I was recently quoted in a WyoFile article regarding the OB-GYN impact study that was submitted by the plaintiffs in the abortion ban lawsuit in Teton County. As can easily happen, an out-of-context quote has led to some confusion.
When referring to unborn protection laws I was quoted as saying, “We certainly don’t want unintended consequences. We don’t want a lack of clarity for OB-GYNs … The problem is that it’s really hard to get anybody to help us navigate the fine-tuning…”
Opinion
To clarify, the legislative sponsors of the Life is a Human Right Act were in consultation with pro-life OB-GYN physicians before, during and after the bill was passed.
My statement referred to the fact that, in Wyoming, many pro-life OB-GYNs are hesitant to be publicly involved in politics while abortion-rights OB-GYNs have never offered amendments to prevent unintended consequences to pro-life laws.
The enrolled version of the Life is a Human Right Act states that it shall not be a violation of the law for a licensed provider to:
- Perform a pre-viability separation procedure necessary in the physician’s reasonable medical judgment to prevent the death of the pregnant woman, a substantial risk of death for the pregnant woman because of a physical condition or the serious and permanent impairment of a life-sustaining organ of a pregnant woman;
- Provide medical treatment to a pregnant woman that results in the accidental or unintentional injury to, or the death of, an unborn baby;
- Perform an abortion when the pregnancy is a result of rape or incest;
- Perform an abortion on a woman when in the physician’s reasonable medical judgment, there is a substantial likelihood that the unborn baby has a lethal fetal anomaly or the pregnancy is determined to be a molar pregnancy.
Treatment for an ectopic pregnancy is excluded from the definition of an abortion and therefore is also not prohibited by the law.
Various pro-life organizations disagree about the scope of the exceptions. Nevertheless, the fact that the bill sought to define exceptions demonstrates an acknowledgment that the Legislature is seeking to allow for nuances.
The plaintiffs in the current lawsuit have said that the law is confusing to OB-GYNs. Two of the plaintiffs expressed this same concern as the law made its way through the Legislature. They also raised the same concern about the trigger bill that passed two years ago. In both cases, the plaintiffs never proposed clarifying amendments, but instead advocated for rejecting the entire premise of both bills.
This has led many in the pro-life movement to wonder, “Will the plaintiffs ever consider an exception for the life of the unborn child?” Given the following quote from one of the plaintiffs’ proposed experts, “any abortion that a pregnant person requests — for any reason — is medically necessary,” it doesn’t seem likely.
Currently, abortion-rights advocates claim that elective abortion is health care. When I started following the Legislature in 2015, the strategy to block passage of unborn protection laws was to claim that very few abortions happen in Wyoming, if any. In 2019, an abortion reporting law passed, ultimately rendering that strategy unsustainable. A practice once claimed to be rare and only knowingly rendered by one to two providers in the state is now being presented as essential OB-GYN health care.
The impact on existing law is unknown if a court were to redefine health care to include abortion. Could that ruling enable elective abortions up until birth? Would this impact provisions limiting the use of public funds to procure abortions? What implications would this have on OB-GYNs who do not provide abortion?
When the dignity of human life is threatened at any level, it is threatened at every level. Laws that allow for unqualified access to abortion fail to respect the dignity of the child in the womb, while undermining the dignity of every human life.
As the legislative liaison for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Cheyenne, I will continue to advocate for Medicaid expansion, because access to life-saving health care is vital to our pro-life position. It won’t be easy; however, I believe the integrity of our life-affirming health care professionals will be key to eventually succeeding in the passage of expansion. The Catholic Church does not speak for the entire pro-life movement, but we trust that a just government will not shirk its responsibility to protect all human life, even when doing so is considered controversial.
I also will continue to lobby for legislation that protects the rights of the mother and the unborn child. Just legislation should provide genuine options for moms, like child tax credits and making adoption easier. Freedom of choice is important but never absolute; it is limited when it infringes on the rights of another living, human person.
Mr Leman’s comments stand as a stark reminder of why so many people (highest in history) choose “none” when asked for their religious affiliation.
