Multiple bills in this year’s legislative session affect transgender individuals in Utah. Some include HB 174, which relates to gender-affirming care; HB 193, gender-affirming care and the use of public funds; HB 258, which would require insurers to cover detransition procedures; HB 183, which would replace the word “gender” with “sex” throughout state law, ban gender marker changes on birth certificates and limit transgender Utahn’s access to certain jobs; and HB 95, which would protect public employees from consequences if they refuse to recognize someone’s gender identity.
Here’s what transgender Utahns can expect if the bills pass.
Sex characteristic change treatment
HB 174, titled “Sex Characteristic Change Treatment Amendments” and sponsored by Rep. Rex Shipp, R-Cedar City, would turn the 2023 moratorium on hormone treatment for transgender minors into a permanent ban. It would require doctors to taper existing patients under the age of 18 off their hormone treatments by Jan. 28, 2027.
Sen. Todd Weiler, R-Woods Cross, discussed the bill in a floor debate on Feb. 23. “I think everyone in our society, including our transgender youth constituents, deserves to be treated with love and respect. I understand this bill’s not necessarily what they want, but I do think that … the bill shows some respect for parental rights and some respect for medical decisions,” he said.
Transgender medical procedures
HB 193, also known as “Transgender Medical Procedures Amendments,” would prohibit the use of public funds — including Medicaid and state employee insurance — for gender-affirming procedures or hormone treatment for minors or adults. Rep. Nicholeen P. Peck, R-Tooele, sponsors the bill.
University of Utah political science professor Matthew Burbank explained how the details of the bill. “As a legislature, one of the things they do is they budget money and they spend public money. So, one way to sort of say ‘here are the things we like, here are the things we don’t like’ is saying, ‘well, we’re not going to spend public money in this way,'” he said. “It’s hard to know how much impact that has, because as far as I’m aware, I haven’t seen any kind of dollar accounting that says ‘here’s how much money we’re talking about.'”
Insurance coverage
HB 258, “Insurance Coverage Amendments,” details access to detransition care. Also sponsored by Rep. Peck, this bill would require private insurers that cover gender-affirming care to also provide coverage for detransition procedures. “This bill basically just says that publicly funded insurance cannot pay for transition procedures,” she said during a floor debate. “And it also says that if a publicly funded insurance already did pay for a transitional procedure for somebody, then it would also have to pay for a detransition procedure for that person if they wanted it.”
During the same debate, Rep. Raymond P. Ward, R-Bountiful, said that the insurance would “not cover the surgical procedures,” but would still cover hormonal treatments. “The extra cost that comes from covering these treatments comes exclusively from the surgical procedures that are covered,” he said. “So what is in the substitute really is to still keep the surgical portion in where this exact same policy would be in place. Plans that were governmental in nature would never have this extra higher cost.”
Sex designation
Rep. Trevor Lee, R-Layton, sponsors HB 183, also known as the “Sex Designation Amendments.” The bill seeks to replace the word “gender” with “sex” throughout state law, which could potentially strip gender identity protections from housing and employment statutes, ban gender marker changes on birth certificates, prohibit transgender individuals from working in positions that would expose them to children, such as teaching or counseling and require courts in custody cases to favor a parent who does not support a child’s transgender identity.
In a floor debate on Feb. 26, pediatrician David Becker said that the bill will “eliminate future confusion” about the definition of the term “gender.” “The idea of a gender identity distinct from biological sex is not a discovery of science, but a theoretical conjecture of gender theory, which escaped … academia and went into all of culture and only given legitimacy through years of sustained political activism.”
“Because of this, it is not rational or acceptable to include the word gender in the Utah Code, except wherein the Legislature intends it only to mean biological sex,” he added. “And any use of the word ‘gender,’ other than as a synonym for biological sex, is an affront to biological reality, a rejection of science itself, and an unsound public policy.”
Public employee gender-specific language requirements
Rep. Peck also sponsors HB 95, or “Public Employee Gender-specific Language Requirements.” The bill would protect public employees, including teachers, from facing backlash or consequences if they refuse to recognize an individual’s gender identity. “This strikes me as legislation that may really be intended to sort of send a signal, much more than it is legislation that really is addressing any kind of serious problem,” Burbank said.
“I don’t think there are very many examples that I can think of where this has become an issue, beyond obviously, for some individuals, in some interactions with government, this may have been an issue. But whether that’s a broader issue, and certainly whether it’s an issue that in any way threatens public employees, is not so clear,” Burbank said. “I can’t think of any examples of public employees, for example, being fired or demoted or anything else.”
What comes next
So far, none of these bills have reached Gov. Spencer Cox’s desk.
HB 174 is on the House Concurrence Calendar; HB 183 is on the House Third Reading Calendar; HB 258 is circled on the Senate Third Reading Calendar; HB 95 is in the House Government Operations Committee; and HB 193 failed a motion to recommend.
