WILKINS, Justice:
T 1 The instant appeal requires us to determine the constitutionality of the Utah Wrongful Life Act, Utah Code Ann. §§ 78-11-23 to -25 (2002), legislation prohibiting a cause of action "based on the claim that but for the act or omission of another, a person would not have been permitted to have been born alive but would have been aborted." Utah Code Ann. § 78-11-24 (2002). Plaintiffs insist the statute violates the Open Courts Clause, article I, section 11 of the Utah Constitution, the Due Process guarantees of the United States and Utah Constitutions, and the Equal Protection guarantees of the United States and Utah Constitutions. Plaintiffs claim the district court erred in upholding the Utah Wrongful Life Act as constitutional and in dismissing plaintiffs' complaint for wrongful birth as barred by the Act. We are also asked to decide whether plaintiffs' claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress and failure to obtain informed consent were appropriately dismissed as barred by the Act because they necessarily require proof that plaintiffs would have aborted the child. We affirm the decision of the district court.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
%2 When determining whether a trial court properly dismissed a complaint, we accept the factual allegations in the complaint as true and consider them, and all reasonable inferences to be drawn from them, in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. See Krouse v. Bower, 2001 UT 28, ¶ 2, 20 P.3d 895. We recite the facts accordingly.
T3 This case arose from treatment and advice that plaintiffs Marie Wood and Terry Borman received from the University of Utah Medical Center related to Marie's pregnancy. When Marie became pregnant, she and her husband, Terry, sought genetic counseling from the University of Utah Medical Center ("Medical Center"). They specifically sought advice about the risk that Marie, because of her age, would give birth to a child with a genetic disorder. Doctors at the Medical Center performed some tests in January 1998, the results of which plaintiffs claim they were never informed. Further testing was performed in February and March 1998. An initial February test was unsuccessful, so plaintiffs opted for a repeat test later in the month. A second February test was performed, followed by further testing in March. Plaintiffs claim they were again not informed of the results of a March test. They were, however, informed in late March that the tests indicated an 85% probability that Marie's would-be child would be born with Down syndrome. Nevertheless, doctors told plaintiffs not to worry because the tests often resulted in false positives and led plaintiffs to believe that the chances Marie's child would have Down syndrome were actually quite small. Based on this advice, plaintiffs decided to proceed with delivery. In August 1998, Marie delivered a baby girl, Mary Lorraine, who was diagnosed with Down syndrome.
T4 Plaintiffs filed suit in the district court alleging that the doctors and other health care professionals employed at the Medical Center were negligent because they misread the tests, and failed to inform plaintiffs of certain test results; specifically, the likelihood that Marie would deliver a child with Down syndrome. Plaintiffs raised three causes of action: (1) Negligence in performing and interpreting various tests and for failing to provide plaintiffs with sufficient information to make an informed decision whether to abort, resulting in the birth of Mary, a child with Down syndrome. In raising this claim plaintiffs maintain that because of this negligence, they incurred the cost of labor and delivery, they are incurring unwanted medical and other expenses related to Mary's care, they will be "unable to live
[440]*440ordinary lives due to the increased attention Mary Lorraine will require," they suffer mental anguish and pain and suffering, and Mary was "wrongfully born afflicted with Down Syndrome, and will suffer the effects of that syndrome for the remainder of her natural life." (2) Negligent infliction of emotional distress. In raising this claim plaintiffs "re-aver[ed] all allegations previously stated" and claimed "they will continue to incur pain and suffering and mental anguish for the remainder of their natural lives" because of the Medical Center's negligence. (3) Failure to obtain informed consent. In raising this claim plaintiffs again "re-aver[ed] all allegations previously stated." Plaintiffs also specifically insisted that "[a] reasonable, prudent person or persons in Plaintiffs' position would not have consented to the health care rendered after having been fully informed as to all facts relevant to the decision to give consent." Plaintiffs further claimed they were "denied the opportunity to make an informed decision as to the medical care they would receive, and as to the continuation of the pregnancy," and, as a result, suffer "mental anguish and distress, loss of consortium, costs associated with labor and delivery, extraordinary medical and other related expenses, and the right to lead a normal life." Couched as a fourth cause of action, plaintiffs asserted that section 78-11-24 of the Utah Code is unconstitutional.
T5 The Medical Center filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, pursuant to Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), alleging that plaintiffs' claims were barred by sections 78-11-23 and -24 of the Utah Code, two provisions of the Utah Wrongful Life Act. Plaintiffs opposed the motion and filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment, asserting that section 78-11-24 is unconstitutional. The district court held that section 78-11-24 was constitutional and barred all of plaintiffs' claims, therefore granting defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings and denying plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment.
