Committee rejects $1M crisis pregnancy center grant and related amendments after contested hearing

Senator Ben Adams presented Senate Bill 10‑77 as a two‑part measure: a grant program for crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) and clarifying language about informed‑consent materials in the state’s Defense of Life Act. He said the program would be administered by the Department of Health and Welfare, that awards would be determined proportionate to clients served and that a center without a full prior year could receive a $25,000 minimum award. The sponsor identified a $1,000,000 appropriation for the program and described printing and licensing costs for state‑supplied informed‑consent booklets.

Supporters — including leaders of local pregnancy centers — described rising demand since the national changes in abortion law and asked for state help to reach clients. Joyce Day, executive director of Compassion and Hope Pregnancy Center in Pocatello, said the grant would allow small centers to expand outreach and staffing.

Opponents said the bill would funnel taxpayer dollars to unregulated, often faith‑based entities. Dr. Martha Lund, a retired OB‑GYN testifying for AAUW, told the committee that many CPCs are staffed by nonmedical volunteers, are not covered entities under HIPAA, and have been documented to use misleading practices that can delay medically appropriate care. William Mitchell of Legal Voice highlighted the fiscal note and argued that CPCs’ religious affiliations and lack of medical licensing raise constitutional and consumer‑protection concerns.

Planned Parenthood’s representative warned that the informed‑consent change would create an additional 24‑hour barrier for survivors of sexual assault seeking the narrow statutory exemption and urged the committee to reject the bill. Sponsor Adams replied that the grant structure mirrors other Department of Health and Welfare grant programs, that oversight would be provided by the department, and that taking grant money would be voluntary for centers.

After hours of testimony and debate over oversight, fiscal effects and constitutional questions, a motion to send SB 10‑77 to the floor with a 'do pass' recommendation failed on a 4–5 committee vote. Several senators expressed concern about creating a new $1,000,000 recurring appropriation without more robust accountability requirements and noted that some centers had not asked for state funds.

What’s next: Because the committee did not approve a do‑pass recommendation, SB 10‑77 will not proceed to the Senate floor on a favorable committee recommendation at this time; sponsors may choose to rework the bill, add oversight language, or seek a different procedural path.