COMES TO A CLOSE

House Bill 228 was drafted by North Logan Republican Rep. Mike Petersen. It would ban such practices as electroshock and vomit-inducing therapies but would allow “talk therapy.”

“Imagine a 13-year-old girl. She’s experiencing body changes. She’s got all kinds of social pressures. She’s feeling confused and unsure about her gender. She wants to have an open and honest conversation, but she can’t because her therapist knows that by rule, they’re prohibited from doing anything but affirming the young girl’s idea she may be a boy,” Petersen testified.

Petersen said that the 2020 administrative rule governing conversion therapy was so restrictive it was hindering mental health professionals.

“Under the current rule, we’ve been talking with many counselors who have either restricted their practice or they no longer want to deal with minor patients. Here we are at a time in our state’s history where we are concerned about the problems kids are going through and this is the time we need to make sure that they feel free to talk,” Petersen added.

Equality Utah leaders saw the bill as opening the door to reintroducing conversion therapy. They began negotiating with Petersen and came to a compromise. The group endorsed Petersen’s substitute bill and thanked him for being willing to find a compromise.

“We’ve had important dialogue and have shared our concerns openly,” the organization said in a statement. “The 2nd sub continues to prohibit the very dangerous practice of conversion therapy for minors while providing greater clarification for Utah therapists, and accordingly, we support the advancement of HB228 as amended.”

The updated legislation focused solely on minors and allowed mental health professionals to provide care in a “neutral” way to assist a client seeking information about sexual orientation or gender identity.

The bill went on to pass unanimously in both houses and was signed by the governor.

Utah state senator pulls bill to eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion offices in public universities

Utah Republican Sen. John Johnson of North Ogden shelved his controversial bill proposing the elimination of diversity, equity, and inclusion offices and leadership positions at public universities in Utah, saying it was “way too harsh.” Johnson, a staunch conservative who opposes discussions of racism in classrooms, drafted SB283, which many see as the latest in a series of bills targeting diversity in the state.

The Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee voted to move the bill to an interim study item. The decision was met with quiet claps and a few cheers from those in attendance who had come to oppose the measure.

Rep. Michael J. Petersen, R. North Logan, was the House sponsor of the bill.

The only Black state lawmaker in Utah, Rep. Sandra Hollins, D-Salt Lake City, made an impassioned speech against an earlier bill to restrict schools from asking an applicant anything about their work to further inclusion. She questioned the motivations behind the bill and the reasons why her colleagues were introducing it, saying, “I don’t know what we’re doing anymore … I don’t know what the fear is.”

Despite her impassioned plea, the House voted to pass HB451 on party lines and the bill was forwarded to the Senate.

The following day, members of the

Senate Government Operations and Political Subdivisions Committee killed the bill 1–4, with only Johnson supporting it.

Johnson, while supporting the decision to pull SB283 for the current session, maintained that he stood behind his original motivation for drafting it, stating that many stakeholders had expressed concerns about diversity, equity, and inclusion offices within public universities potentially prioritizing political or social ideologies over academic rigor and intellectual diversity. Johnson, who is also a professor at Utah State University, did not mention his position at the university during the hearing.

The senator stated that his bill aimed to safeguard institutions of higher education from DEI bureaucracies to help them maintain academic freedom. He also noted that roughly $11 million is spent on these programs at Utah colleges and universities every year and called for more accountability for that funding. Johnson is now pushing for a study on what the programs do and who they help.

He also acknowledged that he did not believe he had given all stakeholders a fair chance to weigh in and hoped to do so in the interim, stating that his proposal was meant to “bring people to the table and start honest conversations.” Johnson further added that he felt the original bill was “way too harsh” and that it was not his intention to eliminate Black history or any other protections for students. Instead, he believed that there needed to be a robust discussion on the issue.

The Utah Black Roundtable issued a statement opposing the original draft of the bill, stating that it would lead to people being “oppressed and discriminated” against. The group also questioned what had happened to the promises made by state leaders, including the governor, when they signed the Utah Compact on Racial Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion in 2020, where they acknowledged racism and vowed to fight disparities. Utah Tech Leads, which represents the growing tech industry in the state, also opposed the bill, stating that it would hurt the ability of tech businesses to bring in new and diverse staff.

There was little discussion from the legislative committee on the bill after it was amended into a study item. Sen. Luz Escamilla, a Latino Democrat representing Salt Lake City, thanked Johnson for making the changes and sparing her from “reading a five-minute speech” opposing the bill.

Senate and House Democrats earlier in the day released a statement supporting diversity, equity, and inclusion in the state and asked that any bill that was past that limited the ideals be brought up for reconsideration.

Bill in response to St. George drag shows not heard before end of Utah legislative session

A bill that would require cities and other subdivisions of the state to provide public notice that an event in a public space might have adult content failed only because the Utah Senate didn’t find time to pass it on the final day of the Utah 2023 Legislative Session.

HB 329 was sponsored by Rep. Colin Jack, R-St. George, who told St. George News that it was drafted in response to the public uproar that occurred last summer in St. George over the HBO “We’re Here” drag show.

“This bill is about protecting children and empowering parents,” Jack said in his testimony no less than a dozen times. “Parents have told me they feel disenfranchised in our public spaces.”

No public comments mentioned drag, even when Rep. Sahara Hayes, D-Millcreek, tried on the House floor to get Jack to give examples of what the bill is intended to cover.

The bill passed the House in a party-line 55-14 vote. It also passed the Senate Government Operations and Political Subdivisions Committee hearing and moved to the full Senate.

