Doctors, not legislators, should help patients make reproductive health care decisions

A few weeks ago, the Wyoming Legislature convened for the 2025 session and, unsurprisingly, several extreme-right lawmakers have put forth bills that will significantly restrict access to abortion in our state if they pass. One, House Bill 64, “Chemical abortions-ultrasound requirement,” would require a medically unnecessary, and pricey, ultrasound 48 hours before any abortion procedure. The other, House Bill 42, “Regulation of surgical abortions,” would force any clinic that provides procedural abortions to be licensed as an ambulatory surgical center. 

The lawmakers behind these bills claim they are an effort to keep women safe. But frustrated as they are by their so-far failed attempts to ban abortion outright in Wyoming, these bills are actually blatant attempts to further impede women’s choices and their constitutionally protected right to make their own health care decisions. 

As a retired obstetrician who specialized in prenatal diagnosis and clinical genetics, I have seen first-hand how critical this choice is. And not just for individual women, but for their families, too. 

I’ll never forget one couple whose fetus I determined had a severe form of osteogenesis imperfecta type II. This bone mineralization defect meant that their baby would have been born with malformed, easily breakable bones, underdeveloped lungs and other problems. Most babies with this condition die at birth or shortly after because of their inability to breathe. 

When I gave them the news, they were shocked and in disbelief. They had wanted this baby so much. After considerable deliberation, they decided to terminate. Because it is an inherited genetic condition, sadly, I saw the same couple nine months later and diagnosed their next fetus with the same problem. They terminated again. Thankfully, this couple did ultimately go on to have a healthy pregnancy and a healthy baby. 

That’s in large part because they were able to make thoughtful, well-considered choices about what was best for them, their family and their growing fetus. They were able to choose not to force their baby to suffer excruciatingly during its short life, and not to bear the tremendous financial burdens of such a high level of required care. Critically, they were able to do so without their state government imposing on them medically unnecessary requirements that would make an already heartbreaking decision only more difficult. 

Because, yes, requiring an ultrasound before an abortion is almost always medically unnecessary, especially in the first trimester, when 93% of abortions occur. In fact, a 2024 study from the University of California, San Francisco found that patients who received care remotely and those who received an ultrasound before a medication abortion had no differences in outcomes. Both fared equally well, proving — once again — that medication abortions, which account for more than half of all abortions in the US, are safe and effective. 

But these findings are not surprising when you consider that both procedural and medication abortions are extremely safe — much safer even than childbirth, which carries with it a 14-times higher risk of maternal death than abortion. In fact, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, abortions represent lower risks of complications or mortality than even getting your wisdom teeth removed, a colonoscopy or plastic surgery. So, it makes sense that only 2% of patients who undergo abortions have any complications at all, most of which are easily treatable. 

But HB 64 and HB 42 are bad bills not just because they are based on the patently false premise that abortions are not safe. It’s that these bills, by requiring a 48-hour waiting period after an ultrasound prior to abortion as well as licensure of abortion facilities would create even more barriers to adequate medical care, particularly for individuals in rural areas of our state, of which there are many. Then there’s the cost of unnecessary travel, taking time off of work, paying for childcare and hotel accommodations. On top of that ultrasounds can be expensive — about $300 for a transvaginal ultrasound. The financial strain of these bills will disproportionately affect low-income Wyomingites. 

The abundant safety data on abortions coupled with what we know are gratuitous and burdensome regulations, prove that both bills are simply legislative efforts to make essential medical care more difficult to access. For decades abortions have been provided safely at clinics that are not licensed surgical centers and safely without an ultrasound first. In Wyoming where reproductive health care is already becoming increasingly difficult to find, these bills represent discriminatory government overreach and lawmaking rooted in ideology, rather than best practice. They single out abortion care for excessive regulation not applied to comparable medical procedures. 

This is why I must state the obvious: medical professionals, not legislators, should guide health care decisions. 

Look, Wyomingites have always valued limited government and personal liberty. These bills are brazen contradictions of those principles and infringe on our state constitution by interfering in private health care decisions. Our legislators must reject both HB 64 and HB 42 and stand instead for policies that uphold fundamental personal freedoms and individual autonomy. They should also respect medical expertise and ensure access to essential health care for all Wyomingites, no matter where they live or how much money they have. These harmful bills simply have no place in our state.