Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Abortion Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Utah Senate Passes Substitute Senate Bill 23, an Abortion‑Limitation Measure, After Lengthy Debate
Summary
After hours of debate and floor amendments, the Utah Senate passed Substitute Senate Bill 23, a two‑step abortion‑limitation bill, by a vote of 23–5 with one senator absent. Sponsors said amendments clarify physician judgment and remove criminal liability for the woman; opponents warned of constitutional risk and litigation costs.
The Utah Senate passed Substitute Senate Bill 23, an abortion‑limitation measure, on a 23–5 vote with one senator absent.
Senator Beatty, floor sponsor in Senator McAllister’s absence, introduced six amendments intended to clarify the bill’s language, including placing certain decisions in the “professional judgment of the pregnant woman’s attending physician” and explicitly removing criminal liability for a woman seeking an abortion. "We believe these amendments bring clarity and would avoid some misunderstandings in any judicial review," Beatty said while moving the changes.
Why it matters: The bill drew sustained, emotional debate over constitutional exposure and the potential cost of litigation. Opponents said the measure is likely to be challenged and could be struck down, creating legal costs and statewide controversy. "We know this bill is unconstitutional," Senator Shepherd said on the floor, warning the state could face heavy litigation costs and national attention. Senator Richards echoed concerns about the state "gambling" on a favorable judicial outcome and urged delay until similar out‑of‑state cases were resolved.
Supporters countered that the sponsor and the task force had held hearings and considered alternative models and that the amendments were intended to make the statute more legally defensible. Senator Reese said the task force had considered bills from Guam and Pennsylvania and concluded neither reflected Utah’s approach; "we felt it was worth a risk," he said in defense of advancing the measure.
Key amendments and clarifications included: placing certain clinical determinations in the professional judgment of the patient’s physician; inserting a statutory cross‑reference to the criminal code to make clear the woman would not be held criminally liable; and replacing phrasing such as "right of choice" with the narrower legal term "liberty interest," language sponsors said was chosen to improve the bill’s defensibility in court.
Process and next steps: A motion to table the bill and send it back to committee failed on the floor, 8 in favor and 19 opposed. After debate and adoption of the sponsor’s amendments, the Senate called the question. The clerk announced substitute SB23 shows 23 ayes, 5 nays, 1 absent; the bill now proceeds to the House for further action.
Quotes (selected): "These amendments bring clarity and would avoid some misunderstandings in any judicial review," — Senator Beatty, moving floor amendments. "We know this bill is unconstitutional," — Senator Shepherd, urging caution about the legal and fiscal consequences. "The Guam bill was much too strict… the Pennsylvania bill is different and doesn’t address what we’re addressing," — Senator Reese, on why the task force did not adopt other states’ models.
What to watch: Sponsors and opponents both signaled potential litigation; the bill’s survival and any judicial review will shape whether and when the statute could take effect and how state resources might be affected.
