Urgent: Support S177 To Protect South Carolinians From Forced Medical Interventions and Quarantine

We need your voice against vaccination-based discrimination.

Our Stand

  • After being passed through the Medical Affairs Committee on March 31, the Senate is set to hear S177 this week!
  • South Carolina Senators Corbin, Rice, Loftis, Verdin, Martin and Garrett have brought forth S177: “A joint resolution to provide that COVID-19 vaccinations are purely voluntary, to provide that an employer cannot take an adverse employment action against an employee who chooses not to undergo a COVID-19 vaccination, and to provide that the Department of Health and Environmental Control cannot require isolation or quarantine for a person who chooses not to undergo a COVID-19 vaccination.”
  • This freedom-preserving bill provides vitally important protections for most South Carolina Workers by protecting them from coercion and discrimination based on their private healthcare decisions.
  • Amidst nonstop media coverage of COVID-19 and the incredible suppression and censorship by social media outlets against any who dare to speak out concerning the potential risks related to the fast-tracked vaccine, lack of data on safety and the adverse reactions being experienced around the world, many are unsure whether they will choose to be vaccinated, delay it or decline.
  • Many are concerned that receiving the COVID-19 vaccine will be necessary to keep their jobs and provide for themselves and their families. After a period of devastating job loss for many, others fear that they will be asked to submit to vaccination in order to re-enter the workforce.
  • Full, informed consent offers individuals the opportunity to weigh purported benefits and potential risks when making health care decisions and the freedom to accept or reject treatment as one wishes
  • This is the time to act to ensure South Carolina workers and citizens are protected from medical coercion, forced quarantine and the threat of being fired or un-hirable based on vaccination status.


Your home address information is required from the legislative offices to ensure you are reaching out to your designated representatives. Your email and your phone number are used to establish connection with your designated representatives. Messages from non-constituents don't have the same impact on a legislator as messages from verified constituents, who can vote for that officeholder. We do not share your name and contact information with any third parties unless legally required to do so.

Have a question or need help?


Many South Carolinians are hesitant to receive the new COVID-19 vaccine. Individuals’ reasonings vary, but a majority are uncertain because of conscientious objections, religious convictions, a history of prior vaccine injury and/or concerns over safety, including the lack of short- and long-term safety data.

Most of those who plan to delay or decline the COVID vaccine have kept themselves informed of the latest information regarding the brand-new vaccine since the pandemic began one year ago. They have followed news from various doctors, scientists and researchers from all over the world and found there is no consensus as to the safety and efficacy of any of the COVID-19 vaccines.

Actually, most who are following as this unforlds do not refer to COVID shots as “vaccines.” According to the World Health Organization, a vaccine contains “a killed or weakened form of a virus or bacteria, which trains our bodies to recognize and fight the disease if we encounter it in the future.”  Vaccines, as we have traditionally known them, prevent infection of the immunized person and prevent the spread of an illness to other people. However, these new products are not proven to do either and are only purported to lower the risk of serious symptoms that, according to Worldometer, less than 1 percent of patients experience without vaccine intervention. Calling these shots “vaccines” has Americans confused.

As such, there is no basis upon which to require individuals to submit to this medical intervention against their own will. Instead, each individual should be allowed to decide how to best care for their own body.

In December, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission released guidance making it clear that employees cannot rely on EEOC protections to make their own vaccine decisions based upon reasons of disability or religion. Thus, state laws are the only protection available to workers to guarantee individuals the basic human right to decide which medicines to use and when to do so.

Some things we do know:

1) Over $4 billion has been paid out by the government’s vaccine injury compensation fund to vaccine-injured individuals and families of those killed by a vaccine – many of them adults harmed by the flu vaccine. Many adults – especially those who work in health care or who are refull-time residents of long-term care facilities – may only have accepted these injections because of coercion similar to that being used with the new COVID-19 shot.

2) An estimated 1 percent of all vaccine-related injuries and deaths are reported to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System, a Harvard study that concluded in 2009. If the government wants to promote and encourage vaccines, a better accounting for risks and benefits is needed.

3) Pharmaceutical companies bear no liability for damage caused by their vaccines, raising concerns that there may be no incentive for them to ensure both immediate and long-term safety of their vaccines. Vaccination-related injury does not always occur immediately upon injection – rarely does someone die immediately upon inoculation. However, those who are concerned with vaccine safety are looking at longer-term reactions, such as the incidence of autoimmune disorders, and whether they may be traced back to immunizations.


Take Action

Share This