In June 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states would be able to determine how they would regulate abortion, free from oversight by the federal courts. That decision set in motion a series of events in Utah prescribed by a “trigger law” that the state Legislature enacted in 2020.

That law provided that if the Supreme Court were to overturn the 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade (which had interpreted the U.S. Constitution to create a right of abortion which invalidated all state abortion regulations), a new abortion statute would take effect, stating that doctors may only perform abortions in rare circumstances where the pregnancy is the result of a sexual crime, where the procedure is necessary to prevent the death or a major irreversible injury to the mother, or where the unborn child is diagnosed with an injury that will cause a “mentally vegetative state” or death.

A lawsuit paused enforcement of the new law while Utah’s state courts determine whether the Utah Constitution includes a right to abortion that would invalidate the trigger law. The Utah Supreme Court is now considering the arguments in this case.

Among the arguments made by the plaintiffs in the lawsuit is that Utah’s new abortion law infringes on religious freedom. The basic arguments are (1) that the law is too similar to religious teachings and (2) that the law harms the rights of religious groups that believe abortion is permissible.

Sutherland Institute filed an amicus brief in the case to address these assertions, which are at odds with existing religious freedom principles. The brief points out factual flaws with the claim that Utah’s abortion law violates Utah’s constitutional protection of religious freedom by imposing a religious view of when life begins.

We note for the court that Utah’s law is similar to a proposal from the American Law Institute prior to the Roe v. Wade decision and that there is no evidence that any church interfered with or dominated the creation of Utah’s abortion law. The Utah law uses biological rather than religious criteria in defining abortion.

Sutherland’s brief also pointed to Supreme Court precedent allowing a ban on taxpayer funding of abortion, which said that similarities between legal and religious policy do not make the legal policy unconstitutional. As the court explained: “That the Judeo-Christian religions oppose stealing does not mean that a State or the Federal Government may not, consistent with the Establishment Clause, enact laws prohibiting larceny.”

Finally, Sutherland’s brief notes the basic principle that just having a religious belief does not mean that belief would invalidate the state’s compelling interest in protecting human life. Even sincere religious beliefs have to yield sometimes to critical interests like protecting life and public safety.

Last week, the Utah Solicitor General’s Office defending Utah’s new abortion law in court filed its final brief with the Utah Supreme Court. The portion of that brief addressing the religious freedom claims makes points similar to Sutherland’s brief, noting that if Planned Parenthood’s argument was taken to its logical limit, “the State could never legislate on controversial and divisive topics.”

The state’s argument also cites the Sutherland Institute brief as additional authority in responding to the religious freedom claims of the plaintiffs in the case.

The Utah Supreme Court must now determine how to respond to the constitutional questions raised by the case. There is no specific timeline for the court to issue its decision, but the court is known for timely rulings.

The court’s decision will determine whether the state Legislature can continue to regulate abortion in the state. It may also have an opportunity to clarify the legal rules related to religious freedom under the Utah Constitution, which could have important implications in other controversies. That makes the Utah Supreme Court’s forthcoming ruling important beyond the specific abortion policy dispute in this case.