Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Abortion Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House debate amends but does not finalize bill to bar public funding for abortions
Summary
After uncircling first substitute Senate Bill 68, the House debated a measure to prohibit direct and indirect public funding for abortions, considered multiple amendments (including removal of 'indirect' and narrowing rape exceptions) and adopted a health/caesarean exception; the bill remained pending when the House adjourned.
The Utah House of Representatives reopened first substitute Senate Bill 68 on the floor and undertook extended debate over whether public funds should be used to pay for abortion services. Representative Philpott, the bill sponsor, said the measure "eliminates public funding, whether it be direct or indirect" for abortion services and described it as intended to ensure state money does not "subsidize a practice that we in law have stated we do not want to fund."
Supporters framed the bill as a safeguard of public dollars. Representative Philpott told colleagues the measure should be interpreted broadly so the state could withdraw funds where they are being used, in whole or in part, to support abortions outside the bill’s specified exceptions.
Opponents and questioners said key terms in the bill were too vague. Representative Buffmeier said she had "grave concern that indirect is not defined in any way," warning that the term could reach contractors or providers whose private activity is not paid from public funds. Representative Litvak moved an amendment to delete the words that would allow penalties for "indirect" use of public funds; that motion failed on the floor. Another amendment to remove the phrase "or fear of retaliation" from a rape-related exception also failed after floor debate.
Lawmakers approved a substitute amendment that added a health-based carveout. Under the amendment, funding prohibitions would not apply "provided that a caesarean procedure or other medical procedure that could also save the life of the child is not a viable option," language the sponsor described as intended to preserve life-saving medical care for the pregnant woman or fetus.
Members also raised enforcement and constitutional concerns. Representatives pressed whether the attorney general or the Department of Health would have primary enforcement authority and whether broad language could expose the state to legal challenges that might jeopardize Medicaid funding. Representative Philpott said he expected enforcement to follow ordinary executive enforcement and judicial interpretation.
The House invoked the previous-question rule to cut off further debate and discussed next steps for the bill, but the session adjourned before a final passage vote on the amended bill was recorded. The measure therefore remained pending at adjournment; proponents indicated they would seek further floor action or negotiation with the Senate when the House reconvenes.
