there be more jobs, but the “products that [these companies] will be producing in South Carolina will be sold and taxed in South Carolina.”

Overall, the most important thing that Representative Pitts learned from this trip is that in the future, “it would be a benefit to South Carolina to make sure that on commerce trips legislators are involved.” The reason for this is that the European companies place such a high value on having personal contact with an elected official. This personal contact is one of the sole reason Pitts believes that the trade mission was such a success.

How to protect our nation’s children from the many dangers of this world is always a topic of significance in the United States. South Carolina is one state that’s addressing this important issue with new legislation that would limit where convicted sex offenders can live. Representative Joan Brady of Richland County is the main proponent of House Bill 3094 that would prohibit sex offenders who have committed serious crimes from living within 1,000 feet of schools and other places where children tend to be. The following article is based off an interview with Representative Brady about this bill.

Rep Brady started off by explaining that she decided to create this bill after reading a note from a mother who discovered that a convicted sex offender lived right next to a sports field where her son practiced. Since the owner of the apartment complex couldn’t legally refuse the offender housing, the state government would have to deal with this issue.

Brady continued by explaining that many local ordinances are already in place around the state that put restrictions on how close an offender can live to certain public places. However, since these ordinances vary from area to area and this issue is important to many parents in South Carolina, Brady decided to create a more unified law that would encompass the whole state.

“With the proliferation of local ordinances, we need some state continuity for efficient enforcement,” Representative Brady explained.

The bill that she proposed would make it so that a sex offender couldn’t live within 1,000 feet of a school, day care center, recreation center, or several other places where kids tend to congregate. However, to ensure that this bill won’t be struck down like a similar bill in Georgia, bus stops are not included in the list.

“In Georgia, their bill was struck down for a variety of reasons, one of which being that you could not live within 1,000 feet of a bus stop,” Representative Brady explained. “When you get into an urbanized area, that is probably a little overly restrictive.”

This bill, which is currently residing in the Senate, has found a lot of support not only inside the statehouse, but outside as well.

“The bill is absolutely bipartisan and we have very strong support from the Sheriff’s Association, from SLED, and local jurisdictions that are anxious to see what we will do on this matter.”

Since this piece of legislation limits the rights of citizens, Rep Brady is paying close attention to the civil liberty ramifications this bill may present.

In the interview, Brady pointed out that this bill isn’t “overly restrictive” because sex offenders already have to register their address with law enforcement. Also, with SLED receiving a federal grant for software that plots the exact distance from any residence to one of the restricted areas, offenders will be able to know exactly where they can and cannot live.

Brady also wanted to emphasize the fact that a grandfather clause will be included in the final version of the bill. This clause will ensure that those already living withing 1,000 feet of one of the areas mentioned in the bill will not forced to move.

“If you have property,” Rep. Brady said, “we certainly don’t want it to be a taking situation.”

However, if the offender does move, the law will then apply to their next housing location.

Some opponents to this bill have argued that it would push offenders into the rural areas, but Brady doesn’t see this happening.

“A thousand feet is not that far, it really is not that far,” Brady said, “Traditionally, apartment complexes and even residential areas are not really right there within 1,000 feet of a school. That still leaves a lot of locations where you can live.”

An example of why there is a need for a state wide law like Brady’s bill occurred last spring in the Upstate when a repeat sex offender from Georgia was arrested.

“They (law enforcement) said, ‘Why are you here in South Carolina?’ and he said, ‘Well, it was getting too difficult to find a place to live in Georgia.’”

Most of the states surrounding South Carolina have laws similar to the one Brady has proposed. Therefore, once passed, this legislation will help to ensure that South Carolina doesn’t become a “welcome center for convicted sex offenders.”

Representative Brady hopes that this piece of legislation will be passed before the end of this year’s legislative session and feels that if this bill can even prevent one such crime, it will be worth it. However, even though Brady is hopeful about the good this bill will do, she knows that it can never be a substitute for a parent’s protection.

“This [bill] in no way is a substitute for parents being vigilant and being sure that their children are in safe situations, but it is just another bit of protection we can give to the youngest of the victims.”

