Categories:

HB 222 (rep. Paul Ray, Republican, district 13): This bill provides pain relief to unborn infants over 20 weeks who are aborted unless the woman refuses, the woman is informed that the clinic or hospital offers no such pain relief, or there is an emergency:

76-7-308.5. Administration of anesthetic or analgesic to an unborn child.
A physician who performs an abortion of an unborn child who is at least 20 weeks gestational age shall administer an anesthetic or analgesic to eliminate or alleviate organic pain to the unborn child that may be caused by the particular method of abortion to be employed, if the woman having the abortion consents to the administration of an anesthetic or analgesic to the unborn child, unless:
(1) the physician is prevented from administering the anesthetic or analgesic by a medical emergency; or
(2) prior to performing the abortion, the physician informs the woman that the physician, or the facility at which the abortion is to be performed, cannot, or does not, provide the service of administering an anesthetic or analgesic to an unborn child.
(Lines 280-290)

Unfortunately, legislators, including Paul Ray, voted last year to approve an "administrative rule," R414-1B, re-opening the floodgates of taxpayer-funded frivolous abortion in Utah.  Prior to R414-1B, citizen-driven Senate Bill 68 had forced Utah's major hospitals to cease performing all frivolous abortions in Utah (over 3,200 frivolous abortions are typically performed in Utah every year).

See our alert, "Utah Government Takes Another Stab at Unborn," and our our 2005 Legislative Performance Report to learn how taxpayer-funded frivolous abortions can be prevented.  Rather than numb our victims, let's stop killing them.  The fact that we feel it is ok to numb unborn infants who are frivolously aborted is a bigger problem!

Legislators will have another chance this session to reject or approve R414-1B.  Let's see how "pro-life" they really are.

Final Status: HB 222 passed house committee (6-1-1), the house (63-8-4), and failed senate committee (3-3-0). Typical of senate gamesmanship, this vote was not recorded, as senators do not want the public to hold them accountable.  However, you can learn much by examining the previous vote to hold the bill (3-0-3).  Even small steps forward such as these are unlikely in this murderous government.

None we were aware of.

HB 231 (rep. LaWanna Lou Shurtliff, Democrat, district 10): This bill would remove the current straight party voting option from the voting ballot.  Organizations and affiliations should not clutter the voting ballots of a solid republic.  If political parties want ad space, let them pay for it privately — and keep it out of the voting area.

Citizens who are more serious about voting will already know their candidates names, positions, and track records (if any), and will be able to vote accordingly.  Others will perhaps learn to stop relying on silly logos and meaningless "platforms", and start voting for the most ethical individual (or at least against unethical incumbents).  If a voter ends up selecting candidates who are only members of the same party, he/she should have the respect, decency, and intelligence to do so race by race.

Final Status: HB 231 went to a house committee and was sent back to the Rules Committee.  To learn more about how the Rules Committee operates, see our Issue in Focus: "Rule By Monarchy: How the House Speaker Manipulates Your Representative".  See the status page.

HB 64 (amended) (rep. Glenn Donnelson, Republican, district 7): In 2005, sen. Curt Bramble and rep. Rebecca Lockhart sponsored SB 227, which slapped the face of every legal immigrant and citizen by providing illegal aliens—criminals—with a special "driving privilege card".

Nevermind that a legislative audit had already revealed that thousands of these criminals have illegally registered to vote and thousands have likely voted in our past election.  It is likely that most of them fraudulently used an Individual Tax Identification Number (ITIN) provided by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for those who do not have a Social Security Number.

These alien criminals continue to exploit government health care and other services and are responsible for a disproportionate level of other criminal activity in Utah. This new "driver privilege card," enacted by SB 227, further legitimized this criminal behavior, empowered these criminals to remain here illegally, and only forced them to be more creative in stealing government subsidies.

HB 64 would repeal this "driving privilege card" nonsense.  From lines 12-21:

This bill:
* repeals the use of a temporary identification number (ITIN) issued by the Internal Revenue Service for purposes of obtaining a driving privilege card issued by the Driver License Division;
expires all driving privilege cards on December 31, 2006;
* increases from six to ten years the time period for which an applicant for a driver license must report a license suspension, cancellation, revocation, disqualification, or denial;
* prohibits the Driver License Division from issuing a driving privilege card; and
* makes technical changes.

Final Status: This bill was "tabled" (i.e. killed) by a house committee (6-1-4). To learn more about how House Committees operate, see our Issue in Focus: "Rule By Monarchy: How the House Speaker Manipulates Your Representative". See the vote.

