Katy Hall

Yes. So there was a provision in the bill that would've required PEHP to increase premium prices to cover the cost of some of the provisions in the bill. And this sub pulls those pieces out so PEHP will not have to raise their prices and the fiscal note is still zero and that's the only change.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Um, I'll be, I'll be brief on this. I know we're running short on time, but I just wanna, I rise in support of this bill with just a little caveat. I know they've worked a lot of hours trying to come up with some compromises, and as the, the good bill sponsor mentioned, um, there was 6,000 hours in there for nurse practitioners, and that was whittled down to 2000 and then taken out entirely. And, um, I think it's very important because we, a few years ago gave full practice capability to nurse practitioners, which I think is great. I actually voted for that. Um, but it's also when I thought that they were …

Representative Hall. Thank you Mr. Speaker. SJR six is a joint resolution amending Rule 42 of the Utah Rule Rules of Civil Procedure. To amend a court rule, the Utah legislature has to pass a joint resolution. Rule 42 addresses the consolidation or separation of civil cases and also the transfer of civil cases to another court to or 2 0 3 Judge Panel. So this bill does two things. Um, it has, um, a change in the language, um, which provides that a fi fact finder cannot prejudice a defendant by knowing or considering the past medical expenses or equipment costs before liability has been established or non-economic damages and an action that have been entered. And this is …

Um, yes. So based on our, um, discussion on the floor, uh, when our drafting attorney and PO policy analysts were listening to it, they discovered that uh, there was some mistakes in the legal analysis of what was drafted in the amendment that we adopted. And based on the, the questions by the good representative from Provo, um, we felt that the better thing to do would be to change it here. So we don't have to go to conference committee and we can send over a clean bill without any constitutional questions.

Um, yes. So based on our, um, discussion on the floor, uh, when our drafting attorney and PO policy analysts were listening to it, they discovered that uh, there was some mistakes in the legal analysis of what was drafted in the amendment that we adopted. And based on the, the questions by the good representative from Provo, um, we felt that the better thing to do would be to change it here. So we don't have to go to conference committee and we can send over a clean bill without any constitutional questions.

Uh, thank you. Um, I, we've already had this discussion. I but that portion just, or the new substitute just takes out that amendment that got put in. Uh, we just took that one, that part out and the elementary schools will just be doing it the way they've always been doing it. And, um, there won't be those constitutional questions that were raised.

Uh, thank you. Um, I, we've already had this discussion. I but that portion just, or the new substitute just takes out that amendment that got put in. Uh, we just took that one, that part out and the elementary schools will just be doing it the way they've always been doing it. And, um, there won't be those constitutional questions that were raised.

Um, yes. This is something that, um, we caught just our elementary schools in code have not had, um, curricular clubs before. And so this just makes a little amendment that they, um, can have the, the non-curricular clubs. So,

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So HB or SB 2 95 adds new requirements for higher education intended to promote intellectual and viewpoint diversity. Um, it clarifies, clarifies the existing exemption for guest lecturers in academic courses and invited speakers to ensure that they are not restricted by the DEI pro prohibitions on university, on universities. Even if the speakers content touches on those topics, it adds a new public policy, a new public policy events requirement for universities to organize and host public policy debates and multiple perspective events each academic year with presenters presenting multiple different views. These events must be open to all students and staff and the general public and listed on a publicly searchable online calendar, …

Um, pro, almost anything would be, um, considered non-curricular. The, the Girls Coding Club that was just mentioned could be a non-curricular, um, Latinos in Action could be a non-curricular, uh, the chess club. The, there's a multiple, like almost anything as long as it doesn't do degrade. So Mr. Speaker, could, um, Christian Bible Study be a non-curricular club? As a non-curricular club? I believe so, yes.

No, it would not. And, and, and thank you for asking that question. I just wanna clarify in the, in the amendment that that amendment right there is only for elementary school, uh, in the elementary schools, but you're, you're absolutely right. It would not prohibit any of that.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, I really appreciate all the conversations that have happened about this. Um, I, I do wanna clarify. We, we did have extensive conversations with, or this, the Senate sponsored extensive concert conversations with yushi. Um, we've talked with USBE, we've talked with some attorneys within school districts who helped us with this language. Yes, there may have to be some name changes, but again, I agree with the, the last, um, uh, rep representative from Northern Utah that, um, we want this to be inclusion. So if, if some of those names need to be changed to say kids that code so that everybody feels welcome, that would be great. Again, we are going for …

Yeah, there was a provision in the bill that would've required PEHP to increase their premiums to cover the cost of the what was being proposed in the bill. That language has been stripping out, so that'll, that'll correct that. So that will not, that'll take the fiscal note back to zero and not require PDHP to take any action.

Yes. It was just, um, a little piece of language that we put in to make sure that if someone was working for a facility or something, but not working under the scope of their license, that, that it wouldn't apply to, to them. And that was all.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Pro Tem. Um, so this bill there deals again with, uh, non-competes this time in the veterinary space. There are three main pieces to this bill involving non-competes, non-disclosures and non-solicitation. The bill would prohibit veterinarian non-competes of any type, not just employee employer, unless the veterinarian has at least a 5% ownership stake in the, in the entity. Um, non-disclosure clauses in involving a veteran veterinarian. If the non-disclosure prohibits the veterinarian from discussing their experience working for a particular person and non-solicitation agreements involving a veterinarian in all three cases only these agreements entered into after May 6th, 2026 would be affected. So we're not going backwards. Um, this supports continuative care for your …