The same group of abortion rights advocates who successfully defeated Wyoming’s abortion bans has opened a new legal battle, this time against a law signed Monday that bans the practice as soon as there’s a “detectable fetal heartbeat,” which can be as early as six weeks.
The new challenge, filed late Tuesday afternoon, was added to one that’s already pending in Natrona County against two anti-abortion laws passed last year. The motion asserts that the Human Heartbeat Act “involves the same fundamental problem as the prior laws before the Court,” in that it “transgresses the constitutional guarantee” of individuals’ ability “to make health care decisions without interference from the government.” The plaintiffs asked for the new law to be blocked while the legal challenge proceeds.
The challenge comes after Gov. Mark Gordon signed the bill on Monday while predicting that the new law, which went into effect immediately, would land the state in court. “Regrettably, this Act represents another well-intentioned but likely fragile legal effort with significant risk of ending in the courts rather than in lasting, durable policy,” he wrote in a signing letter to House Speaker Chip Neiman.
Julie Burkhart, president of Wellspring Health Access, the lone Wyoming clinic that provides abortions and a plaintiff in the existing lawsuit, said shortly after the governor’s announcement that she planned to bring a legal challenge against the law. Wellspring has served more than 899 abortion patients, according to the new legal filing.
The law, the new legal filing states, “strips Wyoming women and their families of their fundamental rights.”
As a result of the new law, the plaintiffs argue, Wellspring’s physicians and staff, as well as other doctors who provide abortion and other reproductive health care, “have no choice but to stop providing abortion care and other reproductive health services after six weeks gestation that could qualify as a ‘termination of pregnancy’ that does not fall under the vague and ambiguous ‘medical emergency’ exception.”
The law will also impact Chelsea’s Fund, a plaintiff and group that helps pay for abortion services, and its clients, “by increasing medical and travel costs” and “potentially implicating criminal liability” on the organization, “therefore exhausting the fund’s ability and resources to assist Wyoming women in obtaining legal abortion-related services.”
The new law requires health care providers to determine if a fetus has a detectable heartbeat before terminating a pregnancy, except for medical emergencies. It bars abortion if the fetus has a detectable heartbeat or if the person performing the abortion has failed to determine whether there’s a fetal heartbeat.
While cardiac activity can be detected around six weeks, the term “fetal heartbeat” is a misnomer at this stage, according to physicians who note embryos don’t fully develop cardiac valves this early.
Referring to this ambiguity, the new legal filing argues that the law doesn’t provide a “workable definition” of “detectable fetal heartbeat,” asserting that it’s “unclear” whether the new ban is referring to this early cardiac activity or another stage of embryonic development. Health care providers won’t be willing to end a pregnancy “at any point of a pregnancy, but especially after six weeks of gestation” as a result of this ambiguity, plaintiffs argue, essentially making the new law an abortion ban after six weeks gestation except for medical emergencies.
“The statute similarly fails to provide a workable definition of ‘medical emergency,’ leaving patients at risk of serious injury or death from any delay or denial of medication or procedural abortion care,” the new legal challenge states.
Medical professionals found in violation of the law would face a felony offense punishable by up to five years in prison or a fine up to $10,000. They would also lose their professional license.
The new abortion restriction comes in the wake of January’s Wyoming Supreme Court decision that struck down two 2023 anti-abortion bans on the grounds of their unconstitutionality. The plaintiffs in that case are the same as those in this newest court challenge. Central to arguments challenging those laws is a 2012 amendment to the Wyoming Constitution that protects people’s rights to make their own health care decisions.
At the beginning of the session, Gordon called on lawmakers to deliver a constitutional amendment to his desk so that Wyoming voters could settle the abortion matter. But a constitutional amendment bill related to abortion failed an introductory vote in the Senate. Instead, Speaker of the House Chip Neiman, R-Hulett, pushed forward the Human Heartbeat Act, which he pitched as a way to “provide protection for life” while acting within the constraints resulting from the court’s decision.
Critics, however, argue that the measure is essentially another abortion ban, given that many women don’t learn they are pregnant before six weeks, around when cardiac activity can first be detected.
If a judge approves, the challenge to the Human Heartbeat Act will be tacked onto litigation against two other anti-abortion laws that are on hold while the court mulls the case.
One requires a transvaginal ultrasound and then a 48-hour wait before someone can receive abortion pills in the state. Gordon vetoed that bill, objecting to its invasive nature, but the Legislature voted to override his rejection and it became law.
The other requires facilities that provide abortions to be licensed as ambulatory surgical centers, which are health care facilities that perform surgeries but are not hospitals. The classification comes with Department of Health inspections, rules and regulations that abortion rights advocates say are designed to be so onerous that any clinics would be forced to close.
For more legislative coverage, click here.
Correction: This story has been updated to correctly attribute Gordon’s message, which came in a signing letter to House Speaker Chip Neiman. — Eds.
The concept of a detectable heartbeat is an interesting one. Would this effect the other end of the spectrum for Do Not Resuscitate? Would those folks be subject to tests and procedures to keep their hearts going?
It isn’t a heartbeat, because at that stage there is no heart to beat.
