Utah Bill Allowing Healthcare Refusals Narrowly Fails, Faces Revival

A controversial bill in Utah that would allow healthcare providers to refuse to offer certain treatments based on religious or moral objections has narrowly failed in committee but is expected to be reintroduced. Senate Bill 174 (SB174), sponsored by Senator Keven Stratton, R-Orem, was defeated by a 3-3 vote in the Senate Health and Human Services Committee on Wednesday, February 19, 2026. Yet, Republican leadership has indicated plans to bring the bill back for further consideration.

Bill Details and Supporters’ Arguments

SB174 aims to protect the rights of healthcare providers to decline participation in services that violate their deeply held beliefs. Supporters argue the bill doesn’t apply to emergency care and seeks to balance the rights of providers with those of patients. Proponents point to procedures like cosmetic surgery and abortion as examples of services where a provider might legitimately object.

Robin Fretwell Wilson, a law professor at the University of Illinois, testified in favor of the bill, stating it “strikes a delicate balance between protections for religious belief and conscience and the interests of patients and the public.” Wilson emphasized that the bill would allow providers to object to types of treatment, not individual patients, and would not permit discrimination against specific patient categories. Providers objecting to a treatment would be required to notify the Utah Department of Health and Human Services and post a visible sign in their office.

Concerns and Opposition

Critics of SB174 express concerns that it could lead to patient discrimination and expand the power of insurance companies to restrict coverage. Senator Jen Plumb, D-Salt Lake City, a pediatric physician, argued that existing protections for providers are sufficient and that the bill is unnecessary and potentially harmful.

Opponents likewise worry that the bill’s broad definition of “healthcare services,” including psychological therapy and counseling, could allow insurance companies to deny coverage for essential mental health care. Jessica Black, with the Utah Mental Health Counselors Association, warned that the bill could grant “moral beliefs to million-dollar insurance companies,” potentially impacting employees who rely on comprehensive coverage.

Sarah Stroup, legislative chair for the Utah Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, raised concerns about potential discrimination against patients seeking mental health services, particularly within specialized clinics like those serving the LGBTQ+ community. Plumb also voiced concerns about addiction treatment, questioning whether providers could refuse care to individuals making “poor, illegal choices.”

Legislative History and Future Outlook

Despite the initial defeat, the bill’s sponsor, Senator Keven Stratton, intends to reintroduce SB174. Senate President Stuart Adams attempted to cast the tie-breaking vote remotely but was unsuccessful. A spokesperson for Senate Republican majority leadership confirmed Adams would have voted in favor of the bill, signaling continued support from party leadership.

Federal law already protects healthcare conscience rights, prohibiting recipients of federal funds from requiring providers to participate in procedures they find religiously or morally objectionable, such as abortion and assisted suicide. However, proponents of SB174 believe state-level protections are also necessary.