
Written by William C. Duncan
February 25, 2021
The following statement was delivered to all members of the Utah Senate on Monday, Feb. 22, 2021. 2SB 195 was passed unanimously in the Senate after being amended during floor debate on Wednesday, Feb. 24.
The Declaration of Independence argues that governments are instituted to secure our unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. An essential part of these rights is the freedom to worship and practice one’s faith according to one’s conscience. There is perhaps no situation in which such basic freedoms need more clear and specific legal protections than in a declared emergency – when we have empowered the executive branch of government to potentially and temporarily suspend certain liberties for the sake of the common good.
We commend those who have diligently worked to develop the important policy ideas in SB 195. These protections strike the appropriate balance between public health and the fundamental right to religious practice. The approach the bill takes is completely consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court’s relevant rulings on pandemic restrictions and will provide important and dependable guidance to state and local officials in future emergency situations.
For these reasons, we support and encourage passage of SB 195 – Emergency Response Amendments.
More Insights
Read More
Working paper on history of parent-driven education points toward reforms
Parents and policymakers alike may find the paper useful in understanding education policy, where we are likely headed, and what we should do next.
Will AI kill us in 10 years? | Chris Koopman & Ford Copple
Is AI really on track to destroy humanity, or are we confusing small risks with science fiction? On this episode of Defending Ideas, Nic Dunn sits down with Chris Koopman, CEO of Abundance Institute, and Ford Copple, tech policy analyst at Sutherland Institute, to discuss the growing debate over AI safety, regulation, data centers, and technological innovation.
Massachusetts case raises concerns about government cutting parents out of children’s decisions
When parents pose a threat to children’s safety, the state should act. But ideological disagreements are not a reason to cut parents out of a child’s life.