T6 Plaintiffs appeal, challenging section 78-11-24 as violative of the Open Courts Clause of the Utah Constitution, the Due Process Clauses of the Utah and United States Constitutions, and the equal protection guarantees of the Utah and United States Constitutions. Plaintiffs also claim the district court erred in dismissing their claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress and failure to obtain informed consent.
ANALYSIS
I. OPEN COURTS CLAUSE
A. Standard of Review
T7 "The issue of [whether a statute is constitutional is a question of law, which we review for correctness, giving no deference to the trial court" " Grand County v. Emery County, 2002 UT 57, ¶ 6, 52 P.3d 1148 (quoting State v. Daniels, 2002 UT 2, 1 30, 40 P.3d 611). Furthermore, we presume the legislation being challenged is constitutional, and we resolve any reasonable doubts in favor of constitutionality. Id.; see also Utah Sch. Bds. Ass'n v. State Bd. of Educ., 2001 UT 2, 9, 17 P.3d 1125. As this court stated in a prior Open Courts case:
The first and foundational [principle of law relating to the constitutionality of statutes] is that the prerogative of the legislature as the creators of the law is to be respected. Consequently, its enactments are accorded a presumption of validity; and the courts do not strike down a legislative act unless the interests of justice in the particular case before it require doing so because the act is clearly in conflict with the higher law as set forth in the Constitution.
Zamora v. Draper, 635 P.2d 78, 80 (Utah 1981) (internal citations omitted); see also Soc'y of Separationists, Inc. v. Whitehead, 870 P.2d 916, 920 (Utah 1993); Lindon City v. Engineers Const. Co., 636 P.2d 1070, 1073 (Utah 1981).
T8 We recognize that on previous occasions involving Open Courts challenges this court recognized an exception to our well-settled presumption-of-constitutionality standard. See Hipwell v. Sharp, 858 P.2d 987, 988 n. 4 (Utah 1993); Condemarin v. Univ. Hosp., 775 P.2d 348, 368 (Utah 1989) (Zimmerman, J., concurring); see also Currier v. Holden, 862 P.2d 1357, 1362-63 (Utah Ct.App.1993). We submit that this heightened [441]*441standard of review for Open Courts challenges was in error. Any heightened level of serutiny simply because the constitutional challenge is based on the Open Courts Clause is improper. We recognize that returning to the established standard of review is contrary to the relatively recent above-cited decisions. However, "[tlhis court has 'not hesitated ... to reverse case law when we are firmly convinced that we have erred earlier? " Clark v. Clark, 2001 UT 44, ¶ 32 n. 3, 27 P.3d 538 (quoting Staker v. Ainsworth, 785 P.2d 417, 424 n. 5 (Utah 1990)) (Russon, AC.J., dissenting, joined by Howe, C.J.). We are firmly convinced that this court erred earlier, and, as a result, we would review challenges to legislation based on the Open Courts Clause for correctness, resolving any reasonable doubts in favor of constitutionality, just as in all other such cases.
B. Berry Analysis
19 The Open Courts Clause analysis is controlled by Laney v. Fairview City, 2002 UT 79, 57 P.3d 1007, this court's recent interpretation of the Open Courts Clause, upholding Berry ex rel. Berry v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 717 P.2d 670 (Utah 1985).1 The challenged legislation, section 78-11-24 of the Utah Code, was enacted in 1983 and reads as follows:
A cause of action shall not arise, and damages shall not be awarded, on behalf of any person, based on the claim that but for the act or omission of another, a person would not have been permitted to have been born alive but would have been aborted.
Utah Code Ann. § 78-11-24 (2002). Plaintiffs first claim that the statute violates the Open Courts Clause. In order for a statute to withstand a constitutional challenge under the Open Courts Clause, Berry requires one of two conditions to be met:
First, ... the law [must otherwise provide] an injured person an effective and reasonable alternative remedy "by due course of law" for vindication of his constitutional interest. The benefit provided by the substitute must be substantially equal in value or other benefit to the remedy abrogated in providing essentially comparable substantive protection to one's person, property, or reputation, although the form of the substitute remedy may be different ... [; or]
[slecond, if there is no substitute or alternative remedy provided, abrogation of the remedy or cause of action may be justified only if there is a clear social or economic evil to be eliminated and the elimination of an existing legal remedy is not an arbitrary or unreasonable means for achieving the objective.
Berry, 717 P.2d at 680 (citations omitted).
