Utah lawmakers have asked their attorneys for a constitutional review of a bill that would restrict the reach of any federal health-care reform.

HB67 started out as a bill requiring state agencies to report to the Legislature before enacting any federal mandates, but the sponsor changed it to require legislative approval before the state abides by federal rules. It's that change that caused House members to pull the bill from the debate lineup Wednesday and ask whether it's constitutional.

Rep. Carl Wimmer, R-Herriman, said he's confident his bill will hold up and hopes it returns to the floor for debate this week. He wanted to strengthen the bill to prevent federal mandates, he said.

"The Legislature is going to act as a stopgap," he said.

Wimmer said he believes the bill is constitutional, but he understands the need for a legal opinion.

"It raises the aggressiveness of the bill, and that's why they want to look at it," he said.

Sen. John Valentine, R-Orem, said he believes health reform is an appropriate arena for the state to challenge federal authority. Valentine, an attorney, voted against another such challenge Wednesday -- a bill restricting federal regulation of Utah-made guns -- because of a long judicial history upholding federal gun authority.

Health care is different, he said. "The health care reform issues, I believe, are within the purview of the states," Valentine said. "And why? Because there is no case precedence." The House Health and Human Services Committee approved HB67 earlier this week.