COLOMBIA – After observing more liberal states closing or limiting religious meetings in an attempt to slow the spread of the coronavirus, a group of conservative state lawmakers is trying to ensure that South Carolina will never be able to take similar measures if another pandemic arises in the future.
A new bill would add to South Carolina’s existing “Religious Freedom Act”, formally classifying religious services as essential during states of emergency, saying they are “considered necessary and vital for the health and well-being of the public”.
This means that churches or other houses of worship cannot face stricter restrictions than any other services deemed essential. ‘
The effort is an attempt to stop South Carolina from following in the footsteps of states like California and New York, which sought to ban religious meetings in an attempt to curb the spread of COVID-19.
But that question never came up in South Carolina during the coronavirus pandemic. Republican Governor Henry McMaster vehemently refused to restrict religious services, saying he could not step into First Amendment rights.
State Representative Richie Yow, the main sponsor of the project, told a House subcommittee on February 16 that South Carolina’s decision to allow churches to remain open during this pandemic does not mean that it could try a different approach in the future. .
Yow, R-Chesterfield, said he was asked whether South Carolina had already closed churches.
“I said, ‘No, but we have no guarantee of an answer tomorrow,'” said Yow.
The subcommittee voted 4-0 in favor of the bill, H.3105, sending it to the full committee for the next step. Two dozen other members of the House, most of them Republicans from the interior of the state, have signed contracts as co-sponsors.
South Carolina was among the 15 states that never prevented religious meetings. According to the Pew Research Center, 10 states have completely banned services due to COVID-19. Other states, including North Carolina, have limited meetings to 10 people or less.
Although the United States Supreme Court initially rejected a California church’s attempt to overturn that state’s restrictions on personal religious services, it later ruled against restrictions in that state and several others.
The US Supreme Court blocks the limits of New York coronavirus in houses of worship
State Representative Jason Elliott, R-Greenville, said he does not anticipate that church closures will become a problem in South Carolina.
“But if you were in one of these (other) states at different times, you could not have predicted that your religious rights would be violated in those states,” said Elliott. “So, I thank you and I intend to support you.”
Five members of the public, including several pastors in South Carolina, testified in favor of the project and none spoke out against it.
State Representative Spencer Wetmore, D-Charleston, asked some speakers at the hearing why the bill is necessary, pointing to recent Supreme Court decisions on the matter.
“Although there are protections for the exercise of religion, the unfortunate fact is that laws that violate these rights are occasionally passed, and this is necessary to ensure that the state does not take these measures,” replied Greg Chaufen, legal lawyer for the Alliance for Defending Freedom.
Wetmore ended up voting in favor of the project.
Follow Jamie Lovegrove on Twitter @jslovegrove.