Gillette Council to cut funds for clinic that provides low-cost birth control, cancer screenings and STD testing

In a surprise move last week, four members of the Gillette City Council voted to remove $30,000 in optional 1% sales tax funding from Gillette Reproductive Health, stripping the allocation from the budget for the upcoming fiscal year.

Last week’s vote followed claims by Mayor Shay Lundvall that the clinic’s website had previously hosted links to groups that advocated abortion and listed adoption/abortion counseling on their list of services in previous editions of the website.

The clinic has proven popular with many Gillette residents and is the only local provider of low-cost birth control and emergency contraceptives in Campbell County. The clinic also provides STD testing for men and women, among other services, often at reduced cost.

Those who voted against funding the agency included Ward 2 representative Jack Clary, who made the initial motion to amend the budget, alongside Ward 1 representative Chris Smith, Ward 2 Representative Tim Carsrud and Lundvall.

Voting to keep the funding were Ward 3 representatives Heidi Gross and Nathan McLeland, as well as Ward 1 representative Jim West.

The meeting marked the first of three required ordinance readings of the city budget, which needs to be ratified by July 1 for city services to continue to function. The funds could be added back to the budget through subsequent amendments at either of the two remaining readings. But during second reading Monday night, the council voted 4-3 against an amendment to add the money back. Third reading of the city budget is scheduled for June 17.

At the end of a lengthy discussion among both residents and council members, Lundvall had the last word, claiming that Gillette Reproductive Health’s website had previously included links to Power to Decide, a reproductive health advocacy organization, which supports the right to abortion services.

Power to Decide’s website also contains links to AbortionFinder and Bedsider sites, meant to connect users to verified abortion providers and birth control resources, respectively.

Lundvall also said that a previous version of Gillette Reproductive Health’s website listed adoption/abortion counseling referrals on its list of services.

Previous versions of the website, accessed through the WayBackMachine archive, back up Lundvall’s claims of the links and listed services on previous versions of the website.

“Whether intentional or unintentional, and considering the full breadth of conversations, emails, text messages, phone calls, documented evidence and my in-person meeting with Gillette Reproductive Health and their submission of all available paperwork, substantial inconsistencies remain,” Lundvall said. “Rather than delivering transparency and clarity, the information gathered has only deepened the uncertainty and left me with significantly more questions than answers.”

Following the vote, Julie Price Carroll, the agency’s executive director, used the public comment period to express her disappointment with Lundvall for not discussing the concerns before the meeting to get their side of the story, and she asked Carsrud and Smith to consider changing their vote down the line.

“If there was something on one of their websites that we were unaware of, then that has no reflection on Gillette Reproductive Health or the fact that I have tried to be transparent with everybody who goes into the clinic and everyone who comes out,” Price Carroll said. “I feel like you are telling me that I was not being transparent or truthful. I take issue with [that].”

Thursday afternoon, Lundvall told the News Record that he did the research solely on his own after hearing from both sides of the issue. He said he was concerned about the timing of the removal of links to Power to Decide, which he said occurred in May after the issue of funding had been brought up, although not formally addressed, in city council meetings.

Asked about the links and language on Thursday, Price Carroll said the use of the term “adoption/abortion counseling” was commonly used to refer to pregnancy options counseling at that time, where a patient would be given information on the choices available, and that changes were meant to clarify that Gillette Reproductive Health does not offer any services connected to abortion.

Price Carroll also said she had been unaware that Power to Decide had contained links to services such as AbortionFinder, and when she was notified in May, she immediately had their webmaster remove the links.

Asked about the effect of the loss of funding on the services, Price Carroll stated that the clinic has already removed a position and reduced other staffing, as well as reduced clinic days from three to two a week, due to the potential cuts.

According to sources from both the city and the clinic, a meeting was scheduled Friday between Gillette Reproductive Health and some members of the city council to discuss questions arising from the mayor’s research, although the result of the meeting was not available by press time.

“I really believe that there has been a lack of good faith [by the city council] to come to us with their concerns and questions, and we have not been given an opportunity to sit down and have constructive dialogue,” said Gillette Reproductive Health Board Chair Wendy Gauntner, who went on to point out that such a meeting on the council’s concerns would have been more productive than limiting their director to two minute one-way talks during city meetings.

While a public hearing is scheduled to take place ahead of the third vote the following week, Monday’s vote did not include a public hearing or comment.

Clinic staff defend work; pastor and legislator repeat unfounded abortion claims

Last Tuesday’s vote was taken following a robust public hearing, which included statements by many residents as well as Gillette Reproductive Health Volunteer Medical Director Dr. David Beck and Price Carroll, who argued to keep the funding.

Meanwhile, Pastor Ed Sisti and Rep. John Bear, R-Gillette, alleged the clinic provided abortion referrals and services.

“We are not stopping abortion, we are just not supporting it, and you are supporting it,” Sisti said. “Even if one referral is made, you are supporting it.”

“I sent all of you a letter to not support that with taxpayer dollars.”

