Wyoming received a hard lesson this week, not only about abortion, but about how the redefinition of a single word can quietly decide a moral debate and shift power away from voters.
Opinion
On Tuesday, the Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed a lower court ruling that contended that “the decision to have an abortion is a health care decision.” That statement is anything but a routine legal conclusion. It is a choice about meaning, one with consequences far beyond this case.
In politics, people often try to win arguments by changing the meaning of words. If you can rename something, you can make it sound safer, kinder and less controversial.
But a label does not change reality. Calling abortion “health care” is not just describing a medical procedure. It is also making a moral claim: that abortion belongs in the same category as care that heals and protects patients.
So, the essential question becomes painfully simple: Is it honest to treat a procedure that intentionally ends an unborn human life as ordinary “health care,” simply because it occurs in a medical setting?
Most average voters, whatever their party, know instinctively that not everything performed by a professional is automatically “care” in the moral sense. The white coat does not sanctify the act. “Medical” can describe who performs a procedure; “care” describes what it is for. In common-sense terms, care aims to heal and protect patients. Abortion, by its nature, ends a life.
That is why the high court’s definition matters. Once abortion is judicially placed inside “health care,” restrictions face the highest hurdles.
Natural law begins with a simple idea: Basic rights do not come from the strong. They are grounded in what a human being is.
If the unborn child is a living human being, then that child has at least one right that society must protect: the right not to be intentionally killed.
This straightforward truth doesn’t rely on having the same religious beliefs. It’s simply a matter of human rights. All the great struggles for justice come back to the same fundamental idea: Every person’s dignity is not about how big, strong, smart or independent they are, or whether others see that person as convenient.
That’s exactly why the law exists. The law protects people who cannot protect themselves.
So, when a court treats abortion as a protected “health care decision,” it is not protecting “choice.” It is deciding, implicitly, that the unborn child is not the sort of being the law must protect in the first place, or at least not enough to outweigh the mother’s claim. That’s a moral decision. It deserves public debate, not a quiet redefinition from unelected judges.
Yet there is also another issue at stake that should alarm even people who are conflicted about abortion: the separation of powers.
The founders of our constitutional order, state and federal, assumed something basic: Law in a self-governing republic is made by elected representatives. Courts interpret law; they do not rewrite it. Legislatures debate definitions precisely because definitions carry moral weight. That is why statutes contain words like “reasonable,” “necessary,” “public welfare” and “compelling interest.” These are not mere technicalities; they are the guardrails of representative government.
Wyoming’s Article 1, Section 38 includes an explicit legislative role: “The legislature may determine reasonable and necessary restrictions on the rights granted under this section to protect the health and general welfare of the people.”
Yet this ruling effectively places abortion restrictions under strict scrutiny, the most demanding constitutional standard, by treating abortion itself as a protected “health care decision.” This shifts the practical center of gravity away from the Legislature and toward the judiciary. When judges, rather than voters through their representatives, decide what constitutes “health care,” the judiciary begins to dominate the other branches.
To be clear: Courts must interpret constitutions. But there is a difference between interpretation and transformation. When broad language is used to constitutionalize an issue as morally explosive as abortion, it is fair to ask whether the court has created a new rule of political life without the consent of the governed.
Thankfully, one of the judges, Kari Gray, provided a powerful dissent to the ruling, arguing that the Legislature was operating within its constitutional authority when it, as the elected representatives of the people, placed “reasonable and necessary” restrictions on abortions. That dissent is not just legal quarreling. It is a warning about which branch gets the last word.
If the judiciary can expand or contract the meaning of major words, then constitutional government becomes less a balance of powers and more a rule by judicial interpretation. And the branch least accountable to voters becomes the branch most decisive in moral policy.
If Wyoming wants abortion protected as “health care,” let that be said plainly, debated openly, and, if necessary, resolved through the democratic process the constitution provides.
The answer is not to pretend that words settle moral reality. For a republic to survive, citizens must insist on two virtues: truthful language and separated powers. Lose either one, and self-government becomes nothing more than a slogan.
I can’t wait for the debates that will undoubtedly occur at the other end of the human lifespan. If you think the relentless battle over Abortion is of biblical proportions , wait till the topic is Voluntary Euthanasia and/or physician assisted suicide. Judging from the trajectory that might be a whole order of magnitude greater on the Judaeo-Christian Richter Scale of spiritual tectonics.
Ironically, the issue is the same for the developing embryo or the terminally ill . Choosing to willfully end a pregnancy or willfully end a corporeal life. To my mind , the Zealot and the Libertine fighting over the ultimate righteous choice of abortion are represented by the two snakes on the winged staff of Cadeuceus , the symbol of the medical profession , each serpent being a life or death choice.**
I thought the abortion debate was settled 53 years ago , once and for all with Roe v. Wade. Wyoming’s medical choice Constitutional amendment reinforced Roe v. Wade in 2012. How fun to watch the ex-Tea Party and Freedom Caucus hop around on one foot because they shot themselves in the other foot with that brilliant demonstration of how not to make law. Now they have to un-make it. That’s twice as hard, not likely to succeed , and yes they will shoot themselves in the other foot at some point.
