Ray's bill easily cleared a House committee last week and has the support of leaders in the House and Senate. In the past, Republican Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. has said he supports restricting abortions.

The future of the bill may be determined by whether the state is willing to spend millions to defend it. The state Attorney General's Office estimates it would cost $2 million to defend such a measure with in-house counsel; $4 million if outside lawyers are brought in.

"Everyone involved knows ahead of time this battle could be a costly one," said Paul Murphy, spokesman for Attorney General Mark Shurtleff.

State Rep. Steve Sandstrom, R-Orem, said it would be well worth the cost. It was his idea to position Utah as the challenging state to Roe v. Wade. His bill would create a trust to take in private donations to defend the law, with the public picking up the remainder of the tab.

"How do you put a value on the cost to defend life? I think the people of this state would be willing for us to do that," Sandstrom said.

Planned Parenthood Association of Utah director Karrie Galloway is outraged.

"I find it very disingenuous of these legislators to feel the most important thing they will do is to tackle this abortion law when they're doing nothing to prevent unintended pregnancy," she said.

Utah's lawmakers believe sex education should occur at the home. Ray contends there is no evidence sex education reduces unintended pregnancies. He equates abortion with murder and says pregnant women who don't want to be mothers should give up their babies for adoption.

In a year when Utah has a $1.6 billion surplus and a pro-life president has appointed new justices to the Supreme Court, Sandstrom believes now is the time to challenge Roe v. Wade.

"The whole business with the new people on the court, there is a chance," Sandstrom said. "With the current composition, I think there's one swing vote out there that can make the difference. I think it's (Justice Anthony) Kennedy."

Legal scholars doubt it. Kennedy wrote part of the Casey v. Planned Parenthood opinion that reaffirmed Roe v. Wade and created the "undue burden" standard.

The opinion said, in part, "Before viability, the State's interests are not strong enough to support a prohibition of abortion or the imposition of a substantial obstacle to the woman's effective right to elect the procedure."

Kennedy and four other justices are on record supporting constitutional protection of a woman's right to choose abortion before a fetus is viable outside the womb, said Columbia University law professor Gillian Metzger.

"I personally haven't seen any indication suggesting those votes are likely to change," Metzger said. "But, we may have indications on that from the court's decision on the federal partial (birth) abortion act later this term. ... But we might not, because even if that measure is upheld as constitutional it doesn't indicate that there aren't still five votes for a constitutional right to choose in some form."

The American Civil Liberties Union of Utah is fighting Ray's bill and will join in any lawsuit to block it from being enforced.

"Casey revived Roe v. Wade by essentially placing an 'undue burden' standard. Clearly, a ban is an undue burden. I would say Supreme Court case law clearly supports our position on this," said Margaret Plane, legal counsel for ACLU of Utah.

"I don't even need to count votes. The way the rule of law works, the way Supreme Court precedent works, they don't just up and overturn a 34-year precedent. It may be chipped away at, it may change, it may grow. But there's something called the rule of law that's not just upended because of a new justice or two."