As a plaintiff in the 2022 lawsuit that kicked off years of legal sparring over Wyoming abortion rights, Dr. Giovannina Anthony had waited a long time for Tuesday’s Supreme Court decision on the state’s abortion bans.
“It has been a long road,” she said. One with ups and downs, drawbacks and delays. And even though the high court ruled against the state’s abortion bans, she’s not under the illusion that the fight for abortion access is over.
“But at least today, we can claim a victory and say, it was really worth it,” said Anthony, a Jackson obstetrician. “It was worth it to go four years and keep it up and keep raising money and keep the awareness going. I’m really proud of our team. I’m really proud of what we accomplished.”
In reading the Supreme Court’s decision siding with plaintiffs, Anthony said, “Clearly, this is a court that holds a lot of respect for our constitution.”
That’s because much of the decision hinged on constitutional language.
Anthony and other plaintiffs argued that abortion is enshrined in the “right of health care access” in Article 1, Section 38 of the Wyoming Constitution. The clause states, “Each competent adult shall have the right to make his or her own health care decisions.”
The state’s attorneys, meanwhile, countered that abortion isn’t health care.
But in deciding what that language means in this case, “all five Wyoming Supreme Court justices agreed that the decision whether to terminate or continue a pregnancy is a woman’s own health care decision protected by Article 1, Section 38,” the court’s summary stated.
As abortion rights activists in Wyoming and beyond celebrated the decision, the anti-abortion camp decried it and called for legislative action.
“This ruling is profoundly unfortunate and sadly serves to only prolong the ultimate proper resolution of this issue,” Gov. Mark Gordon said in a statement. While the ruling may settle a legal question for the time being, Gordon said, “it does not settle the moral one, nor does it reflect where many Wyoming citizens stand, including myself.”
Gordon asked the Attorney General’s office to file a petition for rehearing the decision, which it will file within 15 days.
The voters of Wyoming should settle the matter once and for all, Gordon argued. “A constitutional amendment taken to the people of Wyoming would trump any and all judicial decisions.”
He called on the Legislature to pass such an amendment during the upcoming session and deliver it to his desk. A constitutional amendment requires a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate to appear on the ballot in the following general election.
Gordon may get his wish during the Legislature’s 2026 budget session, which convenes Feb. 9.
State lawmakers are already preparing a bill to modify the Wyoming Constitution and clear a path for another attempted abortion ban. Speaker of the House Chip Neiman, a Republican from Hulett, said that he’s been workshopping language with Torrington Republican Sen. Cheri Steinmetz.
“I’ve got to run it by a lot of other people,” Neiman said.
Ideally, he added, a single constitutional amendment would be considered, although the legislative strategy is still up for discussion.
“We’ve got a little over a month before we have to be in session,” Neiman said. “That’ll give us time to kind of see which is maybe the best plan of action.”
A constitutional amendment would have to navigate the legislative process in a 20-day session geared toward passing Wyoming’s budget. Then, in the 2026 general election, more than half of Wyoming voters who cast a ballot would have to agree to the constitutional change.
Neiman struck an optimistic tone about an amendment’s prospects of passing the first hurdle during the session in Cheyenne.
“I can’t speak for the other chamber,” he said, “but in my chamber I’ve got a lot of phone calls and a lot of texts from a lot of my legislators who are just beside themselves at what happened.”
Senate President Bo Biteman did not return a phone call before this story published.
Victorious
Chelsea’s Fund, an organization that helps pay for abortion services, was another of the plaintiffs that challenged Wyoming’s abortion bans. Executive Director Janean Forsyth said Tuesday’s decision affirms what her organization has long known: “that abortion is essential health care, and Wyoming women have a constitutional right and the freedom to make their own health care decisions, and that should be without government interference.”
Forsyth was flooded with messages and calls Tuesday, she said, especially from the community of reproductive rights organizations.
“I think that [the news is] a beacon of hope for, not only Wyoming communities and families, but also nationwide,” she said.
Christine Lichtenfels was Chelsea’s Fund executive director when the original suit was filed and throughout much of the legal battle. Relief wasn’t quite the word to describe how she felt Tuesday, she said.
“In reading the decision, there is just a sense that, ‘Oh, there is reason in the world,” she said. “It makes me think that, yes, Wyoming is the Equality State. We can say that now without cringing.”
(Disclosure: Lichtenfels is currently working with WyoFile on an unrelated legal matter.)
Wyoming’s only abortion clinic, Wellspring Health Access in Casper, was also a plaintiff in the lawsuit. Knowing the decision would directly impact the facility’s fate, Clinic President Julie Burkhart was nervous when she opened it. Reading quickly dispelled her fears, she said, as it dawned on her that the justices sided with the plaintiffs’ legal team.
“We are delighted,” she told WyoFile.
Many people questioned her 2021 decision to open an abortion clinic in such a conservative state, she said. The court decision solidifies an intuition she felt back then about Wyoming residents’ sense of what’s fair and right.
Burkhart and colleagues expect future challenges to arise, however.
“While we celebrate today’s ruling, we know that anti-abortion politicians will continue their push to restrict access to health care in Wyoming with new, harmful proposals in the state legislature,” Burkart said in a statement. “Patients should not have to live in fear that their health care decisions will be suddenly upended at the whim of a judge or lawmaker.”