I conclude by saying Nathan Winters has no clue about Natural Law when he invokes it. By definition Natural Law is totally agnostic about abortion , and thus puts up no impediments to it. It does seem Winters’ concept of civil and criminal law is also lacking , or at the least being applied with one eye and one ear shut and the bullet wound in his foot still not healed after 14 years. He’s still hopping. When will the fervant Anti-abortionists and the Freedom Caucus learn to quit pounding their heads against the courthouse wall and expect a divine revelation to redeem them ?
—–
** Note: historically there was only one snake on the mythical cadeuceus staff of Hermes , meaning their was no division of opinion when it came to the healing . We bellicose Americans added the other snake in the mid-19th century. Go figger…
The definition of abortion has always been termination – the ending – of something, whether a mission, or a pregnancy. The re-definition of abortion as only the woman’s choice to end a pregnancy, attempted by our legislators, didn’t pass judicial review and was correctly decided. Doctors have long known how important that care is, and how wrong it is when government tries to interfere with the decisions women make for their own wellbeing.
A survey conducted by UW found that 90% of Wyoming residents believe that safe abortion care is necessary, with only 10% believing that it should be totally banned. Perhaps more than 10% of Republicans should show up for primaries so that their views are adequately represented.
I thought Cowboy State Daily had cornered the market on selecting clergy that knows less about Biblical values than our Founding Documents, but Nathan Winters has entered the chat.
He, like most of the GOP, corrupts the meaning of the Judicial Branch when it comes to our Rights. Mr. Winters makes this statement “Law in a self-governing republic is made by elected representatives. Courts interpret law; they do not rewrite it.” Mr. Winters clearly does not understand how the Judiciary allows a reasoned review of the law, instead of relying on legislators that are influenced by the flaws of humans. If Mr. Winters’s logic were to be applied, interracial marriage would still be illegal, instead these racist based laws passed by the Legislative Branch, were rightly struck down by the Judiciary, but it did not happen UNTIL 1967. See Loving v Virginia.
The 9th Amendment says that all US Citizens Rights are not included above and the Judiciary leads the US in getting the Rights we deserve, not the Legislative Branch. Roe was clearly wrong as Citizens should have the entire term in deciding whether to introduce a new Citizen into this Republic or not. Mr. Winters is clearly a supporter of Justice Alito, who is corrupting our Founding Documents and the role of the Judiciary.
Greg, it’s an OPINION piece.
You seem upset that Wyofile, published this. Would you prefer an echo chamber?
Mr. Winters views the unborn as human beings, many of us do because they are. With the passing of Roe 50+ years ago, Americans have been conditioned to think that an unborn child/fetus/embryo is not a human being when it most certainly is.
It’s essentially a civil rights issue, much akin to slavery.
I fail to see how forcing women to continue with pregnancies they do not want “protect the health and general welfare of the people”. If anything more unwanted children in the world harms the “health and general welfare of the people” as you will have more children living in poverty. They will be unsupervised, as their parent(s) will be having to work much more to care for them. And so many woman will die (look at states that have outlawed abortion) leaving many children without their mother.
Raising children is a taxing endeavor, physically, mentally, and financially, it’s a burden. While the LIFE of a child is a blessing, the CARE of a child is a burden. And to force that burden on someone who doesn’t want or can’t afford it damages the “health and general welfare” of those individuals, and thus “the people”.
Thats dehumanizing to think of unborn babies as nothing more then finicial escape. This nation has become so money hungry that it allows killing humans to save money. Thats insane!
I appreciate Mr. Winters’s thoughtful comments about judicial rulings
about moral decisions. I submit, however, three points for consideration.
First: This ruling about defining abortion as health care in no way prevents an individual from making a moral decision.
Second: The vast number of abortions are not willy-nilly murders; rather, they are fraught with fear, painful thoughts, and countless tears.
Third: It is appropriate for laws to control the funds that come from legal sources (the government), but what people decide to do with their own bodies are under their personal control, wherein the “law” has no business intruding.
My grandma had 13 kids and 5 miscarriages. When asked how many kids she had she never said 18. A fetus is very different from a born child. And healthcare is what a person deems is healthcare for themselves, not what a legislator says. That is what Life and Liberty mean.
The TRUTH needs repeating.
Is it honest to treat a procedure that intentionally ends an unborn human life as ordinary “health care,” simply because it occurs in a medical setting?
Pro abortion is anti human.
Thank you for your article, thank you to Wyofile for posting it.
It is a fetus. It is not an unborn child. You write about the power of a word, so here is how the anti-abortionists have unfortunately framed this issue.
Somehow, the media calls anti-anortionists pro-life. That is laughable. You don’t care about the life of the woman and you don’t provide assistance to the child after it is no longer a fetus. You torture women who do not want to be mother’s for whatever reason including incest and race, and you stop doctors from provide life saving Healthcare out of fear of committing a crime.
Reminds me of that old George Carlin routine where he said “Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to 9 months. After that, they don’t wanna know about you. They don’t wanna hear from you. No nothing! No neonatal care, no daycare, no Head Start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you’re pre-born, you’re fine, if you’re preschool, you’re f*cked.” It’s amazing how many can’t recognize the hypocrisy.