Two bathroom bills, two entirely different stories.

Texas: Advances the ‘Women’s Privacy Act’

In an 86-43 vote last week, the Lone Star State’s legislators passed Senate Bill 8, otherwise known as the “Texas Women’s Privacy Act.” It has several objectives. First, it prohibits anyone from entering a restroom in a government building or public school that does not align with their biological sex. It also bans biological men who identify as transgender from entering women’s domestic violence shelters unless they’re under the age of 17 and are accompanied by a mother who is going to the shelter to receive services.

Supporters emphasized the bill’s role in safeguarding women’s safety and privacy. “The preference of someone’s sexual appearance does not override the safety and privacy of a biological female,” Rep. Angelia Orr (R) declared during the debate. However, the session took an unexpected turn as opponents, primarily Democrats, invoked Scripture to argue against the measure.

Rep. Rafael Anchia (D) cited Galatians 3:28, stating, “As a Christian, I want to refer to an important passage in Galatians Chapter 3, verse 28: ‘There is neither Jew nor Gentile … Neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one, for you are all one, for you are all one in Jesus Christ.’” He urged colleagues to oppose the bill, adding, “Some people have difficulty when you speak the word of God to them, truth to power. So, members, for public safety reasons, for business reasons, for reasons of faith and conscience, I ask that you oppose this bill.” Anchia also referenced Matthew 7 to rebuke his political opponents against “judging” others.

Republicans swiftly countered, accusing the Democrat of taking Scripture out of context. As Rep. Hillary Hickland (R) stated, “A representative quoted from Matthew 7 about judging. I would encourage that representative to keep reading because only a few verses later is a warning of false prophets, wolves in sheep’s clothing.” She further emphasized biblical support for the bill, noting, “I love to bring the example of Jesus here to this podium. He protected women. He elevated women. He honored women, and that’s what this bill does.”

Ultimately, despite the theological sparring, the bill cleared the House and now awaits final Senate approval before it can be signed into law.

South Carolina: Stalled by Judicial Intervention

While Texas is making waves, South Carolina’s legislation has been halted by an appeals court ruling.

It, too, has a bathroom bill. South Carolina’s law prohibits students from using a school bathroom that differs from their biological sex. However, on August 12, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an injunction halting the law’s enforcement. The ruling stemmed from a case involving a student, identified in court documents as John Doe, a biological female identifying as male, who sought to use the boys’ restroom.

Rather than striking down the law outright, the injunction, according to the Epoch Times, “created an exception applying only to the respondent,” requiring a Berkeley County school to allow her to use the bathroom that matches her so-called gender identity. South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson (R) decried the decision as “judicial activism at its worst,” arguing the law was designed “to protect the privacy and safety of every child in our schools.” He added, “[W]e’re fighting back. South Carolina will not stand by while ideology is put ahead of children’s safety.”

Indeed, the state has now escalated the matter to the U.S. Supreme Court, which docketed the application for the case South Carolina v. Doe on August 28. Directed to Chief Justice John Roberts, the application argues that the case involves “the unremarkable — and nearly universal — practice of separating school bathrooms based on biological sex.” As South Carolina Superintendent of Education Ellen Weaver stressed, “No activist court should force schools to abandon common sense or put ideology ahead of student well-being.”

Broader Implications

As Texas awaits Senate action and South Carolina looks to the Supreme Court, the outcomes of these bills could set significant precedents. Family Research Council’s David Closson, director of the Center for Biblical Worldview, addressed the broader implications of these cases in a comment to The Washington Stand.

First, he stated, “What’s happening in South Carolina is a reminder of how deeply ideological our courts have become. Legislatures are the proper place for setting public policy, but activist judges have often short-circuited that process by issuing rulings that substitute their ideology for the will of the people.” In this most recent case, Closson added, “the South Carolina legislature passed a commonsense law to protect the privacy and safety of children in schools, only to see it blocked by a divided appeals court. Thankfully, the Supreme Court has an opportunity to bring clarity.”

Closson hopes SCOTUS will intervene, “because the Constitution does not give judges the authority to impose a radical gender ideology on states that are simply trying to protect women and children.” As for Texas, he critiqued the misuse of biblical arguments, stating, “It’s striking to see Democratic lawmakers appeal to the Bible to argue against protecting women and children, when so many of these same leaders routinely dismiss Scripture’s authority on issues of life, marriage, and sexuality.”

Specifically challenging a Democrat’s misapplication of Scripture, Closson explained that Galatians 3:28 “speaks of our equal standing before God in salvation, not the erasure of the biological distinctions between men and women.” Similarly, he clarified that Matthew 7’s “warning against hypocritical judgment doesn’t forbid making moral distinctions, it calls us to humility and repentance.” He asserted, “These texts are being twisted. I think Democrats know Scripture still resonates with many Americans, so they try to co-opt it — but in doing so, they distort the very Word of God they claim to cite.”

Concluding his perspective on these unfolding cases, Closson offered a defense of the biblical perspective on gender and privacy. “From Genesis to Revelation,” he said, “the Bible is clear: God created humanity male and female, and that distinction is good (Gen. 1:27). Our identity is not self-determined but given to us by our Creator. The biblical vision of sex and gender is not only theologically true, it’s also practical — it protects women’s privacy and safety, and it promotes the well-being of children. Far from being arbitrary, these bathroom bills align with God’s design for human flourishing.”

In the end, he stressed, “Scripture calls us to love our neighbor, and real love means protecting women from being forced to share intimate spaces with men, no matter how they identify. Christians should be the first to insist that truth matters, that bodies matter, and that ignoring God’s created order leads to harm. These laws are simply reflecting what Scripture has affirmed all along.”