110 Plaintiffs argue that the statute violates the Open Courts Clause because it abrogates a legal remedy (1) without providing an alternative remedy and (2) without eliminating a clear social or economic evil. First, plaintiffs insist that the statute abrogates a legal remedy without providing an alternative remedy. Plaintiffs assert that their claim for professional negligence, cognizable before the legislation was enacted, has been eliminated without providing any remedy, let alone one that is "substantially equal in value or other benefit." Id. Plaintiffs further assert that Utah has always recognized a remedy for medical malpractice, particularly in 1983 when the statute was enacted, the time critical to the Berry analysis. They contend the Medical Center owed them a duty of professional care, which it breached, depriving plaintiffs of the opportunity to make an informed choice. In other words, according to plaintiffs, their claim is simply a negligence claim, and because of the legislation, their claim that would have been valid prior to the statute is now no longer available. Second, plaintiffs argue that because there is [442]*442no effective and reasonable alternative remedy, the legislation must satisfy the second Berry query, which it does not. "[Ilf there is no substitute or alternative remedy provided, abrogation of the remedy or cause of action may be justified only if there is a clear social or economic evil to be eliminated and the elimination of an existing legal remedy is not an arbitrary or unreasonable means for achieving the objective." Id. (citations omitted). According to plaintiffs, the statute does not eliminate a clear social or economic evil. They declare that abortion cannot be a clear social evil because a woman has a constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy. Additionally, they claim, the Medical Center has not shown that the evil they suggest was eliminated, the stigmatization of unwanted children, was the evil the legislature intended to eliminate. Moreover, according to plaintiffs, the statute is arbitrary and unreasonable in attempting to achieve its objectives. Plaintiffs insist the avowed legislative objective veils the statute's underlying objectives, which include permitting doctors to refuse to perform abortions and an intent to reduce genetic testing. The essence of the problem for plaintiffs is that, in their view, the statute does away with a remedy that existed prior to the statute's enactment, effectively insulating doctors from professional liability under cireumstances such as these, and in abolishing this remedy, the legislature did not eliminate a clear social or economic evil, much less do so through a non-arbitrary, reasonable statute that is narrowly tailored to advance its avowed purpose.
111 The Medical Center counters that the statute does not violate the Open Courts Clause for two reasons. First, the statute does not abrogate an existing legal remedy. The Medical Center insists a wrongful birth claim is not simply a medical malpractice claim and that there was no existing cause of action for wrongful birth in 1983 when section 78-11-24 was enacted. Second, it proposes that, assuming the statute does abrogate an existing legal remedy without providing an effective and reasonable alternative remedy, there is a clear so-clal or economic evil to be eliminated, namely the stigmatization of disabled and unwanted children, and the statute is not an arbitrary or unreasonable means for achieving this objective. Thus, the statute is a constitutional exercise of legislative power.
112 We turn to the initial Berry query: Whether the statute provides an effective and reasonable alternative remedy, substantially equal in value or other benefit to the abrogated legal remedy. Berry, 717 P.2d at 680. Inherent in this question, however, is whether the statute abrogated an existing remedy or cause of action. See Crus v. Wright, 765 P.2d 869, 870-71 (Utah 1988). We agree with defendant that the statute did not abolish an existing legal claim or remedy because Utah did not recognize a right to sue for wrongful birth in 1983.
$13 As required under Day v. State, we consider whether the statute abolished a legal remedy that existed at the time of enactment, not whether the statute abolished a legal remedy that existed at the time of statehood. 1999 UT 46, ¶¶ 36-38, 980 P.2d 1171. We disagree with the plaintiffs' argument that the statute abolished the right to claim negligence against a physician who gives erroneous medical advice to a mother who, based on that erroneous advice, decides to proceed with pregnancy and then delivers a child with a disability. It is true that health care professionals are essentially insulated from certain professional malpractice claims; but, the fact remains that, under our Berry test, the statute did not abolish an existing legal claim or remedy because Utah did not recognize a right to sue for wrongful birth in 1983.
