In 2020, the Utah Legislature passed SB 174, a pro-life “trigger” law that would protect unborn human lives in the state of Utah. The law has only a few exceptions (life/health of mother, severe fetal defect, and/or pregnancy as a result of rape/incest) where abortion would be legal in Utah. A very small percentage of abortions are performed because of these exceptions, which means that this law would stop virtually all abortions in Utah.

In 2022, the United States Supreme Court wisely struck down Roe v Wade in its Dobbs decision, opening the door for Utah’s SB 174 trigger law to go into effect. However, almost immediately after Dobbs was decided, the Planned Parenthood Association of Utah (PPAU) filed a complaint challenging SB 174, claiming that the law violated the Utah Constitution. As a result, SB 174 was kept from going into effect, allowing thousands of unborn human lives to be terminated in Utah, while PPAU’s case worked its way through the judicial system. Finally, two years later in 2024, the Utah Supreme Court ruled on this case in Planned Parenthood Association of Utah v. State of Utah. The Court ruled in favor of PPAU, keeping SB 174 from going into effect while PPAU continues to litigate its claims. Associate Chief Justice Pearce and Justices Petersen, Hagen, and Pohlman took this side in this issue while Chief Justice Durrant dissented against it. Like our seasoned chief justice, all Utahns should oppose the immoral and poorly-reasoned decision in Planned Parenthood that is allowing thousands of unborn babies to be slaughtered every year in Utah. 

One of the reasons Utahns should oppose the case’s decision is that PPAU’s claim that abortion is protected under the Utah Constitution is frankly absurd. One must study the historical context into which a constitution was written to learn what the framers of that constitution actually meant by the words they wrote. As the State of Utah pointed out in Planned Parenthood, “no historical evidence exists to support the proposition that the drafters of the Utah Constitution would have considered abortion a right that the [Utah] constitution protects.” To any student of Utah history, it is clear that this statement is true. The Utah Constitution was drafted in the 19th century. This was a time when abortion was rightfully considered abhorrent by virtually all of American society and by Utahns in particular as the staunchly pro-life Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints dominated Utahn culture. Thus, the drafters of the Utah Constitution would not have dreamed that the rights they listed in the constitution would be applicable to supporting abortion.

Another reason Utah citizens should oppose the court's decision in PPAU v. Utah is how morally blind and illogical it is. The majority opinion of the Utah Supreme Court partly rested on the argument “that an injunction [against SB 174] would not be adverse to the public interest.” In other words, the majority believed that the “harm” that would come from women being unable to have abortions under SB 174 outweighed the harm of those babies being aborted. As they specifically put it:

The “public has a substantial interest in an   injunction   blocking   a   law   that   fundamentally   upsets   the longstanding status quo”...Under SB 174, “approximately 2,800 Utahns each year will be forced either to remain pregnant against their will; go out of state for an abortion if they can find the means to do so . . . or attempt to obtain an abortion outside of the medical system.” 

Thus, the majority believed that the death of approximately 2,800 babies in Utah annually was not “adverse to the public interest.” The State of Utah attempted to point out how morally blind this position is by arguing:

An  injunction  would  impair  the state’s “strong  public  interest  in  the  enforcement  of  valid  state statutes”  and  “the  protection  of  human  life,  rooted  in  a  moral conviction  about  the  worth  of  each  unborn  child”...“The public interest demands that [SB 174] remain in force.”

Furthermore, Chief Justice Durrant, a Harvard Law graduate with around 25 years’ experience on the court, explained in his dissenting opinion the lack of legal logic in the majority’s opinion. He explained that PPAU was not legally “entitled to claim public-interest standing” and that, therefore, he “would overturn the district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction” against SB 174, allowing the law to go into effect. 

Four out of the five current Utah Supreme Court justices have failed to protect the public interest of Utah by failing to protect the unborn’s right to life. Due to this failure, thousands of unborn babies are being killed in Utah annually and will continue to be killed until the injunction against SB 174 is finally lifted. The founders of the state of Utah would be aghast that this massacre was occurring in our state, especially if they knew how we have the power within our state to stop it. In the next general election in Utah, justices Pohlman and Hagen will be up for retention. Utahns will vote to decide whether they keep their seats on the court or not. As we contemplate how to cast our votes, we would do well to remember that they sided with the legally illogical ruling in Planned Parenthood Association of Utah v. State of Utah, allowing thousands of unborn children to be killed in our state each year.