A Wyoming judge struck down three abortion laws on Friday, the latest instance of the courts here rejecting attempts by state lawmakers to curtail the procedure in the Equality State.
Retired District Judge Thomas T. C. Campbell ruled the laws violated a 2012 amendment to the Wyoming Constitution that protects individuals’ rights to make their own healthcare decisions. The Wyoming Supreme Court in January cited the same provision when it struck down two statewide abortion bans, and a different judge noted the amendment in April when he blocked enforcement of the state’s new “heartbeat” bill.
Friday’s ruling concerned three laws passed by lawmakers in 2025. One created a mandatory ultrasound requirement and a 48-hour waiting period for patients seeking abortions. The second enacted a set of new and more stringent regulations that critics said were intended to make operating an abortion clinic in Wyoming unfeasible. A third involved abortion restrictions within a larger law governing the prescription of off-label medications.
Campbell temporarily blocked enforcement of all three laws last year after the plaintiffs in the case — which included abortion providers and abortion rights advocates — filed suit in state court. But his final determination that the laws are unconstitutional did not come until Friday.
‘No competent evidence’
In his 34-page decision, Campbell wrote repeatedly that the state, which had defended the laws in court, failed to provide evidence backing its claims. He noted the state alleged that the ultrasound law serves as a way to protect women from the consequences of undiagnosed ectopic pregnancies. But the judge found that the state “offers no competent evidence that such instances are occurring with any measure of regularity.” Additionally, he wrote, the state “offered no cogent evidence illustrating that a waiting period is necessary for any purpose.”
Meanwhile, the plaintiffs showed that the ultrasound rule would not significantly lessen the risk for ectopic pregnancy complications and that waiting periods have no medical utility, the judge wrote. They also offered “ample evidence” that the ultrasound requirement lacked a compelling government interest, according to Campbell’s ruling.
“The Plaintiffs provide concise evidence undermining the medical necessity of an ultrasound prior to undergoing a chemical abortion,” he wrote. “The Plaintiffs request for relief is underscored by their evidence that abortion is inherently safe. They provide Wyoming Department of Health data indicating zero complications or deaths resulting from abortion in Wyoming. They also specifically cite clinical guidance explicitly proclaiming that ultrasounds are not medically necessary for women seeking chemical abortions.”
Campbell also took issue with what he termed a lack of evidence by state lawyers defending the law that required abortion clinics be regulated as “ambulatory surgical centers,” which come with more stringent, and costly, regulations. The state contended the law constituted a compelling interest because it closed a legal loophole, but did not provide evidence showing that “consistency of laws forms a compelling government interest,” he wrote.
He also rejected the state’s arguments that the law helped to ensure women’s health.
“Of course, it is conceivable that preserving women’s health could independently invoke a compelling interest,” he wrote. “However, outside of sweeping generalizations, the State again provides no evidence or a causal link of how a surgical abortion facility, operating outside the regulatory framework of an [ambulatory surgical center], negatively impacts women’s health and welfare.”
As for the off-label medication law, which abortion advocates fear would discourage doctors from prescribing common abortion medications, the judge agreed with the plaintiffs, who maintained it was a solution in need of a problem.
Abortion opponents stymied by constitutional amendment
State lawmakers have made several attempts to limit or ban abortion in Wyoming since 2022, when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the landmark ruling Roe v. Wade. Since then, the same group of plaintiffs has repeatedly succeeded in convincing the courts that the laws violated a 2012 amendment to the Wyoming Constitution. Voters enacted the amendment after a push by conservatives who feared Obamacare would lead to government infringement on healthcare autonomy.
The amendment protects adults’ rights to make their own healthcare decisions. The Wyoming Supreme Court in January concluded that “a woman has a fundamental right to make her own health care decisions, including the decision to have an abortion.”
