Reps. Rachel Rodriguez-Williams and Chip Neiman sit in court with their hands on their faces
Reps. Rachel Rodriguez-Williams and Chip Neiman listen during a 2023 hearing on their request to defend Wyoming's abortion ban. (Brad Boner/Jackson Hole News&Guide/Pool)

Wyoming lawmakers and an anti-abortion group are appealing a lower court decision that denied them direct participation in a case involving the state’s abortion bans.

That trio includes Reps. Chip Neiman (R-Hulett) and Rachel Rodriguez-Williams (R-Cody) and Right to Life of Wyoming. In June, 9th District Court Judge Melissa Owens denied their request to intervene in the abortion ban suit, finding that their goal was the same as the attorney general’s — protect the state’s two bans — and that they didn’t have a direct, substantial, protectable interest in the case.

The group disagrees.

“Our clients have a clear interest in defending that law, which safeguards the lives of unborn children and the well-being of their mothers,” said Tim Garrison of Alliance Defending Freedom, the conservative Christian legal group representing the intervenors. “We will urge the Wyoming Supreme Court to allow them to help defend Wyoming’s duly enacted law.”

While he joined the others in requesting to intervene earlier this year, Secretary of State Chuck Gray is not part of the appeal. Taking a jab at the “unelected” attorney general, he said via email she is “more focused on attacking the right to intervene than vigorously defending the right to human life.”

With so many people involved, Gray said he also “did not want to detract from the issues on appeal. We discussed all avenues concerning action moving forward, and mutually decided that the appeal should proceed in this way.”

Both the state, which is defending Wyoming’s abortion bans, and plaintiffs seeking to overturn them argued the intervenors shouldn’t be allowed. Specifically when it came to Gray, the state wrote, “In his official capacity, Secretary of State Gray cannot intervene in this case unless a Wyoming statute authorizes him to do so.”

Déjà vu

It’s no surprise this group of potential intervenors has appealed Judge Owen’s decision to the state supreme court: They’ve done it before.

The group of three had tried to intervene in a suit over the state’s “trigger bill” abortion ban, which went into effect after Roe v. Wade was overturned last year.

Owens denied that first request to intervene, and then the group appealed her decision to the state supreme court. That appeal was docketed, but didn’t make it far.

That’s because one of the bills passed by legislators this year included a near-total abortion ban that effectively replaced the old ban. That left the old lawsuit and the intervenors’ appeal moot. Lawmakers also passed a separate ban on medication abortions this year, which carried different penalties.

Gov. Mark Gordon signed the medication abortion ban, simply letting the other near-total ban go into law without his signature. Gordon noted that it would also likely be tied up in court, facing the same allegations of unconstitutionality as the previous ban.

Owens has halted enforcement of both bans while the court cases proceed, leaving most abortions legal in Wyoming.

Madelyn Beck reports from Laramie on health and public safety. Before working with WyoFile, she was a public radio journalist reporting for NPR stations across the Mountain West, covering regional issues...

Join the Conversation

5 Comments

WyoFile's goal is to provide readers with information and ideas that foster constructive conversations about the issues and opportunities our communities face. One small piece of how we do that is by offering a space below each story for readers to share perspectives, experiences and insights. For this to work, we need your help.

What we're looking for: 

  • Your real name — first and last. 
  • Direct responses to the article. Tell us how your experience relates to the story.
  • The truth. Share factual information that adds context to the reporting.
  • Thoughtful answers to questions raised by the reporting or other commenters.
  • Tips that could advance our reporting on the topic.
  • No more than three comments per story, including replies. 

What we block from our comments section, when we see it:

  • Pseudonyms. WyoFile stands behind everything we publish, and we expect commenters to do the same by using their real name.
  • Comments that are not directly relevant to the article. 
  • Demonstrably false claims, what-about-isms, references to debunked lines of rhetoric, professional political talking points or links to sites trafficking in misinformation.
  • Personal attacks, profanity, discriminatory language or threats.
  • Arguments with other commenters.

Other important things to know: 

  • Appearing in WyoFile’s comments section is a privilege, not a right or entitlement. 
  • We’re a small team and our first priority is reporting. Depending on what’s going on, comments may be moderated 24 to 48 hours from when they’re submitted — or even later. If you comment in the evening or on the weekend, please be patient. We’ll get to it when we’re back in the office.
  • We’re not interested in managing squeaky wheels, and even if we wanted to, we don't have time to address every single commenter’s grievance. 
  • Try as we might, we will make mistakes. We’ll fail to catch aliases, mistakenly allow folks to exceed the comment limit and occasionally miss false statements. If that’s going to upset you, it’s probably best to just stick with our journalism and avoid the comments section.
  • We don’t mediate disputes between commenters. If you have concerns about another commenter, please don’t bring them to us.

The bottom line:

If you repeatedly push the boundaries, make unreasonable demands, get caught lying or generally cause trouble, we will stop approving your comments — maybe forever. Such moderation decisions are not negotiable or subject to explanation. If civil and constructive conversation is not your goal, then our comments section is not for you. 

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  1. It appears our Republican dominated legislature has learned nothing from the example of Marie-Antoinette’s utter disdain for the plebiscite: “Let them raise children conceived in rape!” say WY lawmakers. Or “Let them bring congenitally non-viable pregnancies to term and risk death!”. Or “Let professional OB/GYNs go elsewhere to practice responsible health care… we have religious fundamentalists!” Or …

  2. We would all be better off if politicians stayed out of our health care decisions and instead ensured that everyone has health care. You are not doctors. You do not have the right to impose your beliefs on others. You do nothing to help people have children or afford to care for them.

    1. And yet, ObamaCare shifted medical decisions to Insurance bureaucrats. And the dollar signs got really big.

  3. What a farcical waste of time. Whoever is giving them legal advice saw dollar signs coming a mile away.