Back to Categories

SB 24 (Substitute 3) (sen. Mark Madsen, Republican, district 13): This bill actually appears to do what it says in the summary (lines 12-17):

This bill:
* modifies the definition of "securely encased";
* creates residence and property exceptions to the criminal penalty provisions for carrying a concealed firearm, without having a concealed firearm permit; and
* allows for the possession of a loaded firearm, concealed firearm, and loaded and concealed firearm at a person's place of residence or on the person's real property.

To those who admit the existence of a Creator, it is nothing more than common sense to espouse the idea that man would be endowed with a right to defend him/herself from unjust influences.  SB 24 is a common sense bill, admittedly an oddity to the legislation that permeates this session — as it celebrates our Creator, our right to defend ourselves and others, and the wisdom of just citizens.

Any organization or individual whose actions are in opposition to these things must be questioned, and any government that attempts to deny us the right to celebrate these things is not legitimate, and is not the country our forefathers established. 

We initially thought that SB 24 S3, like its predecessors, also reaffirmed a citizen's right to carry a loaded weapon in his or her car.  We were mistaken.  From an alert by GoUtah! (our comments in bold brackets):

SB24-S3 does not make it legal for you to keep a loaded weapon in your car without a concealed-carry permit, as the original bill did, nor does it completely remove the existing law against having a concealed firearm in your vehicle without a permit, which the original bill also did. However, it does two main things.

First, SB24-S3 would make it legal for you to have a concealed firearm without a permit in your residence and on any real property that you own, such as a farm, business, residential lot, etc.  [See lines 159-164] Although the existing law allows you to have a loaded firearm in your home or on your property, it’s currently illegal for you to carry or store a firearm in a concealed fashion in your home or on your property, even if it’s unloaded. SB24-S3 fixes this.

Second, SB24-S3 would make it legal for you to keep a firearm in the glove compartment or center console of a car without a permit, provided that the firearm is not loaded [See lines 129-131]. Under current law, a gun in the glove box or center console is considered “concealed” and is therefore illegal unless you have a permit. SB24-S3 changes this. Thus, for example, under the new bill, you could legally have a semiautomatic handgun containing a full magazine in your car's glove box or center console without a permit, as long as there is no round in the chamber (and provided that you are not illegally in possession of the firearm). While this is not the full loaded & concealed permitless car-carry legislation contained in the original bill, it's still a significant step in the right direction and deserves everyone's full support.

Why was SB 24 gutted?  According to a letter sent from LDS registered lobbyist Bill Evans, the LDS church is... how shall we put this... unofficially not pleased, per se, with SB 24.  Since sharing their unofficial non-endorsement of semi-concern privately with senators, SB 24 has been gutted, delayed, and may not pass — even in its weakened form.

Here is the full text of their letter:

What does "around Church facilities" mean?  On the street?  On public roads in front of the church?  And why does this policy not apply unilaterally to include the armed private guards who protect prominent LDS leaders on church property?

Regardless, even if SB 24 had passed in its original form or first two substitutes, LDS officials would still have the right and power to ask and/or require people to leave if they bring firearms onto LDS property.  Their rights as property owners would not change.  Nor would it change for any property owner.  Currently, a concealed carry permit holder could drive into your parking lot with a loaded weapon.  If you are not happy with that person's presence, for ANY reason, you can ask and/or require him/her to leave.  SB 24 and its two previous substitutes only provided for other citizens to also carry loaded, concealed weapons in their own cars.

Law-abiding, respectful citizens will always comply with a property owner's sign or verbal request to keep firearms away.  Criminals won't respect property rights regardless of SB 24.  In fact, they are more likely to view church grounds as prime targets for criminal activity.

The following article contradicts the letter's claim that it is "highly unusual" for "the Church to take an official position on any bill".  In fact, this disturbing "pseudo-official" tone is par for the course in Utah politics.

To summarize, the LDS church, while claiming to support the right of individuals to defend themselves, has repeatedly backed gun control efforts.  In 2000, for example, Brigham Young University, an LDS affiliate, officially sponsored the dishonest "Safe to Learn, Safe to Worship" gun control initiative.  In 2003, LDS lobbyists actively pushed a gun control amendment through the legislature in SB 108.  In 2004, the LDS First Presidency issued a statement banning self-defense in LDS churches, and claimed that:

"Any person, including a person licensed to carry a concealed firearm, who knowingly and intentionally transports a firearm into a house of worship or who, while in possession of a firearm, enters or remains in a house of worship where firearms have been prohibited, is guilty of a crime."