If the Freedom Caucus is so sure of their position why haven’t they put abortion on the ballot as a constitutional amendment? That would solve their issues with the courts and let the people speak.
“A Nation under God” how beautiful those four words make soooooo many smile. Those smiles were there when “modern technology” provided America the ability to see our, your and my children’s heart beat!
Then the “modern technology” repeated the joy of when the “gender” of our children was going to be so to be and have everything ready at home for the “gender” of the children ie. clothes, bedroom colors, and most importantly the name of the child according to the gender as discovered through “modern technology”!
This Republic of and by “We the people” VOTED for the and our REPRESENTATIVE/Law creators, makers to listen, observe, follow-up with their constituents and even take the initiative in line with their constituency to take this REPUBLIC’S “modern technology” to provide the best “SAFETY” for the “constituency” again that VOTED them into their position of servitude to and for “we the people” and used that same modern technology to curb the vagueness to and of assisted “MURDER”.
Because of this “modern technology” and taking the initiative will now reign in the homosapiens of such actions and activities associated with murder and the murders of what is now going to have “crime scene” to now have what makes the murder scene as what it is again utilizing “modern technology” to NOW convict and bring to bare the murderer of the crime scene and make accountable and convict the murderer and provide “SAFETY” for our newest arriving American ARRIVALS!
THAT’S awesome that this Constitution is here in this Republic a Nation under God and “We the people” spoke up to and for self-care and safety and the pursuit of Liberty and justice for all and their was and is an American who took his, and their representation of and for “We the people” and created this and a Governor who abided by the wishes desires and prayers of and for “We the people”…
It’s AWESOME! That the “Law” was signed to ensure that the NEXT American will see and KNOW the value of what this Constitution is especially when that American KNOWS that it was “We the people” ensure(d) their “WELCOMING” with the ultimate of love, joy and to enjoin with us in this Nation under God and with all the Blessings under God and because of the exercise, courage of the FIRST AMENDMENT… SEMPER FI!
Certainly pro birth.Certainly not pro child. The law needs to be age of viability not a group of cells making a sound that is detectable by advanced tech. By that reasoning if a person has a grievous limb wound requiring amputation but there is a faintly detectable distal pulse the physician would be prohibited from doing an amputation.
Freedom Caucus politicians need to stop punishing our courts.
First, they invite litigation over their unconstitutional laws.
Then, after causing incredible litigation expense to the state and others as well as the expenditure of massive judicial resources, they mercilessly attack and name call every judge who declares their laws unconstitutional.
This is shameless exercise. If the Freedom Caucus wants to abolish all or most abortions, or if they want to spend public dollars on private schools, or if they want to continue to restrict our voting rights, then they need to propose constitutional amendments that would allow Wyoming voters to make a choice about what kind of future state we want.
Wyoming voters should send a message and reject all politicians promoting these extreme laws that run counter to our Wyoming Constitution, which is unique and beautiful and should be revered by every Wyoming citizen.
How much taxpayer money has already been spent by the state defending unconstitutional abortion bans? Millions? How irresponsible for the governor to sign bills knowing they don’t pass legal muster, and will causes the state to throw more money into defending them. If Chip Neiman is morally opposed to abortion, he is free to live his life according to his morals. He needs to butt out of the rest of our lives.
Just read the bill.
Transvaginal is not even mentioned let alone “required”.
Why the deceptive language in so many stories covering this???
Well, Chad, if the bill required that the maternal heartbeat be confirmed before a procedure, it would be logical to assume a stethoscope would be involved. It would not be misleading to report that a doctor would use a stethoscope to check for a maternal heartbeat because that is how it is done. Of course, in that case the doctor would be listening to an actual heart that pumps blood, not a singe cell emitting an electrical pulse that one day could become AV node in the future if the necessary conditions are met.
Sorry Lisa, an ultrasound isnt detecting “a singe cell emitting an electrical pulse”.
Whether its external ultrasound which is most often used, or transvag, soundwaves create an image of a structure and also sound from its motion.
Transvag ultrasound is not mentioned in any legislation, only ultrasound. Transvag, IMO, is being referenced to imply invasive and uncomfortable procedures to stir emotion. When most mothers and fathers hear their baby’s heartbeat for the first time is it with an external doppler.
If the purpose of the exam is to detect early pregnancy signs, transvaginal ultrasound is used because external pelvic ultrasound is not capable of picking up signals from an embryo, not yet a fetus at 6 weeks gestation. The invasiveness of the procedure is considered a bonus feature by the abortion activists who lurk around medical clinics yelling at and shaming women who are seeking care, as occurs in Casper daily.
Any procedure that is against the Mother’s wishes is uncomfortable and invasive.
Looking forward to the pro-birth folks getting their asses handed to them in the courts…
You’re probably right, Chuck.
The same Courts that tell us Corporations are people, Eminent domain can be used to raise a tax base (seize private land for building a Walmart), Forcing mandates/removing rights because it’s a form of taxation, Presidential immunity, etc. etc etc.
Doesnt make the courts correct, just their “opinion”.
Anything wrong with being Pro-Human Being, Chuck?
The problem arises when “Pro-Human Being” metastasizes into “Forced Birther.”