When far-right legislators who crafted and passed two laws banning abortions in Wyoming learned that those laws were declared unconstitutional by the state’s Supreme Court last Tuesday, I wondered what their next move would be.
Opinion
It didn’t take long to find out. The Joint Appropriations Committee, with six of its seven House members aligned with the Freedom Caucus and a senator who sponsored one of the bans, hid from the public that afternoon in a private meeting where they discussed how to punish the high court.
Fortunately, several people with direct knowledge of the meeting disclosed to WyoFile that the JAC talked about shrinking the Wyoming Supreme Court from five members to three.
Rep. Abby Angelos, R-Gillette, who called for the executive session, later told WyoFile that such a closed meeting is allowed under state law for members seeking legal counsel on an issue — in this case the judiciary’s budget. But it doesn’t take a lawyer to know that the Wyoming Constitution says the state’s high court can operate with three to five members. What did they need legal counsel for?
If the discussion was about the state budget, which the committee oversees, it should have been open to the public so everyone can hear why members think the court and budget should be shrunk. Whenever a Freedom Caucus member repeats its leadership’s claim that it wants to improve government transparency, raucous laughter is an appropriate response.
The official Freedom Caucus take on the ruling called it “a stain on the Wyoming judicial branch.”
“After decades of liberal leadership in the governor’s office, the State Supreme Court has been filled with jurists who reject basic biology and human dignity,” the statement said.
In the nearly six decades I’ve lived in Wyoming, we’ve never had what I would call a liberal governor. The majority of justices during that time have focused on what the law says, not a political ideology.
The current court interpreted a 2012 amendment to the state constitution to mean exactly what the majority of voters approved: “Each competent adult shall have the right to make his or her own health care decisions.”
Ironically, the idea for the amendment was the work of right-wing lawmakers trying to undermine the Affordable Care Act, which they derisively called Obamacare.
The strategy backfired for them on abortion. Today’s Freedom Caucus and other anti-abortion advocates in the Legislature should have learned a lesson from their predecessors, who wildly ran down the railroad track to repeal Roe v. Wade at any cost and didn’t foresee that their own amendment was the train that would eventually run them over.
This coalition will keep blaming Wyoming’s fictitious “liberal leadership” for their court loss on the ill-conceived abortion bans, but if they want to know who’s really responsible, they should look in a mirror.
When the two abortion bans were immediately challenged in a lawsuit filed by OB-GYNs, a Casper women’s clinic, a pro-choice organization and women of childbearing age, the state argued that abortion isn’t health care.
It’s a patently absurd position. A procedural or surgical abortion can only be obtained from a licensed physician, and a medication abortion must be prescribed by doctor and the medication dispensed by a certified pharmacy. Abortion care is included in medical training, clinical practice, and continuing medical education.
Here’s part of what the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists says:
“Induced abortion is an essential component of women’s health care. Like all medical matters, decisions regarding abortion should be made by patients in consultation with their health care providers and without undue influence by outside parties.”
Here’s more common sense advice from the group: “Like all patients, women obtaining abortion are entitled to privacy, dignity, respect and support.” The Legislature’s bans stripped all of these from women.
As much as anti-abortion advocates demand the authority to tell women what reproductive health choices they must make, the Wyoming Constitution tells government officials and others to butt out because it’s none of their business. I’m grateful the state has a Supreme Court that stood up and upheld women making their own decisions about their bodies.
The JAC made no changes to the composition of the Wyoming Supreme Court last week, but that doesn’t mean the panel or individual legislators won’t try during the upcoming budget session. But I doubt they’ll get very far with reducing the size of the court, and there’s no guarantee it would change the court’s ruling on abortion.
What appears most likely to happen during the 20-day budget session that begins Feb. 9 is an anti-abortion constitutional amendment called for by Gov. Mark Gordon. Two legislators he’s often at odds with, House Speaker Chip Neiman, R-Hulett, and Sen. Cheri Steinmetz, R-Lingle, are already drafting a resolution to put the issue on the 2026 general election ballot.
I’m disappointed in Gordon’s response to the ruling. It may not have the clueless outrage that Secretary of State Chuck Gray expressed when he said it was a “left–wing activist decision totally out of touch with the Wyoming Constitution,” but it’s not far off.
Gordon called the decision “profoundly unfortunate” and said it “sadly serves to only prolong the ultimate proper resolution of this issue.”
Even more concerning was the governor’s statement that the legal question may be settled “for the time being,” but it doesn’t settle “the moral one, nor does it reflect where many Wyoming citizens stand,” including himself.
No one gets exactly the government he or she wants. Even the governor only gets one vote (and the power of the veto), and it’s not good public policy to keep demanding voters be asked the same question until the outcome meets someone’s personal moral code.
A 1994 ballot initiative banning abortion in Wyoming was soundly defeated, and the 2012 amendment guaranteeing citizens the right to make their own health care decisions was overwhelmingly approved. Now the Supreme Court has voted 4-1 to overturn two abortion bans.
Wyoming doesn’t need to give anti-abortion zealots another bite of the apple. But if lawmakers insist on it, voters need to say loud and clear that it’s not the government’s business to interfere with rights guaranteed in our state’s constitution.