In addition, LDS-owned and -operated affiliates such as KSL Channel 5 and the Deseret News, have consistently supported various attacks on fundamental freedoms, including the right to defend one's self.  It is time to hold these affiliates, and their owners and financiers, as accountable as the elected officials who likewise play political games with our freedoms.

Final Status: Even after the LDS church shenanigans, this watered-down bill was killed.  It passed senate committee (8-0-1), the senate (24-0-5), and was killed by the house.  To learn more about how House Committees operate, see our Issue in Focus: "Rule By Monarchy: How the House Speaker Manipulates Your Representative". See the votes.

HB 69 S2 (rep. Bradley Johnson, Republican, district 70): Believe it or not, in Utah, Indians may soon be able to smoke Peyote, but it is currently illegal to sell raw, unpasteurized milk in stores.  The original HB 69 began to open the door to allows consumers to have access to raw milk.  HB 69 S1 was weakened, but still was a step in the right direction.  From lines 187-214:

(2) A producer may sell raw whole milk at a self-owned, properly staffed retail store if, in addition to the requirements of Subsection (1), the producer:
(a) transports the milk from the premises where the milk is produced to the retail store in a refrigerated truck where the milk is maintained at 41 degrees Fahrenheit;
(b) transports the milk from the premises where the milk is produced to the retail store without any:
(i) intervening storage;
(ii) change of ownership; or
(iii) loss of physical control;
(c) stores the milk at 41 degrees Fahrenheit in a display case equipped with a properly calibrated thermometer at the retail store;
(d) complies with all rules enacted by the department under this section; and
(e) ensures that the retail store complies with Title 4, Chapter, 5, Utah Wholesome Food Act, and the rules governing food establishments enacted under Section 4-5-9 .
(3) (a) The department shall enact rules, as authorized by Section 4-3-2 , governing the sale of raw whole milk at a retail store.
(b) The rules enacted by the department shall include rules regarding:
(i) permits;
(ii) building and premises requirements;
(iii) sanitation and operating requirements, including bulk milk tanks requirements;
(iv) additional tests and frequency of inspections and testing;
(v) record keeping; and
(vi) packaging and labeling.
(4) (a) The department shall suspend a permit issued under Section 4-3-8 if a producer violates any provision of this section or any rules enacted under the section.
(b) The department may reissue a permit which has been suspended under Subsection (4)(a) if the producer has complied with all of the requirements of this section and rules
214 enacted under this section.

Final Status: HB 69 was substituted (and weakened) in house committee (11-3-1), and was then gutted and killed by rep. Kerry Gibson on the house floor.  Gibson proposed a third substitute that made raw milk even less obtainable.  See the vote.

Back to Categories

More Analysis Coming Soon:

HB 239 (rep. Aaron Tilton, Republican, district 65): This bill appeared to restrict corrupt courts and agencies from snatching children for having a cluttered home, etc.

Final Status: Unfortunately, it was never heard, even in house committee.  To learn more about how House Committees operate, see our Issue in Focus: "Rule By Monarchy: How the House Speaker Manipulates Your Representative".  See the status page.

Back to Categories

Back to Categories

None we were aware of.

HB 85 S1 (amended) (rep. Kerry Gibson, Republican, district 6): This bill purports to restrict physicians from providing abortions to minors without parental consent.  In typical ill-conceived fashion, it grants creative doctors the legal ability to perform frivolous abortions, grants abusers of women creative avenues to cover up their abuse, and denies parents and the unborn justice.

From the bill language:

(3) Subject to Subsection (4), at least 24 hours before a physician performs an abortion on a minor, the physician shall notify a parent or guardian of the minor that the minor intends to have an abortion.
(4) A physician is not required to comply with Subsection (3) if:
(a) subject to Subsection (5)(a):
(i) a medical condition exists that, on the basis of the physician's good faith clinical judgment, so complicates the medical condition of a pregnant minor as to necessitate the abortion of her pregnancy to avert:
(A) the minor's death; or
(B) a serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the minor; and
(ii) there is not sufficient time to give the notice required under Subsection (3) before it is necessary to terminate the minor's pregnancy in order to avert the minor's death or impairment described in Subsection (4)(a)(i);
(Lines 115-128, bold added)

The phrase "major bodily function," without any additional qualifier, is a slippery slope that courts have traditionally interpreted to mean everything, including the mental health or function of the woman.  For instance, consider a young woman who walks into a clinic and claims to be feeling suicidal or seriously depressed, and does not get along with her parents.

