|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
***
Parental rights are not granted by the government. They are inherent, God-given, and fundamental. On that point, supporters and skeptics of South Carolina’s Parental Rights Act (H.4757) largely agree. Where the disagreement arises is over whether those rights should be clearly articulated and protected in state law.
Some conservatives worry that codifying parental rights risks weakening them by suggesting the State is their source. That concern is understandable — but it misunderstands the purpose of this legislation. H.4757 does not grant parental rights. It restrains government power.
In recent years, parents across South Carolina — and across the country — have learned a difficult lesson: rights that are not clearly protected in law are easily ignored in practice. During COVID, families watched government agencies override parental decisions, restrict access to information, and act without transparency or consent. Many parents assumed their rights were secure, only to discover there was no clear enforcement mechanism when those rights were violated.
That is the gap H.4757 is designed to close.
***
This bill draws clear boundaries around government authority. It formally recognizes parental rights as fundamental, meaning the State may interfere only under the highest legal standard and only in truly compelling circumstances. It requires transparency in schools, ensures parental access to records and information, prohibits secrecy between government actors and children, and strengthens parental consent in healthcare. Just as importantly, it gives parents a clear and enforceable path to seek relief when those boundaries are crossed.
History shows that enumerating rights does not diminish them — it protects them. The Bill of Rights did not create freedom of speech or religious liberty; it restrained government from violating them. We continue to pass laws and policies protecting those freedoms precisely because government, when unchecked, has a long record of encroachment. Parental rights are no different.
Without a statute, disputes between parents and institutions are handled ad hoc. Parents are forced into drawn-out battles with agencies that hold procedural and legal advantages, and meaningful remedies are often out of reach. With a statute, the rules are clear, the State is on notice, and parents are no longer left powerless.
***
RELATED | THE TROJAN HORSE IN SC HOMESCHOOLING
***
H.4757 also addresses common misconceptions head-on. It does not expand abortion access, alter vaccine exemption laws, or give minors broad medical decision-making authority. Its narrow prenatal care provision is carefully limited, medically necessary, and fully consistent with existing South Carolina law. Far from empowering bureaucrats, the bill puts them “on a leash,” requiring justification, transparency, and accountability.
At its core, this legislation restores proper order. Parents remain the primary decision-makers in their children’s upbringing, education, and care. The State is reminded — clearly and enforceably — where its authority ends.
Parents do not need permission to have rights. But government has repeatedly shown that it needs boundaries. H.4757 draws those boundaries in plain language, with real consequences, and with the goal of ensuring that families — not bureaucracies — remain at the center of decision-making.
That is why this bill matters and why advancing it through the legislative process is both prudent and necessary.
***
ABOUT THE AUTHOR…
Tamra Misseijer is a wife, mom, educator, and community advocate with Moms for Liberty SC who is passionate about protecting parental rights, educational transparency, and creating strong communities.
***
WANNA SOUND OFF?
Got something you’d like to say in response to one of our articles? Or an issue you’d like to address proactively? We have an open microphone policy! Submit your letter to the editor (or guest column) via email HERE. Got a tip for a story? CLICK HERE. Got a technical question or a glitch to report? CLICK HERE.
2 comments
Does it give parents more of a say in what vaxxes their children do or do not take; or is that still totally up to GivCo/the school board? What about if a parent wants to remove their child “right now” for a family emergency, impending severe weather, civil unrest, or other good reason? What if their child is moved to another venue because of a school shooting or other incident? Will parents be told where their child is and be able to take their child home immediately; or will they have to wait until some school administrator, police official, or other government functionary says “Simon says…”? If these situations are not covered, then what is the point?
Parents already have the say so in what vax are given- there is confusion that an arbitrary power has been given to doctors and schools. We have never lost that right in SC. You are the parent, you withdraw your child by following the rules you agreed to follow when you enrolled them. You don’t like it, withdraw and go elsewhere. If they are in school and a shooting occurs, then the school is responsible for their safety and when law enforcement gives the safe/clear call, you then get them because they have to be protected while at school, even during a shooting. This bill pushes government back from encroaching on parents rights. We already have the power, just some have been deceived into believing that the schools/doctors have the power. And they have just handed over that power by not parenting. I decide what goes into my child’s body. I decide how i want them to learn and what I want them to learn. And if I don’t agree with it, then i go elsewhere. Nobody can stop me, unless I’m breaking a criminal statute. Parents need to parent. Some choose not to, so let them be sorted out.