Jack said the bill purposely left out strict definitions of what adult themes may imply, leaving it to public entities approving an event permit to make that determination.

Groups and individuals spoke in favor of the bill on Monday, including the Utah Eagle Forum, Utah Parents United, and the Washington County Republican Women. Leeds Mayor Bill Hoster and St. George City Councilwoman Michelle

Tanner also lent their voices in support of HB 329. Tanner likened the bill to existing state law that requires coverings to be put over provocative magazine covers found in supermarket checkout lines.

“It’s a very simple bill,” said Tanner. “We know it is harmful to children when they are exposed to certain adult behaviors and adult content. … We really, really need to put children first.”

However, the bill faced opposition from Equality Utah, the American Liberties Union of Utah, and others arguing that it doesn’t protect children as much as it violates the First Amendment and invites litigation.

“This bill is not constitutional,” attorney David Reymann said during a Senate Committee hearing. “It is a content-based restriction on free speech. … It is hopelessly and unconstitutionally vague. … It’s not a well-thought-out bill and is an invitation to litigation.”

Lyla Mahmoud of ACLU Utah said the bill might result in people feeling their free speech is being suspended due to not being able to hold a public event out of the worry it may be labeled as inappropriate. This, too, may lead to litigation, she said.

“In this bill, we’re not attempting to redefine any of that, and we’re not attempting to prohibit any kind of free speech,” Jack said during the hearing. “We’ve said that in the application, if the local standard deems that (the event) is legal, but maybe not good for minors, then it should have a notice so that parents will know whether or not to bring their kids to those events.”

The bill includes language meant to protect public staff who do the permitting, but parties that commented against the bill remained skeptical.

“It’s challenging for a city council to try and regulate this,” said Brian Allen, a member of the Cottonwood Heights City Council. “It’s fraught with all sorts of liability issues. You’re putting city councils in an awkward position.”

Jack told St. George News the bill “was on the right side of the First Amendment” and that “litigation is the threat people use for legislation people don’t like.”

In the final hours of the Legislative Session, the bill remained on the board, meaning it was not passed into law.

‘Don’t Say Gay’ bill introduced in Utah Legislature

Seven days before the end of the Legislative session, a bill similar to Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” law was introduced by Rep. Jeffrey D. Stenquist, R-Draper.

The bill bans “classroom instruction or classroom discussion” on “sexuality, including sexual orientation or gender identity” in kindergarten through third grade.

The short bill reads: Each LEA and each school shall ensure that classroom instruction or classroom discussion that an educator or other adult leads on sexuality, including sexual orientation or gender identity, as those terms are defined in Section 34A-5-102, does not occur:

(1) in kindergarten through grade 3; or

(2) in a manner that is not age or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.

Florida’s law reads, Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.”

Similar bills have been introduced to state legislatures across the country.

U.S. President Joe Biden called Forida’s law “hateful.” “I want every member of the LGBTQI+ community — especially the kids who will be impacted by this hateful bill — to know that you are loved and accepted just as you are. I have your back, and my Administration will continue to fight for the protections and safety you deserve,” Biden said in a tweet.

Since Florida passed the law, teachers have expressed confusion and frustration with the ban, and school libraries have been swept of all books for fear of being sued for discrimination be only removing LGBTQ-related books.

Stenquist rejected the characterization of his bill as a “don’t say gay” bill.

“What it really is, is about just saying, let’s have age-appropriate discussions in the classroom. These discussions are sensitive, and really, parents need to be aware and understand what’s being discussed around these topics with their children,” Stenquist told the Deseret News, saying he drafted the bill for a constituent who complained their child’s teacher “was introducing a few topics of discussion in the classroom that she felt were a little inappropriate.”

“So I looked into it to see, ‘What do we have as far as guidelines for teachers and schools that can put some parameters around that?’ and really found that we don’t have anything around classroom discussions and instruction,” Stenquist told the Deseret News. “And so I was happy to open the bill and say, ‘Let’s have this conversation about what might be appropriate.’”

Though the wording is nearly word-for-word as the Florida law, Stenquist says he wasn’t trying to model it after it.

“Equality Utah is very dismayed to see a ‘Don’t Say Gay’ bill introduced in Utah, especially when the Utah Leg- islature enacted legislation repealing similar language from Utah code in 2017,” Equality Utah said in a statement. “This bill is damaging and stigmatizing to LGBTQ children and their families, and we will oppose it vigorously.”

Equality Utah leaders also said this is a bill that is going down the same path as other bills that the legislature has shied from.

Monday, Feb. 27, is the last day a bill can be first heard by a legislative committee, meaning the bill is unlikely to make it to the floor of either chamber unless it is pushed through by leadership or considered under suspension of the rules. Similar controversial bills have done so successfully in other legislative years.

Other LGBTQ-Related Bills

SB154 ADOPTION AMENDMENTS addressed a U.S> Su- preme Court decision that allowed religion-based adoption agencies to deny services to same-sex couples. This bill created an adoption consortium that allowed agencies to pass couples to another consortium member if they were unable to handle their adoption.

HB209 EXTRACURICULAR ACTIVITIES wasn’t meant to address transgender participation in sports, but it was amended to include a provision that schools must collect and review birth certificates for participating student athletes.

SB100 SCHOOL GENDER POLICIES would have required school administrators to notify a parent if they wanted to be addressed by a name different than their birth certificate. It now only addresses students who want an official name change on school records. Q