Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Family Law topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate debates surrogacy cleanup after Utah Supreme Court ruling; substitute rejected, underlying cleanup passes
Summary
Senators debated House Bill 234, a statutory cleanup after a unanimous Utah Supreme Court decision striking part of the gestational agreements statute. Sponsors argued the bill removes the unconstitutional subsection; floor debate included concerns about preserving safeguards and whether additional restrictions were needed. The amended/underlying bill advanced toward third reading.
Lawmakers debated a technical statutory cleanup to Utah’s surrogacy law after the state Supreme Court found one subsection unconstitutional and severable.
Senator Weiler (floor sponsor) said House Bill 234 deletes the subsection the court found unconstitutional so the remaining statute aligns with the Court’s ruling and legislative intent. "What's House Bill 234 does is it deletes the section of the code that the Utah Supreme Court unanimously found to be unconstitutional and unanimously found to be severable from the rest of the statute," he said, framing the bill as a statutory housekeeping measure to provide clear guidance in the Utah Code following the decision.
Senator Hilliard reviewed the law’s history and cautioned that the original 2008 statute had tight restrictions focused on parentage and child-support clarity. Hilliard said he supported limiting potential misuse but acknowledged the Court’s severability finding. Several senators debated a proposed substitute that would add additional restrictions (including evidentiary proof of infertility for intended mothers); Senator Wyler opposed that substitute, arguing it would create unequal treatment and impose burdens on women seeking surrogacy. Wyler said making intended mothers prove infertility "is an undue burden."
After debate, the Senate rejected a motion to adopt a more restrictive substitute (division results noted), returned to the underlying first substitute and proceeded. Sponsors emphasized they were striking only the lines the Court identified as unconstitutional, leaving intact statutory protections that remain valid. The bill moved forward in the legislative process and was set for further readings.
The floor exchange highlighted both the legal necessity of conforming statutory text to the court’s ruling and continuing policy disagreement about how prescriptive the legislature should be in regulating surrogacy contracts.