Folks are tired of the hypocrisy and political pandering that organized religion has become. No amount of self serving opinion pieces will put the genie back in the bottle.
I can only hope more religious “nones” realize the scam that organized religion has become.
When I first met Mike he seemed a reasonable enough fellow but as the conversation turned to abortion it was clear he was a zealot. He really knew his embryology and I indicated that evolution is fantastic as you cannot tell one mammalian embryo from another…..that ended that conversation. However, I have big ears and I have heard him repeat that “there are not many abortions in Wyoming” and while he said it, he really did not believe it. In fact he was so excited about the the 6 Catholics on the SCOTUS striking down Roe that he wanted to work on other legislation to track people obtaining or providing abortions down.
Empowering Sheriffs to scour the town for pregnant women seems so Taliban and anti-American and while I am not sure what intrusive legislation he would support these are the paths I can imagine.
In fact Roe was wrongly decided and it is clear that a woman’s right to decide whether to introduce a new citizen to this Republic should have held to the entire term and not just to the quickening (first trimester).
I am happy to report that University of Wyoming Students for Reproductive Rights have the same beliefs about a US Citizens right to let an individual citizen decide when their time is right. I think that should clarify where Mike should be when these private decisions are made and it is not in my house or doctor’s office. Don’t worry Mike, these enlightened students are destined to leave Wyoming as they can surely see the “hand writing on the wall”.
PS I had to laugh at all the zealots in Ohio when the ballot initiative legalized weed and abortions rights. I think some in Wyoming can see that trend and are trying to change the ballot balance in Wyoming to erode our rights further. See failed SJ0003 for confirmation.
How about we stick with the US constitution and keep religion out of politics? Get God out of our courts, off of our money, out of our schools, out of our doctor visits and out of our bedrooms. We are not a Christian nation.
Why do churches display such arrogance? I don’t care to who or how you pray. Why do you think your religious beliefs give you the right to interfere in others lives? Stay in you lane and out of medical decisions that don’t concern you.
Too bad the Catholics ignore their own history . At their peril. The Holy Roman Catholic Pope is supposed to be the infallible spokesman for God’s intent on Earth , right ? Key words ‘ papal infallibility ‘.
So how would author and Catholic legislative liaison Leman reconcile the fact that some Popes decreed that abortion was neither sin nor crime before the embryo ” quickened ” , usually about 16-20 weeks into the pregnancy ? Those Popes felt the embryo was not a human fetus until the Quickening, when the soul entered the body and the fetus started moving, kicking, animating . That belief was codified in the 5th century if I recall. For centuries those infallible popes vacillated . They and the church doctrinators were all over the board on abortion.
My perception of this oscillating debate on the topic is for nearly the entirety of its history, the church never decreed that human spiritual life begins at conception . The Bible says absolutely nothing about that notion . But further east in South Asia the Hindus long adhered to the concept of the conceptual spirit, centuries before Christianity. Hindus also believe we humans are constantly recycling between death and rebirth ( = reincarnation ) right here…not in the Hereafter. So we’re still all over the board on that seminal but mostly semantic dogma about when protoplasmic cells become human beings.
The best path we could take as a nation and state is to hit the Reset button and start over on the abortion issue. Leave the church out of it this time. At the least abortion is health care , no more no less. But really it is none of the church’s or any other entity’s business. It’s personal , and private . QED
Mr. Leman. You make several declarations about how nuanced and compassionate the Life is a Human Right Act is, listing 4 ways that doctors may perform abortions. You use several fallacies to make your argument.
1. “When the dignity of human life is threatened at any level, it is threatened at every level. Laws that allow for unqualified access to abortion fail to respect the dignity of the child in the womb, while undermining the dignity of every human life.”
This is the classic “all or nothing” fallacy. Since when does the Catholic Church care about the dignity of human life? How many children were abused by clergy over the centuries? How many times was that kept hidden? Are you saying that a zygote is an “unborn baby” with a “soul” and constitutional rights? What is a soul? How about a 6-8 week fetal pole? Does that have “dignity”? How so? Does a fetus have consciousness? Is it aware of itself?
