Participatory Republic, Free Market Economy, Family and Separation of Powers
Legislative Updates - 13 February 2023
Dear Friends:
This is GrassRoots’ 4th weekly legislative update of this year’s General Session of the Utah State Legislature. At this time (4 weeks into the session), there are about 710 numbered bills for this session on the Utah Legislature website. Here are some bills and issues that we consider to be noteworthy.
Bills proposing to expand Medicaid in Utah
There are several bills this session proposing to expand Medicaid in Utah:
- HB252, “Disability Coverage Amendments”, proposing to expand Utah’s Medicaid program to provide wraparound services to qualified individuals with a disability, and which failed to pass the House on February 2nd;
- HB79, HB84, HB85, and HB287, all described below, and all awaiting consideration by the House Business and Labor Committee; and
- SB19, “Medicaid Dental Waiver Amendments”, also described below, and awaiting action by the Governor.
With all of these proposals, the fiscal notes indicate that most of the expense will be paid by “Federal Funds” (though some will be paid by state tax monies).
Arguably, some of these bills propose to give valuable assistance to various people in need. But here are some questions that should be on our minds as we consider such proposals:
- Is the proposed use of government force appropriate for this circumstance?
- Is the proposal consistent with our state and national constitutions?
On the first question, we are not confident that any of these proposals merit the use of government force to take away from the taxpayers, in order to make possible new “entitlements”. On the second question, there is likewise reason to question:
- Is such government spending and redistribution of wealth consistent with the constitutional direction that private property is not to be taken for public use without just compensation? (See United States Constitution, Amendment V; also Utah State Constitution, Article I, Section 22.) We lean toward the belief that, with this proposed government spending (and resulting “need” for taxation), the taxpayers are not justly compensated.
- Medicaid, at the same time that it is one of the top contributors to our $30 trillion national debt, does not appear to be one of the enumerated powers of Congress in Article I, Section 8 (or any other part) of our national constitution.
As proposals like these multiply, we are concerned about the prominent notion that, so long as there is some suffering or inconvenience anywhere, we must address that suffering or inconvenience through more government force, because obviously the government force already employed is not enough. Thus we get ever-growing debt, money-printing to paper it over, and the danger of inflation, which can be one of the most hurtful forms of taxation. At the same time that we forget the power of Free Markets (or, in other words, People with Freedom) to address and reduce suffering.
We can empathize with the view that “There are all of these federal funds available for these programs; we would be stupid not to grab all that we can.” So much of our money is taken by the “feds”; shouldn’t we do whatever we can to get back as much as we can? This “every man for himself” way of doing things is understandable, but we believe that what we really need is leadership that puts eternal principle over expedience.
Following is some description of several proposals to expand Medicaid in Utah, all of which we oppose.
HB79, “Family Planning Services Revisions”, sponsored by Representative Ward, would require the Medicaid program to apply for a waiver or a state plan amendment to extend family planning services to individuals with income below 250% of the “federal poverty level”. The estimated cost to taxpayers is $3.4 million in Fiscal Year (FY) 2024, and $4.8 million in FY2025, with most of these amounts envisioned to be paid out of Federal Funds. GrassRoots favors a “no” vote on HB79.
HB84, “Postpartum Medicaid Coverage Amendments”, sponsored by Representative Lesser and Senator Harper, would require the Division of Medicaid and Health Financing to request a Medicaid waiver or state plan amendment from Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to extend the duration of postpartum coverage. The estimated cost to taxpayers is $6.6 million in FY2024, and $8.8 million in FY2025, with most of these amounts envisioned to be paid out of Federal Funds. GrassRoots favors a “no” vote on HB84.
HB85, “Pregnancy Medicaid Coverage Amendments”, sponsored by Representative Lesser, would require the Division of Medicaid and Health Financing to request a Medicaid state plan amendment from Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to extend Medicaid coverage to pregnant women with a household income less than or equal to 200% of the federal poverty level. The estimated cost to taxpayers is $19.2 million in FY2024, and $25.7 million in FY2025, with most of these amounts envisioned to be paid out of Federal Funds. GrassRoots favors a “no” vote on HB85.
HB287, “Medicaid Coverage Amendments”, sponsored by Representative Ward, would:
- require the Medicaid program to apply for a waiver of state plan amendment with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to provide: a) 12 months continuous eligibility for children enrolled in Medicaid; b) 12 months of postpartum coverage for women who are enrolled in Medicaid; c) family planning assistance for individuals at or below 250% of federal poverty level; and d) coverage for certain pregnant women who are lawfully residing in the United States;
- direct the Department of Health and Human Services to implement any coverage for which a waiver or state plan amendment authorized under this bill is approved; and
- require the department to report annually to the Health and Human Services Interim Committee on medical assistance authorized under this bill.
The estimated cost to taxpayers is $7 million in FY2024, and $12.5 million in FY2025, with most of these amounts envisioned to be paid out of Federal Funds. GrassRoots favors a “no” vote on HB287.
SB19, “Medicaid Dental Waiver Amendments”, sponsored by Senator Vickers and Representative Eliason, would require the Department of Health and Human Services to request authorization to provide dental services to Medicaid-eligible adults not already eligible for dental services. The estimated cost to taxpayers is $42.5 million in FY2025, with most of these amounts envisioned to be paid out of Federal Funds. Additional coverage of SB19 may be found in our updates of January 23rd, January 30th, and February 6th.
SB19 passed the Senate 19-0 on Jan 23rd, and the House 51-15 on Feb 8th, and awaits action by Governor.