Rep. John Bear, R-Gillette

“I sent all of you a letter to not support that with taxpayer dollars,” Bear said. “I think that that’s an appropriate thing for individuals to pay for, or if they want to donate to provide that type of service. There are other services in the city that provide the same types of services without the abortion portion, and they are completely privately funded.”

The agency has denied these claims for years, and if the agency offered these services, it would be disqualified from its federal Title X funding, which only allows nondirective abortion counseling.

All staff of the clinic are required to sign the Wyoming Health Council’s Family Planning Statement of Understanding in line with these requirements each year.

Beck said the clinic does not provide or distribute referrals for abortion procedures or medication and that the 1% funding is vital for the clinic to continue providing its services to the community.

“Gillette Reproductive Health clinic and I do not perform abortions [or] dispense medications that would cause abortion or support termination of life,” Beck said. “For over 20 years, we have received financial support from the city and county to provide cancer screenings, STD treatment and healthcare to the citizens of Gillette and Campbell County that could otherwise not afford it, and [we] request that the city council restore our funding. We would not have covered our operating expenses in the last two years without it.”

Beck went on to speak on the importance of the patient-doctor relationship, explaining that when speaking to women who are considering abortion, he does his best to highlight the risks and consequences involved and that his duty as a doctor lies with the health of the patient.

“I usually have the patient return in a couple days to process this information and return questions,” Beck said. “If a patient returns adamant that she has no other options and she has made a decision to terminate her pregnancy, I will give her the address of Planned Parenthood. I do not want her to resort to going to the internet for Chinese herbs or medications or instructions on how to use a coat hanger to get this performed [on] herself, and this does happen.”

Most in audience spoke in favor of Gillette Reproductive Health

Some audience members said they would prefer to see the council cancel the funding, but many, who spoke at the meeting, highlighted the good the clinic has done as a reason for the city to continue funding it.

“I think we forget, moms have a life too, and their health sometimes depends on the care they receive,” said Gillette resident Leigh Jacobs. “I received care at Gillette Reproductive Health for some pre-cancerous cells, and Dr. Beck took care of me. I know other people who have sought help there. It’s not all revolving around pregnancy.”

“I think we forget, moms have a life too, and their health sometimes depends on the care they receive.”

Leigh Jacobs, Gillette resident

Others focused on the misinformation that they feel has been used to slander the clinic, such as Gillette resident Beth Morgan, who said she felt compelled to speak up despite not having plans to do so at the start of the meeting.

“The staff there are pro-life Christians, and this narrative that they provide abortions has been running through this community for several years now,” Morgan said. “Despite how many times people have been told that they do not provide abortions, any form of it, they don’t recommend it. People are still continuing to repeat that lie, and I’m really not sure why we’re having to keep addressing this when facts have been stated over and over again.”

During the hearing, the council was also provided with the results of an online petition containing 504 signatures, 466 from Campbell County IP addresses, asking for the funding to remain. As of Thursday evening, the number of verified signatures had reached 632.

Councilors on both sides claim popular support

Following public comment, the council members also voiced their views on the clinic’s funding, with Clary saying the agency has reserve funds and the city’s money would be better spent elsewhere.

“I don’t see the need for the money here, and I do not think our residents see the need for the money here,” Clary said. “I think we’re not listening to our constituents when it comes to tax dollars.”

West, Gross and McLeland all pointed to the high level of positive support both at the meetings as well as through emails and the petition presented that evening.

“This is such an important service to our community,” McLeland said. “I think lack of access to this kind of care is extremely detrimental. I think it’s great that we can help provide it. This is something the community needs access to. This is care that people need access to, and so I support it.”

Ahead of his vote to remove the funding, Smith clarified that his vote came on more financial grounds. He said the support he has seen for the organization convinced him that it didn’t need the tax dollars and that they would likely raise even more money through direct fundraising efforts from supporters in the community.

“They have been in Gillette for years, they have a great clientele. They obviously have lots of friends, and I think, with just a little bit of work, they could exceed the $30,000,” Smith said. “I appreciate them… I wish them well and I hope that they take this opportunity.”

While not expanding on the reasons behind his vote, Carsrud noted the public support for the clinic and said that he hopes to see those who signed the petition continue to support an organization that is important to them.

“I do want to encourage everybody that did send emails and sign this petition, no matter which direction this goes, send these folks a check,” Carsrud said. “If you support [them] please send them a check, and that goes for any other nonprofit that you are passionate about. Not all citizens of Gillette want their tax money to go to this or this or that, or that. And you know, with that being said … if you’re passionate about it, get behind it.”

In response, Gross said that doing good and popular work should not be a mark against an agency, and that the funding for the clinic is lowering the cost that the city would pay if its patients used emergency room services for the same issues.

“I don’t think that we should penalize nonprofits because they are providing great services, and they’re doing a good job of it,” Gross said. “We have to remember too that these nonprofits fill a gap, because if we didn’t have these organizations, then somebody else is going to be picking up the tab, and it’s going to be at a much higher cost.”

This story has been updated with the Monday night vote on second reading. — Ed.