KUER0%

Utah lawmakers are already drafting  and negotiating  bills for 2027 2%

By Hugo Rikard-Bell0%

4/10/2026, 8:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 25 faulty reasoning types, including Optimism Bias, Hasty Generalization, and False Dilemma, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 23.1% saturation with 204 hits. Analysis detected 1,103 faulty-reasoning hits from 883 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 9.7% and a BS Rank of 2% (20,900 of 21,181 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 98.70% of the article peer group.

Republican Rep. 
Katy Hall had a bill signed into law this year that made sweeping changes to Utah's adoption code. 
But it didn't just happen. 
She started working on it a year before the 2026 legislative session and described it as a “labour of love” with many late nights and weekends spent refining and researching the issue. 
Utah lawmakers are prolific bill writers. 
This year a record 1,015 were proposed, and 540 of those actually made it through the political obstacle course they needed to pass. 
Behind the avalanche of proposals is a slower process of drafting, negotiation and revision. 
Many ideas stall, and even bills that pass often return for more amendments. 
Even though the session wrapped up just last month, lawmakers are already laying the foundation for 2027 and looking to constituents to help guide what comes next. 
Democratic Sen. 
Stephanie Pitcher represents Utah's 14th senate district. 
She said some of the bigger bills she passed in 2026 started almost a year before the session began. 
“The sooner we can start talking about policy and conceptualizing an idea and turning that into a bill, the better,” she said. 
The process is pretty simple. 
Generally a lawmaker comes across an issue either from a constituent or in their civilian career  in Pitcher's case, she's a former prosecutor turned criminal defense attorney. 
The capitol has staff who work as policy analysts and draft bills for interim committees. 
This is where Pitcher said things begin to take shape. 
But even if fully fleshed out bills make it all the way to the finish line and are implemented, that doesn't mean things are set in stone. 
In some cases, like the 2025 bill banning collective bargaining for public sector unions, the public can band together and repeal it, effectively throwing it out. 
Bills can also get brought back and amended for issues that were missed the first time around. 
Pitcher said this is normal and explained one of the new laws she wrote this year was a “follow up” from a policy she passed in 2025. 
The original law allowed counties to impose civil penalties for individuals who were “skirting” the vehicle emissions testing process. 
After it was implemented though, she found people were paying the penalty but still not getting their vehicle emissions tested. 
“So this year, I ran a bill that also allows the DMV to revoke the registration of that vehicle so it can't be on the road until the underlying emissions testing is cured,” she said. 
To get that bill introduced and then passed, Pitcher reached across the aisle to a Republican colleague, “who understood that this is an important issue,” and they worked on it together. 
Despite the ever-growing divide between Republicans and Democrats at the national level, Pitcher emphasized that Utah lawmakers work together. 
Part of that, she acknowledged, is due to the state's Republican supermajority. 
“As a Democrat, we have to have Republicans on board, buying in and investing into our ideas and our policies,” she said, adding that good relationships are crucial to getting a bill passed. 
That spirit of relationship-building and long-term policy work also shaped one of the session's most significant reforms. 
The drive behind Hall's big ticket adoption reform bill that was signed into law this year began with a constituent. 
They came to Hall early last year with several allegations of transactional-style adoptions taking place at the hospital where they worked. 
Hall's process mirrored that of Pitcher's. 
She worked with capitol staff to draft the bill and then engaged in numerous interim meetings, making tweaks and changes to it at every step until it landed on Gov. 
Spencer Cox's desk. 
Hall said although her law went a long way in repairing Utah's reputation for lax adoption laws, she thinks “there probably will be” more to revisit in future sessions  underscoring that even major laws are often adjusted after they take effect. 
“We'll have to see, is it accomplishing what we think it was going to accomplish over the next, you know, the six months?” 
she said, “And if not, then yeah, there we could probably open a bill file in November, December, and say, oh, you know what? 
This is still an issue.” 
At the end of the day, some bills just aren't ready to pass. 
Republican Rep. 
Doug Fiefia said he traveled across the country  and overseas  to work on his AI transparency bill for the 2026 legislative session. 
It ultimately stalled after the White House sent Utah lawmakers a memo calling it “unfixable.” 
“I think that this is probably something we will continue to talk about not only as a state, but also throughout the country  you have other states that are running very similar bills, and so I don't think that this conversation ends here,” he said. 
Hall and Pitcher explained failed bills are part of being a legislator. 
When it happens it's usually because things need to be further refined, or it could be as simple as a budgeting issue. 
Both said it doesn't mean a bill is dead, it just means they have to head back to the drawing board. 