{ 14 We note at the outset that "(alt common law, no cause of action existed for either wrongful birth or wrongful death." Hickman v. Group Health Plan, Inc., 396 N.W.2d 10, 13 (Minn.1986) (citing Baker v. Bolton, 170 Eng. Rep. 1033 (N.P.1808), and W. Page Keeton et al., Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts §§ 55, 125A (5th ed.1984)). More importantly, though, this court has never recognized the tort of wrongful birth in Utah. In Payne ex rel. Payne v. Myers, this court was presented with a wrongful birth claim, but decided the appeal without determining whether a cause of action for wrong[443]*443ful birth existed in Utah. The court stated, "[alssuming, but not deciding, that Utah jurisprudence should recognize an action for wrongful birth, it is necessary to determine when the parents' cause of action acerued." 743 P.2d 186, 188-89 (Utah 1987) (footnote omitted). The court then held that plaintiffs' hypothetical claim for wrongful birth was barred in any event by governmental immunity because plaintiffs did not file a notice of claim within one year of when the alleged injury accrued. Id. at 189-90. The following year, in C.S. v. Nielson, 767 P.2d 504 (Utah 1988), this court again decided an appeal involving a claim for wrongful birth without deciding whether such a tort was recognized in Utah. See id. at 506. The court distinguished claims for wrongful life, wrongful pregnancy, and wrongful conception from a claim of wrongful birth,2 but then went on to expressly note that Nielson "is correctly viewed as involving a wrongful pregnancy cause of action." Id. In both Nielson and Payne, the court noted that other states that had considered wrongful birth claims were almost unanimous in their recognition of a cause of action where it was alleged that but for negligence, the parents would have terminated a congenitally or genetically defective fetus by abortion. Nielson, 767 P.2d at 506 n. 4 (citing Siemieniec v. Lutheran Gen. Hosp., 117 Ill.2d 230, 111 Ill.Dec. 302, 512 N.E.2d 691, 696 (1987)); Payne, 743 P.2d at 188-89 n. 5. Neither Nielson or Payne recognized, however, the existence of a cause of action for wrongful birth in Utah. At best, it was unclear whether such a cause of action might have been recognized by this court prior to 1983, if it had decided the issue. The fact remains, though, that no such decision was made, and consequently the tort of wrongful birth did not exist in Utah in 1983. In the absence of a declaration by this court either recognizing, or refusing to recognize, a cause of action for wrongful birth, the legislature set forth. the law, declaring that claims for wrongful birth would not be recognized in Utah in enacting section 78-11-24. As a result, regardless of whether such an action was recognized by other states at the time, because a cause of action for wrongful birth did not exist in Utah at the time the statute was enacted in 1983, the legislature did not abrogate an existing legal remedy.
T15 In sum, because the statute did not abrogate an existing legal remedy, and because the Berry test begins with the presumption that a legal remedy was abolished, the legislation satisfies the first Berry hurdle. Because we conclude that no existing remedy was abrogated, we need not apply the second part of the Berry3 As was the case in Crus v. Wright, "in the present case, in contrast to Berry, the statute in question did not operate either to extinguish a cause of action after it had acerued or to limit the remedies available; it simply prevented one from ever arising." 765 P.2d 869, 871 (Utah 1988). We therefore hold that the legislation in question was a constitutional exercise of legislative authority that did not violate the Open Courts Clause.
[444]*444II. DUE PROCESS
T16 Plaintiffs insist the statute violates the Due Process Clauses of the United States and Utah Constitutions. They claim that, despite the statement of legislative purpose that "it is the public policy of [Utah] to encourage all persons to respect the right to life of all other persons, regardless of age, development, condition or dependency, including all handicapped persons and all unborn persons," 4 Utah Code Ann. § 78-11-28 (1996), the purpose and effect of the statute is to unduly burden a fundamental constitutional right-the right of a woman to abort an unviable fetus. Plaintiffs argue that the statute, in effect, eliminates informed choice, and informed choice is central to the right to terminate a pregnancy. The Medical Center counters that the statute does not violate either the United States or Utah Due Process Clauses.5 The Medical Center argues that the purpose of the statute is not to prevent abortions, but indeed to "encourage people to respect the right to life of all other persons, ... including all persons with a disability and all unborn persons." Defendant claims plaintiffs' alleged sources of legislative history are not valid sources, but statements of the drafter and some legislators in non-legislative settings. The Medical Center asserts that the statute does not have the effect of unduly burdening the right of a woman to choose to abort her would-be child. According to the Medical Center, in order to be unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause, the statute must impose a significant burden on, or place a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking to abort an unviable fetus; and this statute does not unduly burden this fundamental right.
A. Federal Due Process
117 In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Supreme Court upheld the essential holding of Roe v. Wade, that a woman has the right to terminate her pregnancy before viability. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 870-71, 112 S.Ct. 2791, 120 L.Ed.2d 674 (1992); Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, 921, 120 S.Ct. 2597, 147 L.Ed.2d 743 (2000). In Casey, balancing the state's interest in fetal life and the right of a woman to decide to abort a nonviable fetus, the Court further held that this right of a woman to abort an unviable fetus cannot be unduly burdened by the state; a state regulation cannot have "the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus." Id. at 877, 112 S.Ct. 2791; Stenberg, 530 U.S. at 921, 120 S.Ct. 2597 (quoting Casey, 505 U.S. at 877, 112 S.Ct. 2791). Thus, current federal substantive due process requires us to decide whether section 78-11-24 prohibiting lawsuits for wrongful birth-claims "that but for the act or omission of another, a person would not have been permitted to have been born alive but would have been aborted"-"has the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus." Casey, 505 U.S. at 877, 112 S.Ct. 2791. In our view, the statute does not, either on its face or in its effect, place an undue burden on a woman's ability to abort an unviable fetus.