2. “The impact on existing law is unknown if a court were to redefine health care to include abortion. Could that ruling enable elective abortions up until birth?”
This is patently false. The statement indicates inexcusable ignorance on Neman’s part for not knowing how abortion care is administered and what its limits already are. 90% of abortions are performed with in the 1st trimester. The others occur in the 2nd trimester, always for very serious reasons. 3rd trimester abortions are extremely rare and again done for the most serious reasons.
3.Would this impact provisions limiting the use of public funds to procure abortions? Well as of now, public funds are not used for abortions . That is called the Hyde Amendment.
From another perspective, I would assume Mr. Neman pays his taxes every year. Some of that money is used to fund the $1.5 trillion per year Defense Department. That includes the manufacture and deploying of weapons, some of which are being used as we speak to kill Palestinians at the hands of Israel. No problem?
I don’t want my tax dollars funding the ridiculous Joint Strike Fighter. Can I refuse to pay my taxes, Mike?
4. What implications would this have on OB-GYNs who do not provide abortion? Physicians have a right to decline to perform a procedure they are not comfortable with. However, their fiduciary duty is to the patient under all circumstances. If they have a duty to care for the patient sitting in front of them, they must provide an alternative for the patient to get the appropriate care in an emergency. Therefore, at 2 AM, he/she had better have a backup for a woman undergoing a miscarriage and bleeding right in front of them.
5. The law is indeed “vague.” Hate to burst your little bubble of holiness but in other states where similar laws are enforced, patients are suffering complications because the OB doctors are hesitant to do what they want to for fear of being arrested, and for losing their license. They often are on the phone trying to talk to hospital attorneys before they do anything. That makes a lot of sense at 2 in the morning.
6. As far as the so called exceptions for rape and incest, there is a little hoop that was intentionally thrown in to make that more difficult. It requires that the rape be reported to law enforcement within a specified time frame? Um Mike, how does a pregant 10 year old raped by her father report to law enforcement?
7. Mr Neman. This proposed law is unethical, absurd, and dangerous. It is also unconstitutional in that it interferes with the doctor patient relationship. You are blame shifting from yourself to the doctors who actually do the caring for pregnant women and their unborn fetuses. I wish you would just withdraw because it is clear you are out of your element.
Sure! Simply ignore the U.S. and Wyoming constitutions and compromise your human rights with a religious organization.
Too bad no one ever thought of that before.
Ah yes, from the church that believes birth control is a “sin”, and that everyone should live by that church’s moral standards and definitions. And lead from top to bottom by an unmarried patriarchy. Thanks, I’ll pass – and stick with “separation of church and state”.
👍
Mike, why do you feel the need to be involved in any decision made by a person regarding family choices that have absolutely no bearing on your life? Preach your sermon, council your congregation, offer advice when asked – maybe sit with the (I would bet MANY) women who listen to you weekly who also have terminated a pregnancy and hear their stories. You have the freedom to believe in what you believe in- don’t let that infringe on the way others live their lives. You have the ability to bring at least your church around to the right side of history- support women. If they don’t want to terminate a pregnancy, support them too with all these amendments you like to talk about. Support women, period.
Mike, thank you for your opinion. I understand your feelings on abortion, I understand that many people view abortion as the killing of another human being, and that those views lead you to fight against abortion. However, it is not your pregnant body and therefore not your choice. It is the choice of the woman in consultation with her physician.
There are no “unintended consequences to pro-life laws.” The anti-abortion crowd intends that patients suffer and die because their bad laws prohibit doctors from saving them. Every time an 11 year old is forced to give birth the system is working as you guys intended.
So at what point is it no longer fine to kill a baby? Does it have to be killed before birth or does it matter, at what stage it is? Is it a human yet when Mom can feel it moving? What if it starts crying after birth, still ok to end it’s life? If an eleven year old rape victim gives birth, perhaps the father should be put to death. Has anyone studied the long term impact on the mother who aborts her child? There is no good outcome for a child that has been raped and the death penalty for the man who did it should be considered.
Just to be clear though, you have no problem with the 11 year old rape victim being forced to give birth. That is an acceptable outcome for you.