In the aftermath of that ruling, Gov. Mark Gordon called on the Wyoming Legislature to pursue a constitutional amendment that would settle the matter. But lawmakers instead chose to pass a law that made abortion illegal once fetal cardiac activity is detected, which can occur by the sixth week. That law is also tied up in the courts while a legal challenge proceeds.
Still, anti-abortion advocates in the Legislature promised to continue their attempts to end the practice here.
“We will not quit, we will not give up and we will not stop the fight to protect innocent life,” Speaker of the House Chip Neiman said in a video posted to the Wyoming Freedom Caucus’ Facebook page. “It’s really too bad. It’s quite a testimony, quite a statement about our judiciary that, I think once again, they’ve acted to thwart and to ignore the will of the Legislature and have complete disregard for innocent life in Wyoming.”
Neiman, a Republican who is now running for the state senate, said he expected Wyoming Attorney General Keith Kautz, who advocated against abortion after he retired from the Wyoming Supreme Court, to fight Friday’s ruling, presumably by appealing to the high court.
Meanwhile, the president of Wyoming’s only abortion clinic, Casper’s Wellspring Health Access, hailed Friday’s decision, while also alluding to the likelihood of more legal battles ahead.
“These politically motivated laws, which unfairly target abortion providers, harm the people we serve by creating unnecessary barriers to essential health care,” Julie Burkhart said in a statement. While we know the fight against these laws is far from over, this outcome strengthens our determination to continue providing comprehensive reproductive health care, including abortion, to the people of Wyoming.”
The University of Wyoming has conducted repeated polls on abortion in Wyoming. The latest, which was released in November 2024, showed that about 10% of Wyomingites backed a total ban on abortion, with another 31% favoring abortion restrictions with exceptions for rape, incest or when a woman’s life is in danger. Another 20% preferred those exemptions and others once the need for an abortion had been clearly established. About 39% said abortion should remain a personal choice.
How is it that a RETIRED judge has authority to declare laws unconstitutional?
After Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022, even though our elected officials have passed pro-life laws with overwhelming majorities in the state legislature, every single one has been blocked by unelected judges, undermining the will of the people and leaving pre-born children in our state unprotected by law.
We need to pass what has been called a “Restoration of Rights” constitutional amendment stating that nothing in the state constitution grants a right to an abortion or taxpayer-funded abortions. Four states already have this amendment and others are working to enact it in their states to strengthen their pro-life policies. The State Republican Party passed a resolution endorsing this amendment in their State Convention in May.
This Restoration of Rights amendment would protect pro-life laws passed by the legislature from being blocked by the courts, putting the power to determine abortion policy back into the hands of the people.
We need to find out which candidate for Governor will COWBOY-UP to the challenge to fight for this amendment and which candidates for the legislature will give their full support to passing this amendment and bringing it to the ballot for Wyoming voters to have their say.
I would encourage everyone to attend the “meet and greets” and town hall meetings for candidates running for Governor and the state legislature and bring up this issue, then let their responses inform your vote in the Primary election on Tuesday, August 18th.
We need to pass pro choice laws.
Our Wyoming state legislature is claiming authority over a person’s body, health, finances, future and family life. If that level of control is acceptable when applied to women, why is it unthinkable when applied to men?
Consider the uncomfortable comparison: If a man fathers an unwanted child, usually he is required to pay child support. But if the law is going to force birth in the name of accountability, should it also require a man undergo a vasectomy so he cannot cause another unwanted pregnancy? That sounds outrageous, invasive and wrong—because it is. Forced sterilization violates bodily autonomy. The point is…forced pregnancy does too.
Shouldn’t the citizens of Wyoming be making this decision about reproductive rights? We need a ballot initiative (citizen driven) or legislative referendum (comes from legislature).
Think about this…If the government cannot own a man’s body in the name of responsibility, it cannot own a woman’s body in the name of birth.
Abortion is the intentional ending of a human beings life.
It isnt healthcare, it isnt a woman’s body “autonomy”.