118 First, the statute is not unconstitutional on its face. By prohibiting causes of action based upon the assertion that but for the negligence of another, a fetus would have been aborted, the statute does not, on its face, place a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion. The statute's purpose is not to unduly burden the ability of a woman to abort an unviable fetus, but to prevent lawsuits for wrongful birth and thereby "encourage all persons to respect the right to life of all other persons." Utah Code Ann. § 78-11-28 (1996).
$19 Plaintiffs' contention that the statute's legislative history evidences that the statute's purpose is to prevent or hinder [445]*445abortions is unavailing as we need not examine the legislative history of this statute to discover the legislative intent. "When examining a statute, we look first to its plain language as the best indicator of the legislature's intent and purpose in passing the statute." Wilson v. Valley Mental Health, 969 P.2d 416, 418 (Utah 1998). Legislators may decide that a statute should be passed for myriad, often even different, reasons, but where the legislative purpose is expressly stated and agreed to as part of the legislation, we do not look to the views expressed by one or more legislators in floor debates, committee minutes, or elsewhere, in determining the intent of the statute. Because the legislature expressly set forth its intent and purpose in section 78-11-23 in enacting the instant legislation, we do not look at its legislative history. The purpose of the instant statute, as stated in section 78-11-28, is clear and unambiguous: "to encourage all persons to respect the right to life of all other persons, ... including all persons with a disability and all unborn persons." § 78-11-23 (2002); see also § 78-11-23 (2002).
T 20 There is no language in the Act limiting a woman's right to choose to abort a nonviable fetus. The statute does not contain language that addresses the ability of a woman to choose an abortion, much less does it contain language that, on its face, restricts that right. The statutory language prohibits one from filing suit to recover damages where the claim is that but for the act or omission of another, the fetus would have been aborted. Given the stated purpose and the text of the Utah Wrongful Life Act, we hold that the legislation was not intended to, and the language does not, on its face, unduly burden the ability of a woman to abort a nonviable fetus.
21 Whether the statute has the effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking to abort a nonviable fetus is a closer question. The statute does create a safe harbor for health care professionals who withhold information which could be used to make a determination on whether or not to abort a nonviable fetus. Nonetheless, we hold that this restriction on the ability to sue for damages does not place a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman wishing to obtain an abortion; we are not convinced that the statute, in practice, places an undue burden on a woman who seeks to abort a fetus.
22 We disagree with plaintiffs' reasoning that the statute's effect is to obstruct a woman who wishes to terminate her pregnancy from doing so. Plaintiffs reason that because a mother cannot sue her doctor alleging that, had the doctor fully informed her, she would have chosen to abort the fetus, doctors are insulated from some tort liability. Therefore, because doctors are insulated from some "wrongful birth" claims, doctors who disfavor abortion are licensed to withhold information and will not disclose information that they think may persuade a patient to abort. Consequently, according to plaintiffs, because the statute protects some doctors from being sued, and therefore some doctors may knowingly withhold information because they know they are immune from suit, a woman might be deprived of full information, and therefore the statute has the potential effect of unduly burdening the ability to choose an abortion. To us, this possible seenario is too tenuous to hold that the statute has the effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman who seeks an abortion.
123 The statute does nothing to hinder a woman who has made the decision to abort a fetus. The Act did not hinder Marie from aborting Mary Lorraine. Irrespective of the information provided by the doctor, and regardless of the doctor's motivation or intent, had she decided to, she could have aborted the unborn child with no obstruction placed in her way by the statute. Granted, the statute may, given the scenario offered by plaintiffs, immunize some doctors who decide to withhold information from certain types of claims; but if a woman wishes to abort her unborn child, the statute places no limitation on her right to do so. Had Ms. Wood decided to abort her unborn child, though, the statute would not have been a stumbling block burdening her ability to abort.
