Utah Supreme Court decision to uphold block on abortion trigger law elicits many viewpoints

During the 2020 Utah legislative session, lawmakers enacted Senate Bill 174, also known as the Abortion Prohibition Amendment.

Known as a trigger law, SB 174, designed to ban nearly all abortions in the state, would take effect if Roe v. Wade was overturned — which occurred in 2022, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that abortion was not constitutionally protected and states could determine their own abortion laws.

Immediately following the enactment of the trigger law in Utah, Planned Parenthood Association of Utah (PPAU) promptly filed a lawsuit against the state, alleging violations of residents’ rights under the Utah State Constitution. Third District Judge Andrew Stone granted PPAU’s request for a preliminary injunction to block the ban in July 2022.

On Aug. 1 of this year, the Utah Supreme Court upheld the injunction, which will remain in effect while the litigation continues. As of this writing, abortions remain legal in Utah up to 18 weeks of pregnancy.

“Here in this state, we feel we’ve taken a step forward to allow the citizens to have their bodily autonomy and again design the landscape of their family and what that looks like for them,” Kathryn Boyd, president and CEO of PPAU, told The Globe hours after the decision was made.

“We’re very pleased with the decision,” Boyd continued. “We feel the Utah Supreme Court applied the law correctly and were able to understand where our standing was with the constitutional rights of all Utahns and how this ban harms citizens here.”

Standing outside of the PPAU building in Salt Lake, Joy Sidewell, a sonographer, expressed dismay over the court’s decision, and she wanted people to know there are options.

“Sad. There are so many lives that will be lost,” Sidewell said. “There’s another side and they can pick life if they choose.”

Yunn Thin, a SLCC student in their second year studying hospitality services, visualizes a family that wouldn’t struggle to make ends meet.

“What if they’re not ready for their baby? For example, the baby is born but nothing is ready for him … maybe food, or shelter, or school fees and stuff like that, and they can’t afford it right now. They’re not ready yet,” Thin said. “I think the impact of [these circumstances] also can have impacts on the baby.”

Capitol rally

Utahns pleased with the latest court decision met at the state Capitol on the evening of Aug. 1 for a 7 p.m. rally. Michelle Allred, an attorney in Utah, expressed her concerns over bans on abortion taking precedence over a woman’s health.

Allred also shared her own journey with those in attendance.

“Several years ago, I was pregnant for the first time. It was a very wanted pregnancy, and at 18 1/2 weeks I had a very severe pregnancy complication that required an abortion to save my life. At the time, Roe was still in place [and] there were no issues,” Allred explained. “I am pained at the thought that there are others that will have complications similar to mine that would be denied the health care to save their life.”

After her and her husband had the abortion to save her life, Allred later had two daughters.

“I wouldn’t be here, my daughters wouldn’t be here, if we had not been allowed to have an abortion,” Allred said.

Another rally attendee, Elizabeth Hutchings, found the decision particularly meaningful. She believes abortion is often grouped together in one classification and it can be a necessary and life-saving procedure in cases of non-viable pregnancies such as Allred’s story.

Boyd said it is gratifying to witness a court accurately interpreting the law, amidst a recurring pattern of detrimental bans causing suffering and adverse health outcomes for individuals.

“People suffer, and we’ve seen studies with patients and how they’re affected — increased maternal mortality rates, increased infant mortality rates; people that are forced to carry pregnancies and have children and it’s no longer their choice,” Boyd said.

Allred suggested that much of the emphasis from the conservative perspective appears to be on individuals not desiring their pregnancies. Whereas in her case, Allred and her husband desired to keep their pregnancy, but unforeseen complications arose, resulting in the unwanted but necessary abortion.

Hutchings shared a similar viewpoint regarding the tendency to view abortion in a simplistic manner, despite its potential as a life-saving measure for individuals.

“It’s never an easy decision to make. Leaving those decisions between people who can become pregnant and their doctors is such an important thing. It’s not something for lawmakers to decide,” Hutchings said.

Reproductive rights are not a “female only” issue

The rally brought out approximately 60 people, including Grant Miller, a defense attorney who is running for House District 24. He said he would like to see more men informed about the far-reaching impacts of abortion.

“If you want to have family planning and family care, you need to care about reproductive health care and abortion access,” Miller said.

While campaigning, Miller has observed that men may feel somewhat uncomfortable when discussing reproductive health care.

“I would encourage men to talk openly about it,” Miller said. “Start studying and researching issues and talking to your partners about reproductive health care and reproductive rights, because it’s intersectional, which means that affects both of us [as partners] across the board. Because when we talk about reproductive health care, it doesn’t start and stop at abortion.”

“Things like paternity leave [are] just as important as maternity leave when we’re talking about equal rights and family planning. All this stuff is interconnected,” Miller added.

Accuracy of the Supreme Court’s decision and the future of abortion in Utah

“For now, what’s really meaningful for me is that the State Supreme Court, they’re not a partisan organization. Each one of those five justices was appointed by a Republican governor and approved by a supermajority Republican legislature,” Miller said. “They’re all very capable jurists and I don’t think that politics is their aim, or partisan politics is their aim. I think they’re trying to get constitutional law correct. And that’s what they did.”

In a press conference earlier in the day at the Capitol, Republican State Sen. Dan McCay, one of the sponsors of SB 174, expressed his view after the ruling was released.

“I’m still encouraged about the likelihood that SB 174 will be found constitutional and will be held up to match the will of the people and restrict access to abortion in the state of Utah. I’ve notified the governor and the legislative leadership today that I’m going to be asking for a special session between now and the end of the year to look at our own abortion law,” McCay said.

“Right now, we have a ban at 18 weeks. We’re going to look at making it much shorter. We’re looking at states that have a six-week ban and moving our 18-week gestational ban down to six weeks potentially,” McCay concluded.

Boyd understands that while this is one victory, there remains much work to be done.

“This fight continues. It doesn’t mean that the Utah legislature isn’t going to try to pass another bill. They could. They could totally do that. And we’ll be ready,” Boyd said.