Chad read this story and then explain why abortion can never be healthcare.
https://www.propublica.org/article/arkansas-abortion-ban-miscarriage-care
Read the “story”. A miscarriage is not an abortion.
Miscarriage management for extremely rare cases like the story you attached need to be addressed and put into the laws banning the intentional ending of a human life.
If the Freedom Caucus could only think and write. Instead they live off fear and incompetence. Put abortion to a vote and let the people decide what they want, not the freedom caucus.
“The Equality State” Al long as you do what we say. Hypocrisy at a scale unmatched in the Big Empty.
It appears that the Freedom Caucus is really all about deciding what freedoms their fellow citizens should or should not have.
Question: Why is a homosapien convicted of a DOUBLE HOMICIDE when the victim was “pregnant/with child?”.
What Law/standard is being utilized that the pregnant homosapien had a second “life” or second life was taken?
So should every homosapien that has been convicted of homicide for the “baby/child/fetus/etc. being killed and mother survived must be set free and charges completely dropped and expunged from their record because the conviction is without substance/merit or a victim and any or all others imprisoned as well must be set free as well…
SOOOOOO if that standaed must stand then the same should apply to the homosapien that decides to end that homosapien’s Life regardless.
BUT! IF NOT then there can never or very slim possibility of charging anyone else of homicide or murder and that Law rescinded or rewritten accordingly
Those laws should have been deemed unconstitutional as one does not become a citizen until birth; see birth right citizenship for clarification.
The very idea that a neighbor has the right to manage another’s womb should have never been given any consideration as being Constitutional. It is pretty clear that those voting for the GOP since 1973 have wrecked our Country and this State.
In the murder case the fetus is killed without the Mothers intentions- not her decision. In the abortion case it’s her decision. Until the fetus can make it on its own, it’s part of the Mothers body.
Got it Gordon, only a mother can intentionally kill an unborn human being without repercussions.
Gordon, what if the fetus was killed by someone else before the mother was going to have an abortion. She was going to kill it, but someone else did first, do they go to jail?
Somehow, I don’t think you ‘got it’.
It’s called pro choice. Where have you been.
Mr. Bryant nailed it in his brief comment. The chief reason the constitutional amendment passed was due to some lawmakers’ resentment and hatred of President Obama. Now that very provision is coming back to bite them— over and over again.
Look at them all protesting for the right to murder babies. Next it will be trangendering them.
I haven’t seen any babies killed in the US by abortion. I’ve seen plenty killed by the US using bombs overseas. Please don’t mistake babies for fetuses.
Looking forward to the next debate over the fetal heartbeat law (aka personhood claim). Time to start focusing on separation of church and state. Science and religion cannot prove or disprove ‘personhood’ it is therefore a God issue…. it’s time we all quit being afraid of God-talk and bring some courageous honesty into the forefront.
Leslie, as soon as that “clump of cells” starts developing it is a LIVING separate human being from the mother.
Is a human being a person?
Chad, but can that “clump of cells” which you state is a separate living human being from the mother, survive on it’s own if removed from the host? Certainly not before 22 weeks of gestation and even then it’s pretty iffy. So maybe the term “living” is misrepresented here. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But it all boils down to choice.
BJ: a full term baby to around a 8-9 year old child cant survive on their own outside their mother. they would die of dehydration or starve to death.
“living”??? A zygote is biologically alive.
Your agenda relies on dehumanization to excuse ending human beings lives.
It looks like you’re struggling with comprehension again.
Chad, my only agenda is that while you are entitled to your beliefs and opinions that’s all they are, they’re yours. Someone else may think and feel differently. So while you don’t agree with my agenda, that’s OK, cause I dont agree with yours.
Really wishing that #Wyoming had ONE, just one, Republican candidate for Governor who respected the rights to health care choice and freedom of religion. But no. Every one opposes reproductive rights and religious freedom.
When will they give up and stop trying to eliminate all reproductive heath care in Wyoming?
Thanks to irrational fear of Obamacare