24 Nevertheless, assuming that the statute does, in effect, place an obstacle in the way of obtaining an abortion by creating a [446]*446situation that permits anti-abortion doctors to withhold information that they believe would influence a woman to abort her unborn child, we are not persuaded that such an obstacle is one that unduly burdens the ability of a woman to obtain an abortion. By prohibiting lawsuits in which plaintiffs allege that but for the negligence of a health care professional or organization the plaintiffs would have aborted a nonviable fetus, we recognize that the statute creates a safe harbor from certain tort actions for doctors who conduct genetic tests and withhold information. These doctors cannot be subject to some suits for withholding information because their patients cannot bring a claim that but for the actions of the doctor withholding material information, they would have aborted the unborn child. Just because the statute may permit such a situation to occur, however, does not convince us that the statute has the effect of unduly burdening the ability of a woman to receive an abortion. Such abortion-averse physicians are not completely immunized from suit. Other causes of action are still available for withholding information. Breach of contract, for example, and other tort claims that do not necessarily allege that but for the act or omission of the doctor the mother would have aborted, may be raised. Moreover, physicians are still accountable for withholding information as they risk professional discipline, including the loss of their license to practice medicine. The statute does not license doctors to withhold information from patients. We disagree with plaintiffs' assumption; just because one cannot sue her physician for wrongful birth-that but for the act or omission of the doctor the unborn child would have been aborted-does not necessarily mean that physicians who disfavor abortion are insulated from accountability, able to withhold information without adverse ramifications, and therefore inclined not to reveal information that would likely influence a woman to abort an unborn child. See Hickman v. Group Health Plan, Inc., 396 N.W.2d 10, 16-17 (Minn.1986) (Simonett, J., concurring specially, joined by Kelly, J., and Coyne, J.) (discussing why the absence of a tort deterrent to malpractice does not necessarily mean doctors will practice less carefully nor does the absence necessarily constitute an intrusion into a person's constitutional right to choose whether or not to have an abortion). Moreover, the legislation likely has no such effect upon physicians who do not disfavor abortion.
125 Of note to us is that when the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional the spousal notification statute in Casey and the partial birth abortion statute in Stenberg, the Court gave considerable weight to scientific literature and statistical studies demonstrating the effect the legislation had on abortion rates. The studies supported factual findings made by the trial courts that the respective statutes had the effect of imposing a substantial obstacle. The Court noted in Casey that the district court's findings of fact, indicating that women were unlikely to avail themselves of the statutory exceptions to spousal notification, were supported by scientific studies of domestic violence. Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 891, 112 S.Ct. 2791, 120 L.Ed.2d 674 (1992). The Court was persuaded that, based on the extensive scientific and statistical research, because women were unlikely to avail themselves of the exceptions to spousal notification, the exeeptions were, in effect, essentially meaningless. See id. at 895, 112 S.Ct. 2791. In Stenberg, the Court struck down a Nebraska law banning one method of abortion based on scientific statistical studies showing that the ban could have created significant health risks for women who seek abortions. Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, 923-32, 120 S.Ct. 2597, 147 L.Ed.2d 743 (2000). In contrast, neither this court nor the trial court has been presented with anything more than plaintiffs' allegation that their physician withheld information to persuade us that the effect plaintiffs propose-physicians who disfavor abortion are likely to withhold information-is, in effect, an obstacle to obtaining an abortion. The trial court was never presented with any evidence demonstrating the effect the statute has on abortions. Plaintiffs have not presented us with any scientific or statistical support for their argument that the statute necessarily has the effect of burdening the ability of a woman to obtain an abortion. In short, plaintiffs have not sufficiently persuaded us that the statute has the effect of placing a substantial obsta[447]*447cle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion.
T26 Finally, other statutes that, in our view, impose greater burdens on the right of a woman to choose to abort an unviable fetus, have been upheld as constitutional. Legislation requiring, except in a medical emergency, a physician or qualified nonphysician to inform a woman at least 24 hours before performing an abortion of the availability of printed materials regarding childbirth, child support, and adoption, as well as requiring a woman to certify in writing that she was informed of the availability of the materials and was provided them if desired, was not an undue burden. Casey, 505 U.S. at 881-87, 112 S.Ct. 2791. Legislation requiring, except in a medical emergency, an unemancipated minor to obtain parental consent, with a judicial approval exception to parental approval, before obtaining an abortion was not an undue burden. Casey, 505 U.S. at 899, 112 S.Ct. 2791. To us, this legislation upheld as not unduly burdening a woman's right to choose placed a more substantial obstacle in a woman's path to receive an abortion than does the instant legislation prohibiting actions for wrongful birth. Accordingly, we conclude that section 78-11-24 does not place a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus.
