Senate advances bill limiting municipal registries but places intent to preserve hospital visitation

The Utah Senate passed First Substitute Senate Bill 299 on a 21–7 roll-call after an extended floor debate that centered on whether the measure would interfere with local registries and hospital-visitation policies.

Senator Bell, sponsor of the bill, said the legislation is “a 30,000 foot type policy decision” designed to be permissive, not prescriptive: the bill allows municipalities to create a registry that could confer certain rights or benefits between financially dependent or interdependent adults but also contains a prohibition against creating registries that confer marriage-like status. Bell moved intent language into the Senate record stating that enactment “not disturb any hospital visitation rights provided by a municipal registry,” and the Senate adopted that language unanimously.

Opponents repeatedly raised constitutional concerns. Senator McCoy argued against removing explicit hospital-visitation language from the bill and described a personal example of a partner denied access to an ICU patient to underline why clear hospital-visitation protections matter. “By leaving hospital visitation in and tied to a registry … that gives the hospital the ability to say, you know what, okay, you are a partner and we’re going to let you in despite the fact that the mother is saying no,” McCoy said. Several other senators, including Romero, said leaving explicit code language would reduce later confusion about residents’ rights.

Sponsor Bell and backers countered that the bill is not aimed at any particular city and that the Legislature must exercise its authority over domestic-relations-related state action. Bell said the measure does not remove hospitals’ ability to provide visitation where appropriate and that the bill’s drafting intentionally left such matters broadly framed so municipalities could adapt local solutions.

After floor debate, the Senate adopted Amendment 4 (which restored the bill to its prior condition before recent amendments) by voice vote, accepted the sponsor’s intent language for the record and then approved the first-substitute bill under suspension of the rules. The journal recorded 21 yes votes, 7 no votes and 1 absent as the body referred the bill to the House for further action.

The next procedural steps recorded on the floor were the formal referral of the bill to the House and the placement of the sponsor’s intent language in the Senate record; no changed statutory text beyond the amendment language was adopted on the floor during this session.

What happens next: The bill will go to the House for its consideration; the Senate’s recorded intent language is now part of the legislative record and is intended to guide implementation and interpretation by municipalities and hospitals.