Can Utah medical professionals be required to participate in medical procedures that conflict with their beliefs? If a bill before the Legislature is passed this week, those who object to participating based on their conscience or religious beliefs would be accommodated in most circumstances. This would not only protect Utah’s health care workers in the short term but also ensure that changes in federal law enforcement do not leave them vulnerable in the future.
Utah law already appropriately ensures that health care professionals cannot be forced to participate in abortions. Though that is a key protection, there is no reason that good faith objections to participating in other practices at odds with their beliefs should not also be accommodated.
Senate Bill 174 would address this gap in protection by recognizing that the right of religious belief and conscience extends to health care providers, and includes the ability to decline to participate in procedures at odds with their beliefs. The bill protects providers from legal liability, adverse treatment by an employer, or retaliation for these refusals.
Federal law has long provided some protections to health care professionals, in the context of abortion, but also other procedures that are likely to conflict with the religious or conscientious commitments of these essential workers. But enforcement has been uneven over the past five decades. This has been the result of shifting executive branch priorities (some administrations are hesitant for policy reasons to enforce the laws for fear of offending supporters of abortion, while others prioritize the protection of conscientious objectors) and changes in administrative regulations.
Situations where medical workers are forced to violate their beliefs are, fortunately, not common. In the first year of the second Trump Administration, the Office for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced five investigations of violations of medical conscience protections across the country. When they do occur, though, they create a very serious imposition on nurses, doctors, and other medical professionals who want to promote healing, not be forced to violate their most fundamental beliefs, which often motivate their selfless service. It would be catastrophic for that individual and for the rights we all enjoy to force someone to choose between service in a healing profession and living out their beliefs. Particularly when that conflict is easily avoidable.
Some may be concerned that allowing medical personnel to decline to participate in certain procedures could disrupt services. As noted above, conflicts are likely to be uncommon. Additionally, the proposed legislation includes safeguards to prevent this scenario. Medical providers cannot refuse to participate in “the primary or essential functions” they were “hired to perform.” The law specifically disclaims any conflict with federal law that prevents emergency rooms from turning away patients. It does not apply to emergency situations. Health care providers must notify their employer of any conscientious or religious objections so that appropriate accommodations can be made in advance.
Utah’s Senate and House of Representatives are expected to decide whether to adopt this essential protection during this, the last week of the 2026 legislative session. Doing so would be a wise policy, consistent with our state Constitution’s guarantees, and would make Utah less vulnerable to shifting federal policies that seem to change with every presidential administration.