127 Moreover, the legislation in this case is far less of an obstacle to obtaining an abortion and materially different from the legislation declared unconstitutional in Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, 120 S.Ct. 2597, 147 L.Ed.2d 743 (2000). The legislation in Stenberg prohibited any "partial birth abortion" unless that procedure was necessary to save the mother's life, and it mandated that violation of the statute by a physician resulted in a felony and mandatory revocation of the physician's license to practice medicine. 530 U.S. at 922, 120 S.Ct. 2597. The legislation in Stenberg clearly intended to curtail a woman's ability to obtain an abortion, expressly banning a method of abortion. See id. at 923, 120 S.Ct. 2597. The Utah Wrongful Life Act, on the other hand, has no intent to curtail a woman's ability to abort a fetus; it prohibits wrongful birth lawsuits after a woman has, in lieu of aborting the fetus,
given birth to a child. The Stemberg legislation lacked a medical emergency exception, an exeeption to the prohibition on partial birth abortion permitting physicians to perform the procedure " 'where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment for the preservation of the life or health of the mother? " Id. at 931, 120 S.Ct. 2597 (quoting Casey, 505 U.S. at 879, 112 S.Ct. 2791). The Utah Wrongful Life Act did not include a medical exception because it had no intent to infringe upon the ability of a woman seeking an abortion to obtain one. The U.S. Supreme Court determined that because of the Stenberg legislation, some prosecutors "may choose to pursue physicians who use ... the most commonly used method for performing previability second trimester abortions," and as a result "[alll those who perform abortion procedures using that method must fear prosecution, conviction, and imprisonment" resulting in "an undue burden upon a woman's right to make an abortion decision." Id. at 945, 120 S.Ct. 2597. The Utah Wrongful Life Act, on the other hand, even though it might result in physicians being immune from some suits, does not, as a result, permit physicians to withhold information with impunity. The Utah Wrongful Life Act does not inhibit the woman's ability to choose to abort an unviable fetus regardless of the accuracy or quality of the medical advice she receives.
T28 In sum, although the statute may create a safe harbor for doctors who withhold information from some patients, the statute does not unduly burden the ability of a woman who wishes to obtain an abortion. The statute does not place any obstacle in the path of a woman who wants to abort an unborn child. Further, even though the possibility exists that a doctor may withhold information and not be subject to certain claims, this potential obstacle is not so substantial that it unduly burdens the right of a woman to choose to terminate a pregnancy.
B. Uiah Due Process
{29 For the reasons given above under the federal due process analysis, we conclude that the statute does not violate the Utah Due Process Clause, Utah Const. art. L § 7. [448]*448At this time we do not interpret the Utah Constitution to give any further protection to plaintiffs than does the federal constitution. We note that our state constitution may, under some cireumstances, provide greater protections for our citizens than are required under the federal constitution. Neverthe-legs, in this instance, we find no compelling need to interpret the Utah Constitution differently from the United States Constitution.
III. EQUAL PROTECTION
1380 Plaintiffs assert the statute violates the federal and state Equal Protection guarantees. According to the plaintiffs, the statute employs classifications that burden the fundamental right to choose an abortion. The statute "singles out the group of parents employing the procreative decision making process whose decision would involve abortion." According to plaintiffs, this classification "target[ing] those who would choose abortion," is not narrowly tailored to achieve a legitimate state interest. The Medical Center insists the statute does not violate equal protection principles because the plaintiffs in this case claiming wrongful birth are not similarly situated to other plaintiffs who claim wrongful pregnancy. The Medical Center avers that the plaintiffs in wrongful pregnancy cases never wanted to become parents, but that parents in wrongful birth cases did want to become parents, just not parents of a disabled child. The Medical Center further argues that even if the groups are similarly situated, the statute was narrowly tailored to achieve the stated legislative purpose of respecting life.
A. Federal Equal Protection
T81 We hold that the Utah Wrongful Life Act does not present equal protection problems and therefore does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. The Act does not involve a suspect or quasi-suspect classification. See Hickman v. Group Health Plan, Inc., 396 N.W.2d 10, 14 (Minn.1986). Plaintiffs allege that the statute "singles out" those who choose to abort an unviable fetus, treating them differently from those who would not so choose. The Supreme Court has not recognized as a suspect or quasi-suspect class, however, persons who choose to abort an unborn child. Because plaintiffs are not a protected class, we conclude that the Equal Protection Clause does not apply to this case.
B. Utah Equal Protection / Uniform Operation of Laws
132 Although plaintiffs assert both state and federal equal protection violations, plaintiffs do not offer any different considerations or arguments to distinguish the state guarantee from the federal one. Further, while plaintiffs couch their Utah equal protection argument and Uniform Operation of Laws argument as two separate arguments, we consider them as one argument because the Uniform Operation of Laws provision is, in fact, the Utah equal protection guarantee.
T83 This court has repeatedly considered Article I, section 24, the Uniform Operation of Laws Clause, to be the Utah analogue to the federal due process guarantee. See, eg., Kennecott Corp. v. State Tax Comm'n, 858 P.2d 1381, 1388-89 (Utah 19983) (treating article I, section 24 and Equal Protection Clause as the same); Greenwood v. North Salt Lake, 817 P.2d 816, 820 (Utah 1991) ("[Article I, section 24] of the Utah Constitution and the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment 'embody the same general principle: persons similarly situated should be treated similarly, and persons in different cireumstances should not be treated as if their cireumstances were the same.' ") (quoting Malan v. Lewis, 693 P.2d 661, 669 (Utah 1984)); Condemarin v. Univ. Hosp., 775 P.2d 348, 352-56, 369, 379-88 (Utah 1989). However, as we stated in Malan, "Itlhe different language of Article I, [seetion] 24, the different constitutional contexts of the two provisions, and different jurisprudential considerations may lead to a different result in applying equal protection principles under Article I, [section] 24 than might be reached under federal [equal protection] law." 693 P.2d at 670. Moreover, while case law developed under the Fourteenth Amendment may be persuasive in applying Article I, section 24, such law is not binding on the state as long as we do not reach a result that [449]*449violates the federal equal protection clause. Id.
