Heartbeat bill emerges to restrict abortion in wake of Supreme Court’s decision

When the Wyoming Supreme Court struck down a pair of abortion bans in January as unconstitutional, the decision dealt a major blow to anti-abortion activists who had worked for years to bar the procedure here. 

Among those activists was Speaker of the House Chip Neiman, a staunchly pro-life Hulett Republican who advocates for defining fetuses as persons with legal rights. Neiman doesn’t view the court decision as a reflection of his state, he said recently in Cheyenne. 

“I believe that, based on Wyoming’s history of being very pro-life and always supporting life issues, that that is not actually the determination of the people of the state of Wyoming,” Neiman told the Senate Labor, Health and Social Services Committee on Friday. 

And thus, Neiman is pushing House Bill 126, “Human heartbeat act,” which prohibits abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detectable, which can be as early as six weeks. 

“Sadly, this piece of legislation will not protect life from its inception, which I would love to see happen,” Neiman continued. “But the reality of where we’re at right now, ladies and gentlemen, is that I believe this is something that we can do and work with to provide a line where we can provide protection for life.”

What Neiman is pitching as a lawful restriction of the practice, however, is little more than an abortion ban under another name, critics say. Many women don’t realize they are pregnant in the first six weeks, said Laramie attorney Megan Hayes.

That means the bill “functions as a categorical ban on pre-viability abortion, eliminating meaningful access to a constitutionally protected health care decision,” she said. 

In addition, early detection could entail an invasive procedure known as a transvaginal ultrasound. Gov. Mark Gordon vetoed a bill in 2025 that would have required patients seeking abortion medications to first undergo a transvaginal ultrasound and a 48-hour waiting period. Gordon and others objected to the bill’s invasive nature, among other things.

House Bill 126 has cruised through the Legislature with relative ease. On Tuesday, the Senate passed it on second reading — meaning it only faces one more vote in the chamber before heading to Gordon’s desk for signature. 

Following January’s Supreme Court decision, Gordon called on the Legislature to pass a constitutional amendment during the session and deliver it to his desk. That way, he said, Wyoming voters could settle the matter once and for all. 

A constitutional amendment bill related to abortion failed introduction in the Senate, however. 

What it does

House Bill 126 would require the determination of whether a fetus has a detectable heartbeat before a pregnancy is terminated, except in the case of a medical emergency. It would prohibit abortion if the fetus has a detectable heartbeat or if the person performing the abortion has failed to make a determination of a fetal heartbeat. 

Doctors, nurses or pharmacists found in violation of the law would face a felony offense punishable by up to five years in prison or a fine up to $10,000. It would also result in the mandatory revocation of that individual’s professional licence. 

In terms of how that determination is made, the bill is not specific, stating that it “shall be made using standard medical practices and techniques, including ultrasound measurement if necessary.” The most accurate method for early detection of a fetal heartbeat is a transvaginal ultrasound, in which a wand-like transducer is inserted into a woman’s vagina. After around seven to eight weeks, depending on the pregnancy, a less-invasive abdominal ultrasound or handheld doppler can detect a heartbeat. 

As lead sponsor, Neiman was joined by nearly 40 cosponsors, including many Freedom Caucus members. 

The bill is a response to the Supreme Court’s action. In its decision, the court agreed the state’s abortion bans conflicted with a 2012 amendment to the Wyoming Constitution that protects individuals’ rights to make their own health care decisions. 

“A woman has a fundamental right to make her own health care decisions, including the decision to have an abortion,” the ruling stated.

The court also acknowledged the Legislature’s authority to enact “reasonable and necessary restrictions” to protect the general welfare of the people, Neiman said, which is where his bill comes in. 

“Currently, Wyoming has no … restrictions on abortion,” he said, meaning abortions can theoretically be performed up to delivery. “This [bill] does not allow for complete restriction of abortion in the state of Wyoming, but it does provide a line where we can say that from that point on, the baby will be protected in Wyoming State law.”

Abortion is currently allowed in Wyoming until fetal viability, which occurs at around 25 weeks of gestation, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

‘De facto ban’ 

Critics of HB 126 argued that it’s an unconstitutional violation of privacy that will lead to a further erosion of maternal health care access and another costly legal fight. 

While the court acknowledged that the Legislature can enact “reasonable and necessary restrictions,” attorney Hayes said, “House Bill 126 far exceeds those limits.”

While the bill’s stated interest is to protect fetuses from experiencing pain, it states incorrectly and without evidence that fetuses can feel pain starting at 15 weeks, testified Britt Boril, executive director of WyoUnited. 

“The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists states that fetuses cannot experience pain until at least 24 to 25 weeks gestation,” Boril told the Senate Labor Committee. “No physician in Wyoming provides abortions past 24 weeks,” she added.

“I understand many of you oppose abortion,” said abortion-rights advocate Christine Lichtenfels. “Respectfully, passing unconstitutional bills is not the answer. Providing a thriving community where people are able to safely birth and raise their children is.”

Jackson obstetrician Giovannina Anthony, who was a plaintiff in the court challenge against Wyoming’s earlier bans, called the bill a “de facto ban.” Though she has many concerns with the bill, she said, she focused her testimony on the chilling effect it could have on health care providers.

“The bill will cause OB-GYNs such as myself to fear treating our patients secondary to the extreme punitive issues,” she said, particularly when it comes to determining what constitutes a medical emergency. 

Boril reminded the committee that Gov. Gordon asked lawmakers to bring a constitutional amendment. 

“Personally, I believe this body chose not to take the question on abortion to the people for a vote because they know they would lose at the ballot box,” she said. 

Protecting life 

Bill supporters argued the law aims to protect vulnerable lives. 

“There is no one more vulnerable than the children that are in the womb,” Laura Pavey told lawmakers.

“Let Wyoming be a place that every Wyomingite, born and unborn, can count on equal protection, stand equal in dignity under the law and live without their worth being debated,” said Krista Riester, pro-life liaison at Wyoming Family Alliance. 

Michael Leman with the Catholic Diocese of Cheyenne reiterated something Wyoming Supreme Court Justice Lynne Boomgaarden said in a recent address: “If a court has reached a result that is unpopular, the Legislature can make a new law.”

“HB 126 would be a new law,” Leman said, adding that “voting for a bill that would protect life is not extreme.”

House Bill 126 passed the third reading in the House on Feb. 24 by a vote of 51-7, with four excused. It only faces one more Senate vote to move to Gordon’s desk for signature into law.

For more legislative coverage, click here.

CLARIFICATION: This story has been updated to reflect that Michael Leman was quoting Supreme Court Justice Lynne Boomgaarden when he spoke on HB 126. -Ed