House passes bill to revive private abortion litigation trust after amendment blocks taxpayer funding

The Utah House on Feb. 12 passed House Bill 114, a measure to recreate a privately funded litigation trust intended to bankroll legal defenses related to future abortion-related legislation. Sponsor Representative Jason Thompson said the bill "sets up or reinvigorates an abortion litigation trust account" that would accept private donations and be available to the attorney general’s office to defend challenges to such laws.

Supporters framed the measure as a private mechanism for interested citizens to fund litigation rather than relying on general-tax revenue. Representative Sandstrom, who offered and secured a floor amendment, said the change "allows the trust fund to be used for any measure that challenges a woman's constitutional right to an abortion" and removed a provision that would have permitted legislative appropriations into the account, keeping it privately funded.

Opponents and questioners pressed sponsors on the practical sufficiency and governance of the trust. Representative Lisbach asked whether the amendment’s intent was "to prevent state taxpayer dollars from the legislature" being used to defend the law; the sponsor and amendment backers answered that the amendment was intended to keep the account funded by private donations only. Representative Johnson asked what would happen if litigation costs exceeded available donations; Representative Thompson said the bill includes a five-year sunset for the fund if no relevant legislation is enacted and that, in practice, the attorney general’s office would attach a fiscal note (he cited potential fiscal-note estimates of "$1,000,000 or $2,000,000") when a separate legislative bill was moved to create obligations that require significant defense funding.

The House adopted the amended bill by roll-call, 47 in favor and 16 opposed. The bill will be transmitted to the Senate for its consideration.

The bill’s floor debate included three substantive amendments adopted on the floor; questions during debate focused on funding sufficiency, the fund’s five-year provision, and whether the attorney general’s office would determine readiness for litigation. No appropriation of state funds was approved on the floor; sponsors characterized the measure as relying on private donations and fiscal-note processes if additional public funding were to be considered later.