House passes Parentage Act after debate and amendments, allowing limited, court‑approved surrogacy agreements

The Utah House voted to pass Senate Bill 14, the Parentage Act, sending the measure to the Senate after a 38‑to‑31 recorded vote. The bill, introduced on the floor by Representative Felt, recodifies paternity law, addresses assisted‑reproduction donors, and—most contentiously—permits court‑approved surrogacy agreements under limited circumstances.

Supporters said the legislation fills a legal gap exposed by recent court cases and provides a judicial process for approving surrogacy contracts. Representative Felt, the floor sponsor, said the bill clarifies when paternity tests are available, establishes that a donor in assisted reproduction is not a parent, and requires that parties seeking a surrogacy contract obtain court approval and counseling before the contract may be enforced.

Opponents raised social and ethical concerns during extended floor debate. Representative Dayton said she was concerned the law could ‘legalize renting wombs,’ urging caution before formalizing arrangements that could alter family structures. Representative Hutchings moved a floor amendment requiring that at least one intended parent provide genetic material; he said the amendment was intended to “clear that loophole” and “avoid retail shopping for a child.” That amendment and parts of Representative Lawrence’s amendment (which impose adult‑only requirements and limit donor use) were adopted; another portion of Lawrence’s amendment failed after a divided vote.

Under the provisions adopted on the House floor, surrogacy contracts must meet statutory prerequisites before a court will approve them: intended parents (in certain provisions) must be married; parties must attend counseling and provide certification to the court; the surrogate must meet medical and prior‑birth criteria; and courts will review proposed compensation and related expenses. Representative Lawrence said the reporting requirement for compensation is intended to give oversight and prevent commercialized practices; opponents argued such reporting could overburden private arrangements.

The final tally on the bill was 38 yes and 31 no; the House clerk announced the measure will be referred to the Senate for further consideration.

The House debate featured extended exchanges among members about the balance between providing a legal option for infertile couples and guarding against unintended commercialization or social harms. Sponsor statements emphasized judicial oversight and counseling as safety mechanisms. The bill's next formal step is the Senate’s consideration of the House‑passed and floor‑amended version.