134 Article I, section 24 of the Utah Constitution provides, "All laws of a general nature shall have uniform operation." Under Article I, section 24, a two-part test is necessary to ensure the uniform operation of the laws: "First, a law must apply equally to all persons within a class. Second, the statutory classifications and the different treatment given the classes must be based on differences that have a reasonable tendency to further the objectives of the statute." Malan v. Lewis, 693 P.2d 661, 670 (Utah 1984) (citations omitted).
135 Having explained the difference between federal equal protection and the Utah Uniform Operation of Laws Clause, and having set forth the Uniform Operation of Laws analytical framework, we nevertheless simply hold that we do not recognize persons who choose to have an abortion, as opposed to those who choose not to, to be a class for purposes of the Uniform Operations of Law analysis. At the present we see no reason why persons who would make a particular choice-abortion in this case-should, for constitutional purposes, be recognized as a class and treated any differently from those who would choose otherwise. The right to obtain an abortion, the right asserted by plaintiffs and upon which they claim exercise of should entitle them to additional protection as a class, is properly within the realm of substantive due process, not equal protection. Therefore, we conclude that the Uniform Operation of Laws provision is inapplicable to this case.
IV. PLAINTIFFS' CLAIMS FOR NEGLLI-GENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AND FAILURE TO OBTAIN INFORMED CONSENT ARE BARRED BY THE ACT
136 Plaintiffs claim the district court erred in dismissing their claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress and lack of informed consent as barred by the Utah Wrongful Life Act because, they claim, neither requires proof that plaintiffs would have aborted the child. We conclude that plaintiffs' claims of negligent infliction of emotional distress and lack of informed consent, as pled, are indeed barred by the Utah Wrongful Life Act. We do not decide, however, whether all claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress and lack of informed consent are barred by the Act.
137 Plaintiffs' allegations of negligent infliction of emotional distress and lack of informed consent have been pled, and cannot be maintained without their argument that but for the act or omission of the Medical Center, Marie would have chosen to abort Mary Lorraine. Indeed, plaintiffs' essential claim, from which these remaining claims flow, is that they were deprived of the opportunity to choose whether or not to abort Mary Lorraine. The claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress "re-aver[s] all allegations previously stated," which include plaintiffs' claims that the Medical Center negligently failed to provide plaintiffs with sufficient information to make an informed decision whether to abort, that because of this negligence Mary was "wrongfully born afflicted with Down Syndrome, and will suffer the effects of that syndrome for the remainder of her natural life," that they incurred the cost of labor and delivery, they are incurring unwanted medical and other expenses related to the care of Mary, and that they will be "unable to live ordinary lives due to the increased attention Mary Lorraine will require." Plaintiffs claim for failure to obtain informed consent "re-aver[s] all allegations previously stated," those discussed above, and further insists that "[al reasonable, prudent person or persons in Plaintiffs' position would not have consented to the health care rendered after having been fully informed as to all facts relevant to the decision to give consent." With this claim plaintiffs again specifically allege they were "denied the opportunity to make an informed decision as to the medical care they would receive, and as to the continuation of the pregnancy," and, as a result, they suffer "mental anguish and distress, loss of consortium, costs associated with labor and delivery, extraordinary medical and other related expenses, and the right to lead a normal life." Plaintiffs' causes of action as pled clearly request damages to compensate them for not [450]*450being able to choose to abort Mary Lorraine. The Act bars such claims.
CONCLUSION
T 38 The Utah Wrongful Life Act does not violate the Open Courts Clause, the United States or the Utah Due Process Clauses, the United States Equal Protection Clause, or the Utah Uniform Operation of Laws provision, and we therefore uphold the Act as constitutional. Plaintiffs claim for wrongful birth necessarily includes the allegation that but for the act or omission of the Medical Center, plaintiffs would have aborted Mary Lorraine, and is therefore barred by the Act. Plaintiffs' other claims, as pled, also include the allegation that but for the act or omission of the Medical Center, the plaintiffs would have aborted Mary Lorraine, and are therefore also barred by the Act. Accordingly, the decision of the district court is affirmed.
1 39 Associate Chief Justice DURRANT concurs in Justice WILKINS opinion.
140 Justice HOWE concurs in the result in parts II and III of Justice WILKINS! opinion.