Utah's version has exceptions for rape, incest, life of the mother, and fatal fetal defects. Although I'm strongly pro-choice, I'm okay with Utah's version. Medicine has progressed so far in recent years that a fetus can actually survive when prematurely born at several months. Part of Roe v Wade's decision, as I recall, was that the breaking point of when a fetus becomes a human being, that is, when it can survive outside the womb (fetal viability), even with artificial assistance. At that time years ago, that point was 6 months. It's shorter, now.
I think this will be challenged in court, so we'll see if it stands. I'd prefer this to be decided by non-partisan judges. I think the Arkansas version will have to include exceptions to protect the mother's life and health, and Utah's version will have to include protections for the mother's health (not just her life).
Planned Parenthood v. Casey, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood_v._Casey
Although upholding the "essential holding" in Roe, and recognizing that women have some constitutional liberty to terminate their pregnancies, the O'Connor–Kennedy–Souter plurality overturned the Roe trimester framework in favor of a viability analysis. The Roe trimester framework completely forbade states from regulating abortion during the first trimester of pregnancy, permitted regulations designed to protect a woman's health in the second trimester, and permitted prohibitions on abortion during the third trimester (when the fetus becomes viable) under the justification of fetal protection, and so long as the life or health of the mother was not at risk.[17] The plurality found that continuing advancements in medical technology had proven that a fetus could be considered viable at 23 or 24 weeks rather than at the 28 weeks previously understood by the Court in Roe.[12] The plurality thus redrew the line of increasing state interest at viability because of increasing medical accuracy about when fetus viability takes place. Likewise, the authors of the plurality opinion felt that fetus viability was "more workable" than the trimester framework.[18]
Under this new fetus viability framework, the plurality held that at the point of viability and subsequent to viability, the state could promote its interest in the "potentiality of human life" by regulating, or possibly proscribing, abortion "except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother."[19] Prior to fetus viability, the plurality held, the State can show concern for fetal development, but it cannot pose an undue burden on a woman's fundamental right to abortion.[20] The plurality reasoned that the new pre- and post-viability line would still uphold the essential holding of Roe, which recognized both the woman's constitutionally protected liberty, and the State's "important and legitimate interest in potential life."[21]
= new reply since forum marked as read
