What happened to HB184 - Protection of Personal and Religious Liberty?

Mostly seniors, people often have been cut off from loved ones and clergy for extended lengths of time—lockdowns during the pandemic, which bypass the emotional and mental needs of those people.

What happened to HB184 — Protection of Personal and Religious Liberty? During the past year, the year of the COVID-19 pandemic, we have seen, heard, or experienced the stories of people locked down. People kept from family members and clergy, all in the name of protecting society from the virus—a lockdown of mostly our senior citizens. The mental and emotional toll (turmoil) they experience must be unimaginable. Perhaps, unforgivable.

What’s even less imaginable, it is still happening today. Today, it is less of a lockdown ordered by the Health Department or the Executive Branch, but by the individual healthcare facilities or property management organizations’ policy — hospitals, care centers, rehab centers, public housing.  These facilities speak of their duty to protect people within and without from the virus, about their property rights, or the fear of litigation if something goes wrong. There is nothing wrong with these concerns per se. Still, they are at the cost of the emotional support and dignity people deserve and desire.

HB184, which I figured would be a long shot at best, was designed to put into Utah Code a prohibition on the Utah Health Department and any other government agency from closing down churches during a state of emergency or health crisis and from prohibiting people from seeing family members or clergy, albeit with safety procedures in place.

The bill ran into roadblocks from the Lieutenant Governor’s office and Health Department, who pushed back on it hard. Eventually, working with Representative Val Peterson and the LG’s office, I permitted the bill’s language into SB195 — Emergency Response Amendments. SB195 is the ‘big’ bill that will hopefully put some guardrails on the authority granted to the Health Department and Executive Branch during a State of Emergency — all things learned during the past year.

However, the LG’s office continues to push back, forcing the elimination of the language to allow clergy and family members to visit their loved ones in the mentioned facilities. At this point, the bill will probably include a watered-down version of the ‘can’t close down churches’ language. I’ll support the bill but will do so saddened by the fact that lockdowns of facilities for just about any length of time will still be permitted.

During the past several months, I’ve heard story after story about the people locked down and not permitted to see family, attend church, or have clergy visit them for spiritual guidance or religious rites’ performance. These stories deeply sadden me. Especially the ones that indicate the locked down person would rather die than live this way.

I will continue to work with the bill sponsors and the LG’s office to try and keep some of the language I’ve proposed. But my hopes are dimming. I admit, I feel very passionate about this issue, and I often have to remind myself to keep my emotions checked to work through this process. It is difficult. Especially when we know, we can allow these people to see loved ones or clergy safely.