Lastly, since this bill is currently on the Senate’s long list of contested bills, Representative Brady hopes that the people of South Carolina will call their State Senators to voice their support. Brady fears that if the public doesn’t show support, the bill might not pass this session which ends on June 5th.

Bill S. 970, a bill regarding medical patients’ privacy rights, is set to see debate today. The bill, sponsored by Senator Hutto, specifically states that if a patient has been diagnosed with HIV, the information is strictly confidential. Therefore, in the context of public schools, no administrators may be notified that the given student is carrying the virus. The patient’s medical information in this situation would be confidential.

The current code states that if the patient has tested positive for HIV at a public health clinic, the information must be forwarded to administrators, principals and so on at the school that the student attends. Rep. Crawford stated that “there is no evidence that anyone’s privacy has been breached by a school official.”

Representative Kris Crawford, a practicing physician, takes exception to the bill and the law, and sees changes that should be made. He believes they were both poorly drawn, and stated that the schools should be notified that a student of theirs does in fact have HIV. However, he agrees that the student’s name should not be given.

The reasoning for not giving the name is that patients can get a “chilling effect,” and will not get tested if they fear people will find out. However, as stated, there is no evidence of privacy being breached. Regardless, it can cause people to worry about it and make the wrong decision.

Moreover, Rep. Crawford believes that it should encompass all blood-borne illnesses, not just HIV. He says that HIV is not unique in the way it is transmitted, so it should not be singled out. Therefore, all blood-borne illnesses, like HIV and Hepatitis, will be included in this bill.

According to Rep. Crawford, the Department of Health and Environmental Control(DHEC) will have to notify the school that there is an anonymous student with the given illness. If there is a laceration and/or a possibility of a transfer of bodily fluids, like in the case of a stab wound, sports-related lacerations, and so on, the nurse must notify DHEC, as proper procedure. They will then explain what to do if the nurse is not familiar with this sort of situation. The student will go to the hospital as safe, proper procedure suggests and then get prophylaxis treatment to try to prevent the illness.

If, in this sort of case, the student must be treated to prevent the spreading of the illness, it will clearly be realized that the other person involved was in fact infected with it. So, the anonymity would not be able to be kept. This is easily justified, as Rep Crawford states “our goal is to make sure nobody’s life or health is in danger, and in this case, that person’s life is in danger.”

Rep. Crawford is hopeful this bill will pass today, as this seems to be relatively straightforward public health policy. Furthermore, there is an effective compromise being made to make everyone happy, in that health conditions are kept private, but safety is also a main priority. Rep Crawford said “I don’t think what we were doing made sense, and I don’t think the way the bill was initially drawn made sense.” Through compromise and collaboration, it seems they have come up with something that does in fact make sense.

Illegal immigration, along with the many problems associated with it, is a major topic being debated in almost every state’s legislature and South Carolina’s statehouse is no exception. A recent bill proposed by Representative Nathan Ballentine tries to tackle the issue of illegal immigrants receiving state aid to public educational institutions. The bill he is proposing, House Bill 4451, would specifically state that those who are not in the country legally are not eligible for state aid for education. I was able to interview Representative Ballentine about his bill and the following is based off that interview.

Rep. Ballentine told me that he first got the idea for this bill after listening to one of the many presidential debates in the fall of last year. During this particular debate, he heard one candidate talk about how illegal immigrants in his state could receive state aid for education.

After hearing that this was occurring in other states, Ballentine decided to do some research and find out if the same thing could happen in South Carolina.

“When I asked the legislative council to look into the statutes they had on file,” Representative Ballentine explained, “They said, ‘Nathan there is a loophole. It doesn’t specifically say you can’t be an illegal immigrant [to receive state aid for education].’”

Upon hearing this, Ballentine decided to close that loophole, no matter how small it might be.

As you may be aware, there is currently a bill (S. 392) which is considered a “Comprehensive Immigration Reform Package” that probably would address this problem. However, since this bill has stalled in the conference committee, Ballentine felt that something else was needed.

