Conscience Protection Laws: What Healthcare Employers Should Know

As Utah Senate Bill 174, Exercise of Religious Beliefs and Conscience Amendments, went into effect on May 6, 2026, healthcare employers should be aware not only of this law’s broad requirements, but also of the growing trend nationally of similar “conscience protection” laws for healthcare employees.

In 2025, Tennessee and Idaho established their own “Medical Ethics Defense Acts,” each providing broad conscience protections for healthcare providers. Both laws adopt protections for those with ethical, moral, or religious objections to participating in healthcare procedures, treatments, and services and, provide that healthcare providers cannot be discriminated against for objecting to participating in such healthcare services.  

This year, in addition to the Utah statute, Kentucky, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Rhode Island’s legislatures are all considering similar conscience protection proposals, and, a similar medical conscience bill was signed into law in Iowa on May 19, 2026. At the federal level, the EEOC has renewed its attention on enforcement of religious discrimination claims, and the Department of Health and Human Services has reestablished the Conscience and Religious Freedom Division within its Office for Civil Rights to prioritize the enforcement of conscience protections for health care workers under certain federally-funded programs and statutes, and investigate complaints of discrimination based on refusals to comply with employment requirements due to conscience or religious beliefs. Healthcare employers should be cognizant of this growing trend, both because of this type of legislation’s wide-reaching staffing, antidiscrimination, and accommodation obligations, as well as the increased federal attention on potential violators. 

Utah’s Free Exercise of Religious Beliefs or Conscience Law

As of May 6, 2026, healthcare providers in Utah have broad protections in the workplace due to religious belief or conscience. As defined, “conscience” is a sincerely held belief as to the rightness or wrongness of an action or inaction. Notably, “religious belief” is not defined by the new law. 

Right to Refuse Participation Due to Religious Belief or Conscience

The law allows healthcare providers to refuse to participate in or provide a healthcare service that violates the provider’s religious beliefs or conscience, and prohibits providers from being held civilly, criminally, or administratively liable for exercising these rights. However, the law does not override existing requirements imposed by federal law to provide screenings, examinations, and stabilizing treatment to patients, or to patients in emergency departments. 

Covered Healthcare Providers and Services

Conscience protections are available to healthcare providers across broad disciplines that are licensed, certified, or regulated under Utah law, including physicians, physical therapists, nurses, and dentists. The conscience protections apply to nearly any part of the medical care process, from examinations and diagnosis to therapy, research, and providing medical advice.

Employee Advance Notice Requirement and Employer Obligations

Healthcare providers who refuse to participate in healthcare services due to belief or conscience must provide advance notice to their employer. The notice must include the healthcare service or services in which the provider refuses to participate because it violates their right of religious belief or conscience. Employers or healthcare institutions that receive a healthcare provider’s advance notice must, to the extent reasonably practical, schedule staffing in a way to avoid placing a provider in a situation that requires them to be called upon to perform a service that violates their religious beliefs or conscience.  

Discrimination Protections

Under the new law, healthcare employers are prohibited from discriminating against or taking adverse action against a healthcare provider as a result of their refusal to participate in services that violate their conscience, or because they believe that they provided any information relating to the employer’s violation of the new conscience law. The law defines a prohibited “adverse action” broadly, including an employee’s being assigned increased administrative duties or reduction of privileges. However, the law does allow employees to be transferred, demoted, or terminated if the duties to which they object are considered essential to what they were hired to perform, or are so numerous that granting the employee requests would cause an undue hardship on the employer. 

Recommended Practices for Healthcare Employers

In light of these broad conscience protection laws and increased federal scrutiny of workplace conscience claims, healthcare employers must carefully balance their obligation to ensure patients receive timely, nondiscriminatory care with their duty to accommodate employees’ conscience objections. While Utah’s new law makes clear that a provider’s refusal to provide care alone is not evidence of unlawful discrimination against a patient, employers should be mindful that if the refusal results in delays, denial of care, or a disparate impact on protected classes, they can be found responsible for failing to meet those care obligations. Employers should therefore affirmatively focus their overall compliance efforts to ensure that there is no adverse impact on outcomes, while honoring the protected refusal. This includes implementing clear staffing coverage protocols, establishing complaint escalation pathways, and adopting neutral policies that ensure continuity of patient care. Employers should also consider conducting periodic audits of refusal patterns and patient outcomes to identify any unintended disparities or access issues.

Employers should also exercise heightened caution when making staffing and employment decisions involving employees who assert religious objections. Since Utah’s new law defines “adverse action” broadly, routine decisions such as schedule changes, although contemplated by the statute, may create litigation risk if perceived as retaliatory. Recommended practices include centralizing review of accommodation-related decisions, clearly defining essential job functions, maintaining flexible staffing models (including cross-trained backup coverage), and thoroughly documenting all decisions with legitimate, non-retaliatory business justifications. Sound compliance strategies treat these issues as systemwide operational challenges rather than ad hoc personnel matters. In addition, employers should invest in proactive training and communication strategies to minimize operational disruptions and reduce legal exposure. This includes educating supervisors and frontline staff on how to recognize and respond to accommodation requests in a consistent manner, as well as clarifying the limits of protected refusals, particularly where emergency care, patient safety, or legal obligations are implicated.

Ultimately, healthcare employers should maintain neutral, consistently applied accommodation processes, while ensuring that all patients have timely and equitable access to care. Employers should consult with knowledgeable counsel to help navigate the balancing act of accommodating employees’ religious beliefs, as well as the effects on staffing and coverage requirements.