House approves fund to accept private donations for abortion litigation costs after contentious debate

House Bill 2-57, authorizing the creation of an Abortion Litigation Trust Fund to accept private donations to offset state legal defense costs related to abortion legislation, passed the Utah House after hours of floor debate. Representative Evan L. Olson, the bill’s sponsor, said the measure contains three parts: revisions to the bill’s preamble to reflect the adopted tier of abortion policy, creation of a restricted account to accept donations for litigation costs, and a fallback provision addressing constitutional outcomes.

“This will create a reserve account for the state,” Olson said, describing a restricted fund intended to offset state expenditures on defense of the abortion law and noting an initial appropriation of $100,000 to begin. Olson told the House the account would accept donations from inside and outside Utah and that excess funds after litigation would revert to the general fund to cover original appropriations.

The measure drew vigorous floor amendments and comment. Representative Jones proposed an amendment to make private donations “the sole source of funding for such costs, expenses and fees.” Jones argued that if private supporters were confident they would raise money, the state should not shoulder litigation costs. The amendment failed on a recorded voice vote.

Representative Rose proposed allocating any remaining funds after litigation to the Department of Human Services “for growing caseloads,” saying the amendment would put money toward children the House members said the state was protecting. Olson opposed the change as unfriendly, saying the bill’s existing language and counsel’s advice governed how leftover funds would be handled; he stressed that the attorney general is constitutionally required to defend state laws.

Other members questioned precedent and potential fiscal exposure. Representative Wharton warned the House against creating a mechanism that could encourage private funding to cover legal costs when constitutionality is uncertain; he called it a “dangerous precedent” if every controversial measure had an associated trust fund to defray litigation costs. Representative Stevens countered that similar trust funds exist for other state purposes and that private funding could legitimately help cover expected litigation expenses.

On procedure, members sought and received counsel’s guidance during debate about the constitutional obligations of the attorney general and whether private funds could legally become the exclusive source for defense costs.

When voting concluded, House Bill 2-57 passed the House by recorded vote: 58 ayes, 16 noes. The bill will be transmitted to the Senate for further consideration.

What happens next: the measure goes to the Utah Senate. Floor debate left several questions unresolved on fundraising commitments and long-term disposition of any surplus funds; sponsors said counsel and the bill’s language – including the provision that reverts unused donations to the General Fund after litigation expenses are satisfied – control handling of excess donations.