Legislators can start filing their 2027 bills on May 6, 2026. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 2.5%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 3.1%KUER: 2.8%Confirmation Bias2.5%This article: 0.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 1.2%KUER: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 2.4%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 3.5%KUER: 3.4%Availability Heuristic2.4%This article: 3.6%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 1.2%KUER: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic3.6%This article: 0.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 0.5%KUER: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.6%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 2.9%KUER: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias0.6%This article: 4.8%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 7.2%KUER: 7.4%Framing Effect4.8%This article: 0.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 1.4%KUER: 1.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 1.5%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 1.1%KUER: 1.2%Status Quo Bias1.5%This article: 0.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 0.2%KUER: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 15.4%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 4.0%KUER: 4.4%Optimism Bias15.4%This article: 2.6%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 2.4%KUER: 2.4%Pessimism Bias2.6%This article: 4.5%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 5.4%KUER: 6.3%Negativity Bias4.5%This article: 0.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 4.2%KUER: 2.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 7.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 0.9%KUER: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error7.0%This article: 0.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 0.2%KUER: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 3.5%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 1.4%KUER: 1.9%In-Group Bias3.5%This article: 2.2%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 0.6%KUER: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias2.2%This article: 5.4%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 2.0%KUER: 2.3%Halo Effect5.4%This article: 0.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 0.1%KUER: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 0.0%KUER: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 1.9%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 0.9%KUER: 1.2%Recency Bias1.9%This article: 0.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 0.1%KUER: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 0.1%KUER: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 1.1%KUER: 0.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 0.5%KUER: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 6.5%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 3.6%KUER: 4.7%Appeal to Authority6.5%This article: 8.7%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 2.8%KUER: 1.7%False Dilemma8.7%This article: 0.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 1.2%KUER: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 0.2%KUER: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 10.1%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 4.7%KUER: 4.1%Hasty Generalization10.1%This article: 0.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 0.3%KUER: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 0.5%KUER: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 6.7%KUER: 5.6%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.6%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 0.9%KUER: 0.7%Begging the Question0.6%This article: 1.7%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 2.2%KUER: 2.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)1.7%This article: 0.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 0.2%KUER: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 0.5%KUER: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 0.2%KUER: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 3.2%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 0.2%KUER: 0.3%Composition/Division3.2%This article: 5.3%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 3.2%KUER: 3.1%Anecdotal5.3%This article: 0.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 0.2%KUER: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 1.6%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 2.3%KUER: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)1.6%This article: 0.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 0.0%KUER: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 0.3%KUER: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 0.2%KUER: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 0.3%KUER: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 0.1%KUER: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.6%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 1.2%KUER: 0.8%Unattributed Quote2.6%This article: 0.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 0.6%KUER: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 23.1%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 2.6%KUER: 2.2%Biased Writer Voice23.1%This article: 3.7%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 1.1%KUER: 1.6%Indoctrination3.7%This article: 0.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 1.4%KUER: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 0.4%KUER: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 0.3%KUER: 1.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

883 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers48%attributed speech458writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageKaty Hall • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageStephanie Pitcher • 19 words • 0.0% coverageStephanie Pitcher • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageStephanie Pitcher • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageStephanie Pitcher • 20 words • 0.0% coverageStephanie Pitcher • 35 words • 100.0% coverageStephanie Pitcher • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageStephanie Pitcher • 12 words • 0.0% coverageStephanie Pitcher • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageKaty Hall • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageKaty Hall • 42 words • 100.0% coverageKaty Hall • 23 words • 0.0% coverageKaty Hall • 24 words • 0.0% coverageKaty Hall • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageDoug Fiefia • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageDoug Fiefia • 46 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Doug Fiefia

66%flagged-word coverage
70 attributed words16% of attributed speech78% writer coverage
0%12.5%25.0%Biased Writer Voice-20.7 ptsWriter: 20.7%Doug Fiefia: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-5.0 ptsWriter: 5.0%Doug Fiefia: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.