Child safety concerns and states' rights collided Monday in the Legislature over Rep. Chris Herrod's proposal to relax requirements for some children to be strapped into child safety seats.

HB113 would allow 5- to 8-year-old children to be restrained by just a seat belt rather than a safety seat if available safety seats are occupied, the vehicle travels no farther than four miles from the child's residence on a trip to church or school and travels on any streets with a speed limit not exceeding 45 mph. It was advanced to the full House on a 5-4 vote along party lines.

Representatives from Primary Children's Medical Center (PCMC) and the American Academy of Pediatrics lined up against the bill, fearing the safety of children would be jeopardized without the seat requirement.

"I am very passionate about protecting the lives of children who don't have the opportunity to speak for themselves," said Janet Brooks, the child advocacy manager at PCMC and former board member on the National Child Passenger Safety Board. "We have educated, we have spent countless hours educating the public about booster seats. If [federal funding] happens to be cut because this piece of legislation is passed, we'll lose valuable money and support to train and educate people."

Legislative fiscal analysts say the measure would result in the loss of $151,000 annually in federal funds.

"I hate to think that we would make the decision on this bill based on money, especially federal money," said Dalane England, vice president of issues for the Utah Eagle Forum. "This bill is designed to make our children more safe than they would be without it."

Charles Pruitt, the medical director for child advocacy at PCMC, however, detailed the types of injuries he has seen due to improper seat belt use while serving as an emergency room physician, including injuries from the lap belt to the reproductive organs.

"I am, frankly, angry and sick and tired of seeing dead children come into my emergency room because they were restrained improperly," he said.

While opponents of the bill focused on potential injuries to children, proponents took a states' rights stance as a reason to pass the bill.

"When we put decisions in the hands of the government, decisions that are based on broad factors, we lose our freedom," said Peter Cannon, a member of the Davis County 9/12 Project, an organization devoted to enhancing states' rights.

Herrod, R-Provo, expressed a similar sentiment.

"I get frustrated with do-gooders that try to tell parents what to do," Herrod said after the meeting. "If they're out to protect kids, they should go after alcohol."