For the fourth year in a row, the Utah Legislature appears about to pass another bill that targets the transgender community.
A bill that would require transgender students at public universities to live in dorms corresponding with their sex at birth, sponsored by Rep. Stephanie Gricius, R-Eagle Mountain, passed Senate on Thursday. It faces just one more vote in the House before receiving final legislative approval.
Opponents blasted HB269 for targeting the transgender community, creating potential litigation and legal concerns, and as government overreach. The bill easily passed the Senate 22-7 in a near party-line vote.
During Wednesday’s debate of the bill, Sen. Kathleen Riebe, D-Cottonwood Heights, criticized the Legislature for using a single case that “blew up on social media” to create new policy.
Advertisement
Riebe was referring to a viral social media post from the mother of a Utah State University student who complained to the school because her daughter was sharing a common space with a transgender resident assistant, who had been randomly assigned to live in the dorm.
“We hear one case blowing up social media, and we’re creating a law — a heavy-handed law — to change policy that’s worked for generations. If we don’t believe social media should be guiding our actions, then this is a bill that shouldn’t be guiding our actions,” Riebe said. “Our universities have done a fantastic job working to make sure every student’s as safe as they can, and I believe that this is overreach, and we should allow our universities to rectify these situations.”
Republican Sen. Dan McCay, R-Riverton, told lawmakers he was concerned that there were no protections for students who live in private housing when it acts as an extension of the universities.
“My concern is that there isn’t a remedy for those individuals that have that (random roommate) assignment,” he said. “Even though it’s private property … I would say 90% to 95% or more of those students all are university-based or at a state entity, and so, having no protections in there makes me a little bit concerned.”
Democrats bring up legal concerns
Sen. Luz Escamilla, D-Salt Lake City, brought up constitutional concerns surrounding the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, which requires states to treat people equally under the law.
Advertisement
Escamilla questioned a provision in the bill that would still restrict a transgender person from living in a dorm of their choosing even if they have a birth certificate that has a changed gender marker and undergone surgery.
“If that person had already an amended birth certificate and has gone through that transition of surgery, how is that not an equal protection violation when that person does not match where you’re going to send them?”
Utah House passes bill changing university housing policies for transgender students
Sen. Brady Brammer, R-Pleasant Grove, answered and said he didn’t know if it was appropriate to do a legal analysis on the bill.
“I would say that it is overall from a legislative standpoint, it is not an equal protection violation, because the designation between male and female has been upheld in court in almost every circumstance, and it is not tied to the genitalia of the person, it is tied to their genetic makeup at the time of birth,” Brammer said.
Advertisement
Escamilla said when someone has gone through the defined legal process of fully transitioning, including surgery and changing the gender marker on their birth certificate, the genetic piece is not clear.
“The impact is so big,” she said. “I do believe there may be an equal protection piece because otherwise, you’re looking at these individuals who have gone through transition … why wouldn’t they not be then seen as that complete person that they are under that new place?”
Sen. Daniel Thatcher, R-West Valley City, was the only Republican to vote against the bill alongside Democrats. He cited a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that states gender necessarily includes gender identity, and therefore any infringement that would be prohibited on gender is also prohibited on gender identity.
In a 6-3 decision in 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Bostock v. Clayton County that firing people for their sexual orientation or gender identity is sex discrimination, which is prohibited under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
“It is my belief that just like many of the other bills that we have passed that infringed on gender identity, this will also be unconstitutional,” Thatcher said. “But the damage isn’t necessarily the bills that we pass. It’s the messages that we send, and sometimes we pass bills because they are messages.”
Advertisement
Let us know what you think…
Brammer, in his summation, addressed Thatcher’s concern.
“That was a very narrow decision that was limited only to Title VII employment situations,” he said. “I’ve read the case. It’s not applicable to these situations in any way, and (the justices) were very careful to make sure that it was not, and to a large extent, that’s why the Supreme Court has taken up very similar cases in the sense of transgender surgeries that they’ll be deciding in June.”
The Supreme Court is expected to rule this summer on United States v. Skrmetti, a case about medical treatment for transgender children. Utah banned gender-affirming care for minors in 2023.
Advertisement
As the bill was discussed again on Thursday, Sen. Jen Plumb, D-Salt Lake City, said the last several years of legislation targeted toward transgender individuals have made that community feel isolated.
“It does break my heart on some degree, that every year for the last four years, we have had very targeted legislation toward them,” she said. “They will never be legislated out of existence. They will be adored, loved and treasured by some of us for the rest of all of our lives.”
Nina Dobrev‘s bathrobe photo has fans checking in from Park City, Utah, during Sundance weekend. She posted it 18 hours ago, tagged Park City, and wrote, “Final Sundance in Park City, Utah? bittersweet doesn’t begin to describe it…” Nina’s carousel from the Sundance Film Festival reads like downtime between screenings. The post shows about 480.8K likes and 888 comments.
