Senate panel debates criminalization of sexual activity between care providers and patients; disability advocates urge changes

Senate Bill 81, the Care Provider Abuse Modifications, drew extended committee discussion and stakeholder testimony about how to balance protections for vulnerable patients with the rights of adults to engage in consensual relationships.

Sponsor Senator Plumb said the bill aims to close a statutory gap: license-based professional sanctions can address relationships involving licensed clinicians, but nonlicensed employees (for example, kitchen staff, custodial employees or health-unit coordinators) were not covered by license-disciplinary systems. "This is a situation that should not be happening, consent or not, in a care type of setting," Plumb said, and she described casework that prompted the bill.

Concern from disability advocates: Danica Baird of the Utah Coalition Against Sexual Assault and the Sexual Violence Policy Alliance voiced support while the Disability Law Center cautioned that, as written, the bill could criminalize consensual activity by people with disabilities that would not be criminal if performed by people without disabilities. "If I engage in consensual activity with the person giving me that [infusion], that person is not committing a crime. However ... if my colleague Andrew Riggle, who has a disability, did the same thing, that person would be committing a crime just by the very nature of the fact that Andrew has a disability," said Nate Krippas of the Disability Law Center.

Legal and prosecutorial stakeholders: The Statewide Association of Prosecutors (SWAP) said it had worked with the sponsor and supports the bill’s goals; Mark Moffett of the Defense Lawyers Association and other defense representatives said Senator Plumb had been receptive to changes and that further negotiation was ongoing. Dan Strong of the Sentencing Commission praised the sponsor's engagement with stakeholders.

Statutory design choices: Committee members and witnesses debated whether the conduct should be a misdemeanor or felony, and whether the bill’s language properly defines "vulnerability" and the scope of covered care settings. Sponsor Plumb and stakeholders made multiple edits during the hearing: the committee adopted a first substitute and then Amendment 1 to the substitute; the amended substitute includes a coordination clause with the criminal-code recodification (House Bill 21).

Committee action and status: The committee did not vote the bill to the floor during the hearing; members temporarily recessed ("sauntered") to secure quorum and planned further meetings with defense counsel, disability advocates, victim-services groups and other stakeholders to refine statutory language. The sponsor committed to additional negotiations and drafting before the bill advances.

Ending: The discussion highlighted competing goals: remove exploitative relationships from care settings, ensure clarity for nonlicensed staff, and avoid criminalizing consensual relationships involving adults with disabilities. The committee paused to allow continued stakeholder negotiation.