A BILL TO AMEND THE SOUTH CAROLINA CODE OF LAWS BY ENACTING THE "HONOR OUR FIRST RESPONDERS ACT" BY ADDING SECTION 38-71-300 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT AN INDIVIDUAL OR GROUP HEALTH PLAN MUST PROVIDE COVERAGE UNDER THE SAME TERMS AND CONDITIONS TO THE SPOUSE OR DEPENDENT OF A FIRST RESPONDER COVERED BY SUCH A PLAN IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES; BY AMENDING SECTION 1-3-470, RELATING TO LOWERING FLAGS UPON DEATH IN THE LINE OF DUTY, SO AS TO ADD AN EMERGENCY MEDICAL TECHNICIAN; BY ADDING SECTION 12-6-1172 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR A FIRST RESPONDER RETIREMENT INCOME DEDUCTION; BY AMENDING SECTION 12-6-1170, RELATING TO THE RETIREMENT INCOME TAX DEDUCTION, SO AS TO MAKE A CONFORMING CHANGE; BY AMENDING SECTION 12-37-220, RELATING TO GENERAL EXEMPTION FROM TAXES, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A QUALIFIED SURVIVING SPOUSE ALSO MEANS CERTAIN SURVIVING SPOUSES OF EMERGENCY MEDICAL TECHNICIANS; AND BY AMENDING SECTION 59-111-110, RELATING TO WAIVED TUITION, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE CHILDREN OF CERTAIN EMERGENCY MEDICAL TECHNICIANS ALSO QUALIFY FOR CERTAIN WAIVED TUITION.
H3907, the “Honor Our First Responders Act,” expands a set of benefits and recognitions for certain first responders in South Carolina, with a particular focus on emergency medical technicians (EMTs). The bill would require individual and group health plans to continue coverage for the spouse or dependent of a covered first responder who dies in the line of duty under specified circumstances, with the insurer paying the full premium for 24 months. It also directs the Governor to order flags flown at half-mast for EMTs who die in the line of duty, adding EMTs to existing honors for firefighters and law enforcement officers.
The bill also creates a new state income tax deduction for military retirement income and first responder retirement income, and makes a conforming change to the existing retirement income deduction so the new deduction is coordinated with current tax law. In addition, it expands the definition of “qualified surviving spouse” for the property tax exemption to include surviving spouses of EMTs who die in the line of duty, and it extends tuition waivers at state-supported colleges, universities, and technical schools to children of certain EMTs who are totally disabled or killed in the line of duty. The bill takes effect upon approval by the Governor.
H3907 would amend multiple titles of the South Carolina Code, including insurance, taxation, property tax exemptions, and higher education benefits. It would add a new health insurance continuation requirement in Section 38-71-300, create a new retirement income deduction in Section 12-6-1172, revise the existing retirement income deduction in Section 12-6-1170, broaden the surviving-spouse property tax exemption in Section 12-37-220, and expand tuition waiver eligibility in Section 59-111-110. The practical effect is to extend financial and symbolic benefits to EMTs and their families, while also affecting insurers, taxpayers, local tax administrators, and state-supported institutions of higher education.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes in the provided materials, the overall sentiment appears strongly supportive and honorific. The measure is framed as a recognition and benefits package for first responders, especially EMTs, and its provisions are consistent with a pro-first-responder policy approach. There is no evidence in the provided record of organized opposition, amendments, or divided voting.
The main potential points of contention are fiscal and administrative rather than ideological. The bill would require insurers to provide 24 months of premium-paid continuation coverage in certain death-in-the-line-of-duty cases, create a new income tax deduction, and expand eligibility for property tax and tuition benefits, all of which could reduce revenue or increase costs. Another possible issue is eligibility definition: the bill limits the new tax deduction to certain public employees who qualify for the Police Officers Retirement System or would qualify if the state were the employer, and it excludes magistrates, judges, and coroners. However, no specific objections or competing viewpoints are documented in the provided committee or vote history.