Nina Dobrev shares a bathrobe photo from Utah during Sundance Film Festival
Have a look at Nina Dobrev in a bathrobe:
Photo Credit: Nina Dobrev Instagram
The “Vampire Diaries” alum wears a plush white hotel robe, loosely cinched at the waist. It falls open at the neckline. Her hair looks half-done, pinned up at the crown, with loose lengths down.
The warm bathroom lighting highlights marble counters and polished wood doors. The photos also landed after she discussed recovering from a dirt bike injury. Fans replied fast, with one writing, “Such a cutie,” another said, “Gorgeous,” and a third added, “THE DIVA”.
The killings took place in a region exempt from federal gray wolf protections.
(Dawn Villella |AP) A gray wolf is pictured in 2004 in Minnesota. Utah officials recently killed three wolves after they were seen near livestock in Cache County.
In a rural stretch of southwestern Cache County, state officials killed three wolves earlier this month after the animals were spotted near livestock, the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources confirmed Tuesday.
The wolves were shot Jan. 9 by the Utah Department of Agriculture and Food, said DWR spokesperson Faith Jolley, a move allowed because the animals were found in a small corner of northeastern Utah exempt from federal gray wolf protections.
The region, which lies mostly east of Interstate 15 and extends roughly as far south as Ogden, is considered part of the greater Yellowstone region, where the predator is in recovery. It is the only part of Utah where the state is allowed to manage wolves.
Advertisement
(Christopher Cherrington | The Salt Lake Tribune)
Across the rest of the state, the animal is considered an endangered species. It’s illegal to hunt, harass, trap, shoot or harm them without permission from the federal government.
Jolley said state law directs DWR to prevent wolves from breeding in the delisted area. While the animals were not considered a pack, she said they were believed to be traveling together.
“Lethal removals ensure they don’t establish breeding populations in Utah,” Jolley wrote in a text message.
Caroline Hargraves, a spokesperson for the state agriculture department, said the wolves were found near Avon, a small census-designated community in Cache County of about 500 residents, surrounded mostly by farmland.
Advertisement
Utah leaders have long been hostile to wolves for preying on livestock and thwarting hunters. The state has doled out millions in taxpayer dollars in an effort to get gray wolves removed from the federal endangered species list.
Most confirmed wolf sightings in Utah have involved lone wolves, Jolley said, though small groups have been documented on a few occasions since the first confirmed sighting in 2002.
During the past year, she said, a handful of lone wolves have migrated into Utah from Wyoming and Colorado.
Wolves from Wyoming and Idaho have made their way into Utah at least 21 times since 2004, according to DWR. In September, the agency said it was aware of at least one lone male wolf present in the state.
SALT LAKE CITY (KUTV) — Family members of four Utah children who disappeared with their mother in November are speaking out after the children were located in Croatia.
Now, the family is working through international legal channels to bring the children back home.
The children were last seen on surveillance video at Salt Lake City International Airport boarding a flight with their mother, 35-year-old Elleshia Seymour. Authorities say Seymour took the children without the permission of their fathers after posting what family members describe as “doomsday” claims on social media.
MORE | Missing Children
Seymour was arrested in Dubrovnik on January 15 after the family says news articles alerted people she was talking to in Croatia about the accused kidnapping. She now faces four felony counts of custodial interference. Since her arrest, the four children have been placed in a government-run children’s center in Croatia.
Advertisement
Jill Seymour, the children’s aunt, has been in Croatia for nine days with her brother Kendall Seymour, who is three of the children’s fathers. They are trying to secure their release.
“We’re just kind of in limbo waiting to get them out,” Seymour said. “These are our kids, and we can’t get custody of them.”
She says the family is only allowed to see the children for two hours a day. Despite providing the requested documentation, the family has not yet been given a clear timeline for when the children can return home.
“They are most definitely trapped there, and they feel trapped,” Seymour said. “We don’t have a clear-cut answer. We’ve provided all the documents we’ve been asked to provide.”
The family has hired Croatian attorneys and is working with the U.S. Embassy to navigate the legal process. Utah-based attorney Skye Lazaro, who has experience with international custody cases, says Croatia’s participation in the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction could ultimately help the family.
Advertisement
“In this case, it’s a good thing and a benefit that they are part of this Hague Convention,” Lazaro said.
However, Lazaro explained that the process can be slow due to translation requirements and court procedures in the foreign country.
“It requires retaining an attorney in that country who can translate the documents into Croatian and provide all the necessary information to a court,” Lazaro said. “That stuff just takes time.”
If local legal efforts stall, the family can formally petition under the Hague Convention, which may speed up the process, though it could still take several weeks.
“To have to continually say goodbye every day is very hard,” Seymour said. “It’s an emotional rollercoaster.”
Advertisement
As the legal battle continues, the family is also facing mounting expenses, including short-term housing in Croatia and international legal fees. A GoFundMe has been set up to help cover costs and pay for the children’s flight home.
