Gov. Mark Gordon,
I am writing to you as a Wyoming-raised and WWAMI-trained OB-GYN physician to express my strong and earnest opposition to your decision to appeal the recent ruling by Teton County District Judge Melissa Owens, which struck down the state’s abortion ban and medication abortion prohibition.
Opinion
I urge you to reconsider your decision to appeal this ruling.
Upholding the court’s decision aligns with Wyoming’s constitutional commitment to health care autonomy and reinforces the principles of evidence-based medicine. Furthermore, it demonstrates a commitment to addressing the pressing health care access issues in our state. This appeal not only threatens the autonomy of health care providers like myself but also jeopardizes the fundamental rights of Wyoming residents to make private and deeply personal health care decisions.
The people of Wyoming deeply value the right to make decisions that govern the lives they choose, values reflected in the state constitution. It is nothing short of hypocritical for the state of Wyoming to champion the principles of decision-making autonomy while refusing to apply them to health care, undermining the very rights meant to empower individuals.
According to the summary judgment order in Johnson v. Wyoming, the state constitution explicitly guarantees the right to make one’s own health care decisions. This foundational right is essential for ensuring that medical care is guided by science, compassion and individual needs — not political interference. The laws you seek to reinstate disregard this constitutional protection and create an untenable situation for both patients and providers.
As you well know Gov. Gordon, Wyoming already faces significant challenges in providing adequate maternity care. My heart ached reading recent headlines regarding the closure of yet another obstetrical care unit in Evanston as of this month. Regions with maternity deserts lack access to obstetric services, forcing expectant mothers to travel long distances for care and increasing risks to maternal and infant health.
Wyoming also holds the unfortunate distinction of being one of 10 states considered to be a “triple desert” when it comes to maternity care because access to Medicaid has not been expanded, and — prior to this ruling — there was a potential lack of abortion care. It is imperative to understand that efforts to restrict reproductive health care further will only exacerbate this crisis.
Restrictive abortion laws have a ripple effect on the broader health care system. Hospitals and clinics, especially in rural areas, may face additional financial and staffing pressures as they struggle to comply with legal mandates. Physicians and other medical professionals, wary of legal risks, may be deterred from practicing in Wyoming altogether, further shrinking the pool of qualified providers. This compounds the challenges in maintaining labor and delivery services, leaving vulnerable communities with even fewer options for care. I speak of this from a place of not only statistics but experience, as it was the overturning of Roe v. Wade and the threat of trigger laws and further restrictive legislation that deterred me from returning to Wyoming to serve the people of my home state after completing my training.
Effective medical care relies on the trust between patient and physician. Your appeal, if successful, would erode this trust by forcing physicians to navigate legal risks instead of focusing solely on their patients’ health. To ask health care providers to practice medicine in an environment where they must first weigh vague provisions of a statute containing significant legal and criminal penalties against a patient’s best interests is a betrayal of the oath health care providers swear to uphold: Do no harm.
Thank you for your attention to this critical issue. I welcome the opportunity to discuss this matter further and share insights from my experiences as a physician. Wyoming’s future depends on policies that respect personal freedoms, support health care professionals, and prioritize the well-being of all residents.
Respectfully,
Dr. Natalie Meadows Eggleston, M.D
Truly disappointing Dr. Eggleston, one year and change after completing residency and the determining factor for not returning to Wyoming, the very state she aspired to practice in, is being able to perform abortions. Now, as she lives and works in Montana she expresses her concerns for a process which ends the life of the unborn child in Wyoming.
The National Library of Medicine under the Principles of Clinical Ethics and Their Application to Practice addresses the fundamental principles of ethics.
Regarding Nonmaleficence, “Nonmaleficence is the obligation of a physician not to harm the patient. This simply stated principle supports several moral rules − do not kill, do not cause pain or suffering, do not incapacitate, do not cause offense, and do not deprive others of the goods of life.”
In the comment section of a previous letter authored by Eggleton in Wyofile on March 26, 2024 Dr. Hickner criticizes Eggleston for her position on the matters addressed in her opinion letter then.
In March 2024 Eggleston worries about the risk of criminal penalties for performing an abortion, but balks at the moral rules of a community (State) created by the duly elected representatives of that very State.
As Dr. Hickner points out, “the OB/GYN physician is entrusted with the care of TWO patients, the Mother and the Unborn Child”. Yet Eggleston uses the ethical rule of “do no harm” for her unwillingness to return to Wyoming as an OB/GYN due to her fear of “legal risks”.
Bizarrely, Eggleston now appeals to Governor Gordon regarding Wyoming’s “significant challenges in providing adequate maternity care” and her concerns for maternal and infant health. She acknowledges maternal and infant health, and in the same letter advocates for the abortion of a child, ending a life in that Mother and Unborn Child patient relationship.
Is this doctor comparing a cost verse benefit analysis to a mother carrying her child to term due to women living in rural areas with less medical care access and becoming pregnant?
It seems being given a privileged life of living in Jackson, Wyoming would spawn an entitled perspective. Whereas less privileged women living in rural areas of the State should terminate their problem with a procedure deemed a private health care decision. Sadly, no one asks the unborn child if he/she wants to have their life cut short due to a decision where their input was not sought.
In closing, a simple quote from President Ronald Reagan says it all, “I’ve noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born”.
“The unborn” are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus, but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn.”
― Methodist Pastor David Barnhart
Excellent piece, Dr. Eggleston!
The citizens of Wyoming, among whom I am a fifth-generation native, amended our constitution to prohibit political interference in our health care decisions.
That includes reproductive matters AND transgender treatments.
Why is the Freedom Caucus so damned interested in our genitals?
I hope Gordon makes a sound decision. Medical care in Wyoming and especially OB/GYN care is sparse at best, so many especially those of us close to alternative services tend to use those services outside Wyoming. It seems that our legislature is working hard to to destroy what we have left. All the WICHE programs in the world are not going to save Wyoming and similar states from the exodus of providers in states where legislatures dictate medical practice.
Very well put Dr Eggleston. Male dominated conservative politicians with their far right religious beliefs need to back off from the very personal and difficult decisions of a woman’s health and their desire to control the health care industry that cares for them. The religious fervor that underlies this governmental control doesn’t belong in politics that want to upend the separation of church and state. I fear that these policies will portend continuing restrictions on women’s freedom of decision and further erode Wyoming’s need for viable and expanded health care. Please leave it between the woman and her doctor Governor Gordon.
Thank you for this medically informed piece. However, as politicians kick women’s bodies back and forth like a soccer ball, one must realize it is about kicking their bodies into the goal of political favor and not sound medicine. Oh, and it’s about hypocrisy as well.
Some interesting stats here:
https://medium.com/@cailleachanam/education-not-legislation-99f475166b6b
Well said.