GrassRoots still favors a “no” vote on SB19, and would ask the Governor to veto it.
Updated status on social media regulation bills covered in last week’s GrassRoots update:
In last week’s update, we were open to the possibility that there might be Probable Cause for some government regulation of social media companies. But we also mentioned several problems to look out for in HB311 and SB152, including:
- violations of Separation of Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Powers;
- intrusions on privacy;
- violations of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Association;
- lack of due process of law, including Jury Trial, before punitive action is imposed; and
- disposition of fines and civil penalties in ways that might cause a conflict of interest for law enforcement.
In some cases, these problems were obvious in these bills, while, in other cases, we might only be highlighting a concern as a potential problem.
Now, here is some updated status on HB311 and SB152.
HB311Substitute was replaced by HB311Sub2, “Social Media Usage Amendments”, sponsored by Representative Teuscher and Senator Cullimore, which would:
- enact the Utah Social Media Regulation Act;
- provide that a contract entered into by a minor by means of an interactive computer service is invalid unless the minor's parent or legal guardian consents to the contract;
- prohibit a social media company from using a design or feature that the company knows causes a minor to have an addiction to a social media platform;
- grant the Division of Consumer Protection enforcement and auditing authority to enforce requirements under the act;
- authorize a private right of action to collect attorney fees and damages from a social media company for harm incurred by a minor's use of the company's social media platform;
- create a rebuttable presumption that harm and causation occurred in some circumstances; and
- provide a severability clause (possibly indicating that the sponsors know of possible constitutional problems with this bill).
Additional coverage of HB311Substitute (prior version of this bill) may be found in our update of February 6th, which also discusses constitutional principles that should be remembered in efforts to regulate individuals and other private sector entities.
HB311Sub2 passed the House 68-6 on February 9th, and awaits action by the Senate Rules Committee.
We are not opposed to all provisions of this bill. Also, some of our concerns with the preceding version of this bill (HB311Substitute) appear to have been addressed in the current (Sub2) version. For instance, the Sub2 version no longer appears to transform social media companies into massive collectors of private information. We are also pleased that provision for executive department rule-making (sometimes legislative in its nature) has been removed from the Sub2 version.
However, we still have the following concerns with the Sub2 version:
- The Sub2 version would empower the Division of Consumer Protection to “audit the records of a social media company in order to determine compliance with the requirements of this section or to investigate a complaint, including a random sample of a social media company's records and other audit methods.” (See lines 253-255.) In the absence of a court order or search warrant based on Probable Cause, this strikes us as a violation of United States Constitution, Amendment IV, and of Utah State Constitution, Article I, Section 14.
- We are concerned about the “rebuttable presumption” language in lines 244-247: “If a minor seeking recovery of damages under this section is under the age of 16, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the harm actually occurred and that the harm was caused as a consequence of using or having an account on the social media company's social media platform.” While we want appropriate damages to be awarded to victims, and to be paid by those responsible for the damages, this provision appears to us to be a step in the direction of the accused being presumed “guilty until proven innocent”.
- We are concerned about provision for “civil penalties” up to $250,000 (see lines 260-265). In cases of punitive treatment of an individual or other private entity, we would want to ensure that due process of law, including access to Trial by Jury, is preserved. We are not sure if this provision in the bill is problematic, as we need to review how such “civil penalties” are imposed (not obvious to us from the text of the bill).
GrassRoots favors a “no” vote on HB311Sub2.
SB152, “Social Media Regulation Amendments”, sponsored by Senator McKell and Representative Teuscheru, would still enact provisions related to the regulation of social media companies and social media platforms. Additional coverage and description of SB152 may be found in our update of February 6th.
SB152 failed to pass the Senate 2nd reading 12-11 on Feb 6th. (A majority of the Senate, or 15 senators, was required to pass the bill.) However, a motion to reconsider SB152 passed, and the bill is now circled on the Senate 2nd reading calendar, meaning it could be reconsidered at any time.
We are not opposed to all provisions of this bill. We are not opposed to regulation of social media companies if and where there is Probable Cause to do so. However, SB152 still appears to us to violate such principles as Freedom of Association, Privacy, and Separation of Executive and Judicial Powers. We are also concerned about proceeds from fines and civil penalties being deposited into the Consumer Protection Education and Training Fund, rather than into the General Fund (with maximum control by the Legislature); thus potentially creating conflicts of interest and distortion of law enforcement priorities in the Division of Consumer Protection. GrassRoots still favors a “no” vote on SB152.
If you have any questions about these bills, GrassRoots’ position on these bills, or related matters, please contact either of us or any other member of the Board of Utah GrassRoots.
Sincerely,
Steve Stromness
Vice-Chairman, Bill Review Coordinator, Utah GrassRoots
steven.stromness@gmail.com
435-637-5248
Don Guymon
Chairman, Utah GrassRoots
donguymon@gmail.com
801-574-9461
PS Do you want to contact a legislator? Go to le.utah.gov and click on “Legislators”.
Do you want to read and follow legislation yourself? Go to le.utah.gov and click on “2020 General Session Page” then click on “2020 Bills”.
Do you have other questions about how to effectively participate in the political process? Please contact us, and we will try to help as appropriate.
Do you have friends that would appreciate this legislative update? Please feel free to forward it to them.
Would you like to help us with review of legislation in a small or large way? Consider taking a special look at bills sponsored by your own representative or senator. Please contact us with your findings and/or with any questions we might be able to help you with.