South Carolina’s ‘Sweetheart Deals’ are Starting to Sour
June 17, 2026End the “Mean Girls” Club in Columbia
Are SC families paying the price when politics turns personal?
I
f you’ve been on social media lately, you’ve likely seen the widespread, viral frustration from South Carolinians over House majority leader Davey Hiott’s push to kill popular legislation that would have made ivermectin available over the counter (OTC) in South Carolina – a step already taken by Arkansas, Idaho, Louisiana, Texas, and Tennessee.
Full disclosure: as a trained nurse anesthetist who had a very positive personal experience with ivermectin (when taken early, it halted my severe Covid symptoms within eight hours of the first dose), I support the bill. But given recent developments, the bill itself is almost beside the point.
The real issue is THE WAY the process played out, and what it revealed about how “mean girl” lunchroom politics can operate in our State House.
IVERMECTIN STIGMATIZED
As a brief background, ivermectin received FDA approval for human use in 1987. It is an extremely safe and inexpensive broad-spectrum anti-parasitic, long used in both humans and animals. During Covid, it showed promise as an antiviral, but it was quickly politicized, became difficult to obtain even with a prescription, and was censored online. A “tin foil hat” stigma attached itself to anyone who supported it, and the medication was dismissed as “a horse worm drug.”
Many believe the stigmatization was self-interested: had ivermectin been deemed effective, the emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Covid vaccines would have been at risk, since EUA requires that no adequate treatment alternatives exist.
Ivermectin is now being studied for a range of uses, including cancer treatment, but it continues to struggle against the reputational damage it sustained during Covid. There is also evidence that it works best when taken at the very onset of viral symptoms, which is one reason OTC availability matters.
Many South Carolinians had hoped to see our state join the growing number of states making ivermectin available without a prescription. Representative Jay Kilmartin (a member of the S.C. Freedom Caucus) introduced a bill (H. 4042) to do exactly that. Despite promises it would reach the floor, the bill faced repeated delays, but in May, a month before the midterm primary elections, it finally came to a vote and passed overwhelmingly: 100 to 9 in the House, then 38 to 3 in the Senate with minor amendments.
It appeared to be smooth sailing to the governor’s desk.
Stay Connected!
PUNISHING THE FREEDOM CAUCUS
S.C. House majority leader Davey Hiott during a full ways and means committee meeting in Columbia, S.C. (File)
Then came the reversal. Shortly after the midterms, Hiott moved to recommit the bill to the agriculture committee, effectively killing it. A minority of Republicans who voted for the bill in May now joined the Democrats, flipping their votes to support Hiott – with no apparent explanation.
Was the bill’s passage before the midterms simply a political maneuver, with the kill planned all along? I don’t know. Were outside financial interests involved? I don’t know that either. Did legislators simply fall in line when leadership applied pressure, as seems to happen at the federal level too? Possibly.
What I do know is that one of the reasons the ivermectin bill was killed was to “punish the Freedom Caucus.” I know this because a legislator outside the Freedom Caucus who voted to kill the bill told me so in writing — and there is no reason this person would have shared that with me if it weren’t true.
I also know that when I posted on Facebook about my frustration with the bill’s demise, what appears to have been a bot attacked me personally. Someone is apparently paying to deploy bots to shape the narrative around this bill. Who — and why?
YOU’RE NOT ALLOWED AT THE COOL KIDS’ TABLE
Whatever your view of the Freedom Caucus and their positions, or representative Kilmartin personally, or the ivermectin bill itself, surely, we can all agree that killing legislation simply because you dislike the sponsor is not how representative government should work.
South Carolinians deserve leaders who govern in the interests of their constituents, not in service of personal vendettas.
The Palmetto State deserves nothing less.
***
ABOUT THE AUTHOR…
Diane Hardy is a former nurse anesthetist turned entrepreneur, who (along with her business partner) recently opened her second franchise bakery in Greenville. She is the Executive Director of the Mom and Pop Alliance of SC, which she founded during Covid upon discovering South Carolina’s over 400,000 small businesses had little representation in our State House. The Alliance provides education, communication, and advocacy for SC’s family-owned businesses.
Her passion for South Carolina’s small business is strong, and as such she donates her time to the organization, accepting no salary or government funding. Her love for our state isn’t new. Before launching the Mom and Pop Alliance she was the founder and host of The Palmetto Panel (2014-2019), an annual statewide conference highlighting issues impacting South Carolina. Diane has a bachelor’s degree in nursing and psychology from Michigan State as well as a master’s degree from MUSC.