Across the state in Jackson, Dr. Anthony anticipates the Wyoming Freedom Caucus will attempt to pass laws that impose targeted restrictions against abortion providers — such as forcing patients to hear a fetal heartbeat or wait a certain time period before the procedure.
“Unfortunately, the fight’s not over,” Anthony said, “but this is a great moment for us.”
Heartache
Abortion opponents expressed sadness Tuesday and vehemently disagreed with the court’s opinion.
State Rep. Rachel Rodriguez Williams was lead sponsor of one of the abortion bans. The Cody Republican and chair of the Wyoming Freedom Caucus did not respond to a request for comment, but posted about the decision on X.
“My heart aches for Wyoming today,” Rodriguez Williams posted. “Thanks to the decision of four unelected, unchecked attorneys, it’s open season in Wyoming for innocent, preborn babies. Make no mistake: courts can get things wrong, and they sure did get this wrong. I’ll never stop fighting to protect life.”
Wyoming Secretary of State Chuck Gray also protested the decision, which he called “outrageously wrong” and “a leftwing activist decision totally out of touch with the Wyoming Constitution.”
Natrona County anti-abortion activist Bob Brechtel, a former Wyoming House member, also expressed frustration with the courts, criticizing the nearly two-year-long wait for a decision and saying he was “ashamed” of the outcome from the high court.
In 2011, Brechtel co-sponsored the bill authorizing a later-successful constitutional amendment ballot measure that now protects individuals’ rights to make their own health care decisions. Born out of opposition to the Obama-era Affordable Care Act, what became Article 1, Section 38 caused some lawmakers to worry about potential unintended consequences.
Fifteen years later, one unintended consequence came to fruition. Reached Tuesday, Brechtel confirmed that he did not intend to protect women’s right to have an abortion in Wyoming.
“There was nothing in the legislation about killing innocent human beings,” he said. “This whole thing has been completely regenerated into something that it was never intended to be.”
Decisions regarding MY own body, including whether I have an abortion, are no ones but mine. Get away and stay away from persons making their own decisions that are not in agreement with your belief system/s.
Why do they say this needs to go to a ballot measure, but not the other slew of freedoms that the State has decided we arent allowed to have?
This issue was settled long ago. The moral, practical, and legal aspects were weighed to find that this is a personal decision that belongs to the woman. I might believe that those who oppose abortion were serious and knowledgeable if they also opposed the death penalty and supported full financial assistance for mothers and their children. I’d believe that those who oppose abortion were morally superior if they actually lived the way they preached, but we all know that isn’t the case. Stop trying to control women and let every individual grow and thrive in the way that suits her. Thank you, Wyoming Supreme Court.
If this goes to the ballot, it is likely a quiet majority of Wyomingites will defend the rights of our people to have freedom and autonomy. However, it is important to pause and reflect that none of our “leaders” so far has said that the very purpose of our Constitutional protections and the third branch of our government’s enforcement of those protections is to safeguard against the majority infringing upon the rights of a minority simply because they have the political power to do so. Fundamental rights should not come and go by political whim (or perhaps worse in this case, as the Governor argues, religious morality that has encroached into political ideology).
One has to wonder how in the world one of the strongest natural instincts throughout the animal kingdom, has been extinguished in so many human beings.
The instinct of a mammal protecting its child and even the children of others in its species is irrefutable, yet humans have somehow divorced themselves from it.
Do you mean pedophiles and school shooters?
No, Liz. I mean Mothers.
Now that abortion is legally established as health care, those who do not agree must answer the question: if abortion is not health care, then is pregnancy an act of God? Unfailingly, the first call a woman makes is to her doctor and not her minister. While at the same time, to presume a woman making the choice to terminate her pregnancy is not in a prayerful relationship with her God is the ultimate sin of religious hubris. The morality of this very personal choice falls into that separation between church and state. Elected officials should not be in the business of putting their religious beliefs into laws — and that is the real Wyoming way.
Thank goodness! This is a decision that should be made by the mother, the father and their physician; and no one else. All others should have no say. And stop throwing up unnecessary roadblocks and impediments to this type of woman’s healthcare.
Whether one supports abortion rights or opposes them the crux of this decision is pretty straight forward — stay out of other’s personal competent healthcare decisions.
Often the father has no choice regarding the abortion of his son or daughter.
It could be argued that just as often the father is pushing for the abortion. I’m sorry, but until a man can grow and birth his own children, going through all the physical, hormonal, emotional, and mental changes a woman does, they get no say unless the woman wants to hear their opinion.
The “father” had a choice long before conception. It’s call birth control. Prophylactics or vasectomies come to mind. I disagree with you statement that fathers often have no choice. I would submit that more often it is discussed openly between both would be parents. No one has the right to decide for someone else what they should or shouldn’t do in this situation.
Agreed, totally. If the so-called “pro-life” folks showed the same concern for actual lives, as they do for non-existent lives, I’d be more likely to believe that they were dealing in good faith. But since they hew to the Calvinist, punishment-based view of actual life, I will remain steadfastly supportive of a woman’s right to her own body, and not to supporting forced birth slavery.
Noah, can you define “non-existent life”.
A human being developing inside it’s mother definitely “exists”, and is alive.