1. United States
2. Utah
3. Letter

I am writing to thank you for your opposition to SB174, which narrowly failed in the Senate Health and Human Services Committee on February 18, 2026, with a 3-3 vote. Your vote against this bill protected patients from potential discrimination and preserved access to essential health care services. However, I understand the bill has been placed back on the committee's agenda for Thursday afternoon, and Senate President Stuart Adams has indicated he would have voted yes had he not been too late to cast a tie-breaking vote remotely. I urge you to maintain your opposition when SB174 returns for another vote. While supporters claim the bill strikes a balance between provider conscience rights and patient access, the reality is that federal law already protects health care conscience rights. As Sen. Jen Plumb noted, adequate protections for providers already exist within medical practice. What SB174 actually does is create dangerous new pathways for discrimination and insurance company overreach. Jessica Black from the Utah Mental Health Counselors Association testified that the bill grants moral beliefs to million-dollar insurance companies, allowing them to deny payment for basic medical care like psychological therapy or diagnostic testing. Sarah Stroup from the Utah Association for Marriage and Family Therapy warned that insurance companies could change bylaws to deny mental health care based on their moral mission statements, leaving employees entrapped without coverage. The bill's broad definition of health care services, including psychological therapy, counseling, and diagnosis, could create barriers to life-saving mental health care. Despite language about objecting to treatment types rather than patient categories, critics have raised legitimate concerns about discrimination against LGBTQ patients seeking affirming care and individuals seeking addiction treatment. I ask that you vote no on SB174 when it returns to committee on Thursday. Patients deserve access to care without unnecessary barriers created by corporate interests disguised as conscience protections.