The ask

H.4624 Gender Transition Under 18

H.4624 prohibits gender-affirming care for minors with gender dysphoria—“trans” minors. The prohibited care does not just address surgery but also hormonal therapy to delay puberty and, once a decision is made, hormonal treatment to transition to the gender that the individual regards as their own. 

It also requires school staff (ALL staff including those without professional teaching or administrative responsibilities) to report to parents when a minor expresses belief that their gender differs from that assigned at birth. See League testimony. 

Talking points

Senators should vote NO on H.4624 because:

• All respected major medical organizations support providing this care; counseling, support for social transition, and hormonal treatment are the medically accepted standard of care for persons with gender dysphoria.
• Minors denied gender-affirming care have a very high rate of suicide.
• Persons who have transitioned medically have a very low rate of regret, less than for other many more common medical procedures.
• This bill is an infringement on the rights of parents to decide appropriate care for their minor children.

H.5118 Rollback of Public Protections in Utility Regulation (Canadys gas plant)

H.5118 is a bill that would pressure the Public Service Commission (PSC) to approve a large Santee Cooper-Dominion joint combined cycle gas plant at Canadys.

It also reduces essential regulatory protections for ratepayers and the environment enacted after the V. C. Summer disaster. Much of the urgency for passage of this bill has been justified as needed to serve energy hog data centers, which have been subsidized by other ratepayers. See League testimony.

Talking points 

Senators should vote NO on H.5118 becuase: 

• The regulatory structure put into place just a few years ago is sound and responsive to the state’s needs (including economic development).
• The General Assembly should not pressure the Public Service Commission (PSC) by promoting individual projects subject to PSC review. The Office of Regulatory Staff (ORS) and PSC should be allowed to use the expertise for which they were hired and appointed. 
• Utilities should not be allowed to begin on-site work on the basis of an Integrated Resource Plan (IRP). The IRP is designed as a general statement rather than final and full consideration of the public interest with respect to a facility. 
• No on-site briefings should be permitted without the opportunity for participation by all interested parties. An after-the-fact report is no substitute for the ability to hear communications directly and respond if appropriate.
• The Consumer Advocate should remain as currently placed in Consumer Affairs and should continue to intervene on behalf of consumers at the PSC.
• A restrictive 6-month deadline for PSC decision-making, followed by automatic permitting if the process is incomplete at that time, is inappropriate. This may not be sufficient when very complex matters are under consideration. Furthermore, it presents a substantial moral hazard since applicants might be motivated to create delays. They could then receive automatic approval.