Did South Carolina’s 1996 school health-education rules apply to guest speakers and teachers of other subjects?

Plain-English summary

A senator asked whether South Carolina’s Comprehensive Health Act applied only to health teachers, or also to other teachers and visitors such as staff from another public agency. The 1996 opinion said the Act appeared to apply to instruction or programs by those people when the subject matter fell within the Act.

The AG relied on the Act’s subject-based guidelines and earlier opinions addressing health instruction. He left the reach of the Act for any particular class or presentation unresolved because its content could raise factual questions outside the office’s opinion process.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1996. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Were guest speakers outside the 1996 health-education rules just because they were visitors? A: No. The opinion said the guidelines appeared to apply to visitors’ instruction when it covered a subject within the Act.

Q: Did the same reasoning cover teachers of subjects other than health? A: Yes. The AG focused on the subject presented, not solely the teacher’s assigned subject.

Q: Did the opinion decide whether every outside program counted as health instruction? A: No. It said application to a particular program depended on what was presented and could require factual findings the AG would not make.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion interpreted the Comprehensive Health Act as it stood in 1996 using its health-instruction guidelines and an earlier AG interpretation. The source text’s statute number is visibly garbled in extraction; the linked PDF is the authoritative citation.

Citations and references

Law discussed: The Comprehensive Health Act and its program-of-health-instruction provision, as reproduced in the original opinion.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/july-19-1996/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/96july19fair1.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
C H A RLES M OLONY C ONDON
ATIORN E Y G E NERA L

July 19, 1996

The Honorable Michael L. Fair
Member, South Carolina Senate
P.O. Box 14632
Greenville, SC 29610
RE:

Informal Opinion

Dear Mike:
You have requested the advice of this Off ice as to whether the Comprehensive Health Act (Act) (S.C. Code Ann. SS9-32-5, et seq. (1990) applies to instruction or programs at public schools provided by teachers of subjects other than health or by visitors such as personnel of another public agency. The Act does appear to apply these programs and the instruction when it covers a subject addressed by the Act. The " ... primary function in interpreting a statute is to ascertain the intention of the legislature." South Carolina Department of Highways and Public Transportation v. Dickinson, 288 s.c. 134, 341 s.E . 2d 134 (1986). "Where the terms of a statute are clear and unambiguous, there is no room for interpretation and we must apply them according to their literal meaning." Id. Applying these rules to this Act indicates that the Act would apply to instruction or programs by the above teachers and visitors coming within the scope of the Act. A previous Opinion of this Office concluded that the guidelines for the "program of health instruction" in
§59-32-30 applied to any comprehensive health education matters covered therein regardless of whether they were begun before or after the Act. Ops. Atty. Gen. (October 12, 1989); see also: Ops. Atty. Gen. (July 11, 1991 and May 11, 1990). Similarly, these guidelines should apply to instruction or programs offered by visitors and other teachers.

(;~"'! ·

t

r\

t'V A~

R E~lllHlT
-

*

•

"

c. DE!'i'\ IS BL'ILD l'.'iG
;--:;JI -

•

•

POST OFFICE Box 11549

•

CO L L' ~1B I A ,

s.c. 292 11 - 1549

•

TELEPHO"E: 803 -714- 1970

•

F Ar<l\111 F ' ~ n~ - , , 1_(, isn

The Honorable Michael L. Fair
July 19, 1996

Page 2
The extent to which the Act would apply to the instruction or programs would depend upon the particular matter being presented by the teacher or visitor. Whether particular programs or instruction would fall within the Act's scope might involve fact questions that would be beyond the scope of Opinions of this Office. Ops. Atty. Gen. (December 12, 1983). This letter is an informal opinion. It has been written by the designated Assistant Deputy Attorney General and represents the opinion of the undersigned attorney as to the specific questions asked. It has not, however, been personally reviewed by the Attorney General nor officially published in the manner of a formal opinion. I hope that this information is of assistance to you. If you have any questions or need further assistance, please let me know. Yours very truly,
_.::..;r.

·;~<?·~~

J. Emory. __smi t~4 Jr .

Assistant De~uty Attorney General
JESjr