Opinion
When I was doing research for my book “Pushed Off the Mountain, Sold Down the River,” I stumbled across a little gem: A University of Wyoming research associate’s paper from 1965.
In “A Study of Wyoming People,” Thomas S. Davis examined demographic data, parsing out the changes from 1950 to 1960. Davis found the movement of the 20-to-34-year-old demographic alarming. They were leaving the state. Casting aside neutrality, Davis declared, “Wyoming can ill afford such inroads in the productive potential of this important age group.”
Sixty years have passed. Here we are again.
In 2024, Harvard University’s Growth Lab looked at Wyoming’s economy. Their conclusions did not differ much from Davis’ findings. “By the time people born in Wyoming reach their thirties, nearly two thirds have left — one of the highest rates in the country. Without access to this workforce, it is exceedingly difficult for the Wyoming economy to diversify.”
What’s going on? Wyoming has the fundamental concepts in place to diversify its economy and keep young people. The constitutions of the High Plains and Northern Rockies states — including Wyoming — ascribe to the philosophy of positive freedom. That is to say, governments, if managed properly, play a role in accelerating human potential.
Contrast this with the idea of negative freedom: We can thrive only in the absence of limitations or regulations. The concept is also used, somewhat dubiously, to argue for limited state spending outside of the bare essentials, like roads and prisons.
What is Wyoming’s version of positive freedom? Historically, we’ve been pretty conservative, for example, giving ranchers low-cost, long-term credit. Over the years, we’ve slowly eased restrictions on the use of state money, like funding the Wyoming Business Council, or, in 2006, establishing the Hathaway Scholarship program.
Something’s still not working. Young adults who don’t want to work in the mineral industry or government are slipping away.
Why? Wyoming still believes in magical thinking. The state continues to embrace a limited version of positive freedom. Let’s put more money into commodities, especially energy; then, by golly, we can turn this demographic ship around.
To that end, our first task is to stop second-guessing and micromanaging energy sources. Let the market be the primary guide. This means stop giving coal, oil and gas financial props, whether it’s tax breaks or direct funding. For example, Wyoming has spent roughly $142 million on energy matching funds, almost dedicated to mineral and mining companies.
Our second job is more difficult: Wyoming needs to be woman-centric. Anyone who follows educational trends knows that women are eclipsing men for bachelor’s and advanced degrees. The overall graduation rate for women at UW is 65% versus 54% for men. This disparity is most clear in graduate degrees; almost 60% of all doctorates in the US are awarded to women.
Here’s a recent headline from The Wall Street Journal:
“Healthcare Jobs Have Become the Engine of America’s Labor Market.”
Women occupy nearly 80% of America’s health care jobs. Over 80% of students in the US studying to be veterinarians are women. Women represent over half of all financial service employees. Over 95% of all preschool teachers and childcare workers are women.
How can Wyoming keep or attract these essential citizens?
First, let’s have a realistic conversation about funding child care. Wyoming families have to shuck out about $10,000 per year per child for child care. By comparison, in-state tuition at the University of Wyoming is $8,245. Through a mix of state, federal and private money, Wyoming now has a Childcare Provider Start-Up Grant. It gives up to $20,000 to child care providers in underserved areas. It’s not nearly enough. Harvard’s Growth Lab report summed it up: “Much of rural Wyoming is functionally a childcare desert.”
By contrast, in 2023, North Dakota committed nearly $66 million to boosting child care coverage.
Secondly, encourage women-centric health providers, including OB-GYN services. “Women living in many Wyoming towns and cities lack access to emergency, OB and mental health services,” Rebekah Smith Hazelton of the Wyoming Women’s Foundation wrote in an email. “For instance, four labor and delivery wards in Wyoming closed between 2022 and 2025, leaving nine counties without labor and delivery service. Healthcare seems to be considered an amenity to some lawmakers, evidenced by the fact that without expanded Medicaid, some Wyoming citizens can’t access it due to the cost — even if it is within geographic reach. Meanwhile, the ability to get and stay healthy — and to get to work — is essential for a high quality of life.”
The ambiguous language of the state’s anti-abortion law — currently blocked by the courts — which could lead to criminal prosecutions of obstetricians who perform any kind of abortion, isn’t helping much.
Think policy doesn’t matter? Idaho has lost 35% of its OB-GYN specialists since it passed its strict anti-abortion law in 2022. As of 2025, Wyoming has the lowest number of obstetricians in the nation.
Women now make up over half of the medical students in the US. Wyoming is short on physicians and about to lose 335 more, said Republican Rep. Jacob Wasserburger of Cheyenne. We’re not going to attract and keep women physicians by putting more money into coal.
Finally, make our cities and towns places where women can thrive. Granted, this is a complicated and subjective need. Safe streets and good internet services are essential. So are good schools, which Wyoming mostly has. The Winnebago Industries Spotlight Survey for 2025 revealed that record numbers of women are participating in outdoor recreational activities. Above all, women want a sense of belonging and community.
Does your city or town offer these essentials to women?
Charles Marohn, author of the remarkable book, “Strong Towns,” has observed that there are numerous paths to having prosperous and diverse communities. But the successful ones all have one thing in common: They focus on the future, particularly building for the next generation. Try fulfilling that mission without women.
I have opined that the march to overturn ROE has led to the voters electing less then effective legislators. As I have watched that debate play out over my time in Wyoming, there are two distinct observations I have made about the process. As women’s rights were eroded, the testimonies offered up by women about their terrible experiences in trying to get healthcare in the form of obtaining an abortion never seemed to matter to people. In fact I stopped going to those rallies because I grew worn out by the emotion projected.
I myself wanted to argue that if one looked at the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, I just could not see how any US Citizen could argue they have the right to manage a neighbor’s womb. In fact I would argue that if you voted to have the power of the state to do your bidding then you are voting for tyranny. See the current use of ICE and CBP force to deport hard working brown people from the US as an example.
I have used my arguments in committee meetings when these Bills are discussed and I get under people’s skin with my clearly reasonable Constitutional arguments. However, this year the light finally went off about what stories are most effective for legislation against the rights of women. The male emotional abortion story wins the argument. The stories Gary Brown and Kevin Campbell win out over the stories of women and that alone my friends tells you why any self respecting young woman would leave Wyoming in a minute. Based on my observations of the young women that come to the University of Wyoming, they are far more numerous and confident than the sheepish young males and will definitely be gone from this place as they do not need to be trapped by a state that uses the stories of men to manage their bodies.
Excellent article and a very good perspective on what Wyoming needs. If only we could instill a more progressive legislature to bring it to fruition. During my long life in Wyoming, I feel the tide has just been steadily receding to obstructive conservatism.