Under HB 86 S1, a creative, pro-abortion doctor could perform an abortion without parental notification and consent because the young woman might possibly be damaged in the time it takes to contact the parents (or be further damaged by actually contacting them!).
Note: As further evidence of the propensity of state agencies and courts to manipulate loose language such as "health," the Utah Department of Health considered SB 68 to require an "emergency rule" to re-open taxpayer funding of frivolous abortions. See our alert, "Utah Government Takes Another Stab at Unborn."

For this reason, when Accountability Utah volunteers assisted in drafting and reviewing SB 68 (enacted in 2004), they pressed with the house sponsor (rep. Morgan Philpot) for tighter verbiage:

(1) As used in this section, "damage to a major bodily function" refers only to injury or impairment of a physical nature and may not be interpreted to mean mental, psychological, or emotional harm, illness, or distress.

HB 85 abandons this language, and opens up another can of legalese worms that creative abortionists can exploit.

In addition, HB 85 continues to deny innocent parents and unborn infants a trial by a jury of their peers.  Only a jury-less hearing is held, ruled by one "judge" who literally holds life and death solely in his hands.  The decision of one arbitrary man determines whether parents lose their ability to determine whether an underage daughters should go through with a frivolous abortion.
Note: See our article on the need to reinstate jury trials in Utah.

As long as the minor appears "mature and capable of giving informed consent", the judge has unilateral power to allow the abortion, for whatever cause:

(4) If a pregnant minor fails to obtain the consent of a parent or guardian of the minor to the performance of an abortion, or if the minor chooses not to seek the consent of a parent or guardian, the minor may file a petition with the juvenile court to obtain a court order under Subsection (2)(b).
(5) (a) A hearing on a petition described in Subsection (4) shall be closed to the public.
(b) After considering the evidence presented at the hearing, the court shall order that the minor may obtain an abortion without the consent of a parent or guardian of the minor if the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that:
(i) the minor:
(A) has given her informed consent to the abortion; and
(B) is mature and capable of giving informed consent to the abortion; or
(ii) an abortion would be in the minor's best interest.
(6) The Judicial Council shall make rules that:
(a) provide for the administration of the proceedings described in this section;
(b) provide for the appeal of a court's decision under this section;
(c) ensure the confidentiality of the proceedings described in this section and the
records related to the proceedings; and
(d) establish procedures to expedite the hearing and appeal proceedings described in this section.
(Lines 180-185)

To add insult to injury, innocent parents will now have no right to participate in this hearing, or to be informed of the court's decision or of the proceedings.

In other words, even innocent parents will have no right to know what their child said to the judge, any accusations leveled against them, what pressure was applied to the child by others to have the abortion, etc.  In addition, creative abusers of women will have another avenue to sweep their abuse under the carpet — and completely under the radar screen of a minor's concerned parents. 

With the help of HB 85 S1, unprotected sex with a minor female could become the perverts' favored choice (if it isn't already).  Even adult female prostitutes know what condoms are and know how to use them.  But perverts could get a minor pregnant and then send her to a judge with a fake story as to how she became pregnant.  Without the knowledge, or participation, of parents, young females would be open to extreme manipulation and further abuse.

Rather than reinforce the responsibility our Creator bestowed upon parents to guide minors through such difficult issues, HB 85 is yet another outrageous injustice against parents, against the unborn who will be murdered frivolously, and against young women who will be manipulated.

Note: Legislators, including Kerry Gibson, voted last year to approve an "administrative rule," R414-1B, re-opening the floodgates of taxpayer-funded frivolous abortion in Utah.  Prior to R414-1B, citizen-driven Senate Bill 68 had forced Utah's major hospitals to cease performing all frivolous abortions in Utah (over 3,200 frivolous abortions are typically performed in Utah every year).

See our alert, "Utah Government Takes Another Stab at Unborn," and our our 2005 Legislative Performance Report to learn how taxpayer-funded frivolous abortions can be prevented. In addition to HB 85 S1, legislators will have yet another chance this session to reject or approve R414-1B.  Let's see how "pro-life" they really are.

Status: HB 85 passed a house committee (7-1-0), house (65-8-2), passed senate committee (5-0-4), and awaits a vote on the senate floor. For more information on the continued betrayal of the Utah legislators against the unborn, see our alert, and note that the "administrative rule" was also considered an "emergency."

See HB 61 under the Keep & Bear Arms (Self-Defense) section.