“When you have a comprehensive anything (referring to S.392), someone is going to find fault with it,” Ballentine explained. Therefore, he felt it was necessary to create a bill that had a “laser” like focus on this one particular issue.

“I thought it was important that we had a stand alone bill that just addressed this one item, which I noted we can and should address, and that was to be sure that our tax dollars do not go to fund educational scholarships for illegal immigrants.”

It seems that most Representatives up at the statehouse agree with Ballentine since the bill received the customary second and third readings this past week without any major problems. Following its easy passage through the House, it was introduced on the Senate floor on Thursday. Now, it is currently residing in the Senate’s Committee on Education where Ballentine believes it won’t encounter any problems either.

To sum up how he feels about the the immigration issue, Representative Ballentine had this to say:

“Immigration is a federal issue but there are certain things that we can do locally.”

With the federal government seemingly stalled on immigration, many other state legislators are holding Ballentine’s view that things must be done at the state level to deal with this issue. However, with South Carolina’s legislature scheduled to be in session only until the beginning of June, time is quickly running out for them to resolve some of the many immigration problems South Carolina faces.

A new law regarding abortions recently passed through the state legislator and will soon be signed by Governor Sanford. The law involves new guidelines in the inevitably controversial issue of abortions. As would be expected in legislation regarding this topic, debates and emotions accompanied this bill on its way to the Governor.

This soon-to-be law specifically states that the doctor giving an abortion must inform the patient that an ultrasound has been taken, and that the patient has a right to view it. The patient then chooses to view it, or not, and must sign a paper saying that she was given the information by the doctor. Then, before having an abortion performed, the patient must wait one hour, whether she views the ultrasound or not.

It is already common practice to perform an ultrasound before giving an abortion, but this law explicitly states that the patient must be informed about it and follow the above details.

Senator Kevin Bryant is a main sponsor of the Senate version of the bill, bill S 0084. Sen. Bryant is and always has been adamantly pro-life, and says that is one of the reasons for why he got into politics in the first place. He explained that the liberty of the child in the womb should be protected, and hence, stated “I’ve always supported legislation to protect those rights.”

Sen. Bryant confidently stated “I think this is more effective than outlawing abortion.” This is because of the fact that when outlawed, people simply see it as a law; they do not examine the rationale behind it. Here, they think about it and rights of the child are more apt to be put into thought. Sen. Bryant claims that in cases where the mothers view the ultrasound images, about 85% of them choose not to have an abortion.

Senator Kevin Bryant explained that the hour waiting period is installed to promote patience and contemplation in the process. Although Representative Delleney’s version in the House, House Bill H 3355, is the one that ultimately passed, Sen. Bryant is still happy with the end result. The House version is more of a “safe” approach to implementing the law, explained Sen. Bryant. Delleney’s version was initially strict and aggressive, but changes were ultimately made in committees. Sen. Bryant wanted a more aggressive approach to this idea. Sen. Bryant’s version was more of a test case that would have inevitably seen the Supreme Court, perhaps being held up in the courts for several years. The House version is safer because it is proven to work in other states and has been upheld in courts, so there will be little controversy over its constitutionality.

Sen. Bryant said he wanted the viewing of ultrasound images to be more mandatory, but he still supports this law as it stands. Moreover, he explained that there are two approaches to the pro-life ideal. One side wants to make the strongest pro-life legislation in the nation. The other wants to play it safe and take laws that are proven to hold up in court, but this certainly comes with some amount of compromise and is less aggressive. The plus-side of the safe approach is that once passed, it will immediately go into effect, rather than get held up in the court system.

Making all kinds of national news, this is clearly a large step in the issue of abortions. Furthermore, there are other states that have adopted this sort of approach in the recent past, and Oklahoma also passed a similar law to this one very recently. One can assume that this may become a national trend of some sort, and Sen. Bryant says that he hopes that is the case.

The law can be seen as a compromise of the two sides in the debate about abortion. As Sen. Bryant put it, a choice is still being given to women, but patience, contemplation and the liberty of the child in the womb is being stressed. It seems as though both sides of the issue can see some sort of victory and progress here.