Back to Categories

SB 96 S2 (sen. Chris Buttars, Republican, district 10): This bill:

This bill amends the chapter relating to Curriculum in the Public Schools to require the State Board of Education to establish certain curriculum requirements and policies relating to instruction on the origins of life.
(Lines 11-13)

Um.  Has anyone bothered to ask why the State Board of Education has control over curriculum at the local level in the first place?  Why do organizations like the Utah Eagle Forum and Sutherland Institute promote bigger, more centralized government?

In their exuberance to defend some of their beliefs, how quickly they abandon their conviction in "local control".  Rather than destroy the Beast of Big Government, they would rather saddle and ride it to enforce their own vision of Utopia.

Limited government doesn't work that way.  Either render childhood curriculum to Caesar to  — at the point of a sword — arbitrarily decide what children will learn depending on the political winds of the day, or you fight to remove Caesar from the equation entirely.  As the saying goes: "Choose ye this day whom ye will serve"...

Status: SB 96 passed senate committee (4-2-1), the senate floor (16-12-1), and awaits house committee.

HB 28 (amended) (rep. Douglass "Adolf" Aagard, Republican, district 15): This bill is part of a comprehensive effort to destroy the ability of the general public to access government records via . From lines 108-115:

(8) (a) [A] In response to a request, a governmental entity is not required to:
(i) create a record [in response to a request.];
(ii) compile, format, manipulate, package, summarize, or tailor information;
(iii) provide a record in a particular format, medium, or program; or
(iv) fulfill a person's records request if:
(A) the request unreasonably duplicates prior records requests from that person; or
(B) the information requested is included in a public publication or product produced by a governmental entity.

What do the terms compile, format, manipulate, summarize, or tailor mean?  If one has to attach a document to an email message, is that manipulating that information?  If the information at the county clerk's office is only in some obscure government format, will they be required to put it into plain text format?  Apparently not, according to HB 28.

Status: HB 28 (amended) passed house committee (7-3-1), and awaits a vote on the house floor.

HB 94 S2 (rep. Patrice Arent, Democrat, district 40): This bill claims, as its title, to "Ban on Gifts to Elected Officials."  And so it would seem from lines 169-170 of the bill:

A lobbyist, principal, or government officer may not offer or give a gift valued at more than $5 to any public official or member of the public official's immediate family.

However, look at some of the exceptions to the definition of "gifts":

(b) "Gift" does not mean:... a gift or gifts from one member of the Legislature to another member of the Legislature;... the cost of admission, attendance, or participation, and of food and beverages consumed, at a public policy activity to which all members of the Legislature or all members of a legislative committee, a legislative subcommittee, or a task force are invited
(Lines 125, 141-142, 153-155)

This is no ban on gifts, but a rearrangement of deck chairs on the sinking ship of government indecency and corruption.  Legislators already frequent so-called national "conventions", where they feast upon lavish, lobbyist-paid perks and activities such as sight-seeing adventures, golf tournaments, gambling, etc.  Under HB 94, there are few limits as to what they can receive at these "conventions."

Status: HB 94 passed house committee (10-0-1), the house (64-6-5), and awaits action in the senate.

HB 101 S3 (rep. Jeff "Gigolo" Alexander, Republican, district 62):  Currently, officials do not have to report the financial "perks" (i.e. bribes) received by lobbyists if the amount received in a given year does not exceed $50 per contributor.  The original HB 101 required that certain "perks" (bribes) over $5 be reported.

The merits of this approach is debatable.  On the one hand, at least the public knows when "perks" (bribes) are exchanged.  On the other hand, why are we legitimizing "perks" (bribes) by codifying them at all?  If a legislator can't pay for his own Jazz ticket or lunch, he/she would be better off not being there than accepting cigars and food from someone attempting to garner his/her vote.

This latest substitute also seems to have a bunch of other heavy-handed nonsense in it, such as third degree felony charges for filing false information.  The real solution is to ban "perks" (bribes) to elected officials, not codify the passing of bribes.

Alexander is a comedic one to run this bill, as he is one of the biggest political prostitutes on the hill.   Alexander recently wrote a letter to other legislators, asking them to participate in bizarre "Speed Dating" rituals with lobbyists.  See his Flounders Quote for more information.

SB 102 (sen. Greg Bell, Republican, district 22): Currently, officials do not have to report the financial perks (often bordering on bribes) received by lobbyists if the amount received in a given year does not exceed $50 per contributor.  SB 102 reduces this to $10.  See HB 101 S3 above for our arguments against this approach.

Status: SB 102 failed senate committee (1-5-2).

See also HB 19 S1 under Bad Bills/Privacy.

None we were aware of.

Back to Categories

None we were aware of.