Wyoming lawmakers’ continued assault on reproductive rights

Their first attempts to ban abortion since Roe v. Wade fell have failed in the courts, so Wyoming’s far-right legislators have vowed to try, try again. To infinity and beyond, as Buzz Lightyear would say.

These so-called “right to life” lawmakers tried to impose their will and morals on a state that voted overwhelmingly to amend its constitution to guarantee the right of citizens to make their own healthcare decisions.

Largely based on that 2012 constitutional amendment, District Court Judge Melissa Owens of Teton County overturned both abortion bans the state passed in March 2023. Until the Wyoming Supreme Court rules on the state’s appeal, abortion remains legal here.

But at least two legislators have no intention of waiting for that decision before passing more anti-abortion legislation, including a bill sponsored by Rep. Martha Lawley (R-Worland) that would effectively shut down Wellspring Health Access in Casper.

House Bill 42 – Regulation of surgical abortions is aimed at over-regulating Wellspring — the state’s only provider of procedural abortions — out of existence. Her bill is an example of a targeted restriction on abortion providers, or TRAP law, a popular but (at least for now) unconstitutional means of eliminating access to abortion providers.

Lawley’s similar bill earlier this year passed the House 50-12 and the Senate 24-6, so there’s no reason to believe it won’t win approval again. But much to the anger of the Freedom Caucus and other supporters, Gov. Mark Gordon vetoed the bill.

In his veto message, Gordon professed his pro-life beliefs but stressed he didn’t want Wyoming to have new laws on the books that could be challenged while awaiting Owens’ decision. The governor noted the judge sent constitutional questions about the bans to the Wyoming Supreme Court to speed up the process. The high court declined to answer her questions, leaving Owens to decide the case on her own.

Gordon didn’t specifically say what amendments “confused the issue and made it vulnerable to challenge.” However, the primary change was a provision proposed by Rep. Chip Neiman (R-Hulett), then-House majority floor leader, and now the presumptive new speaker.

Neiman is returning with a separate measure, House Bill 64 – Chemical abortions-ultrasound requirement. It effectively makes a separate bill out of his previous amendment to Lawley’s proposal.

If approved, women seeking a medication abortion would be required to receive an ultrasound at least two days before obtaining the abortion drug. Backers say the bill is meant to ensure women’s safety, but there is no medical reason to require an ultrasound.

The vast majority of abortions in the nation are accomplished with medication. In June, the University of California-San Francisco released a study that found women who receive pills by mail without first getting an ultrasound do just as well as those examined and given drugs in person. 

“The science is clear that telehealth evaluation and pharmacy dispensing of abortion pills is safe and effective,” the researchers wrote. “Any attempt to restrict it is not based on science.”

The only reason bills like HB 64 exist is to restrict access to abortion care by making it more expensive, more intrusive and more time-consuming. Giving them the “opportunity” to see an active ultrasound and hear the heartbeat of a fetus if it’s audible is an attempt to discourage women from taking the medication.

Gordon praised Lawley’s bill as a “simple and eloquent solution” that was “loaded up” with political points by others looking to count pro-life votes before the 2024 election.

In reality, HB 42 is far from simple or eloquent. It uses other states’ unconstitutional TRAP laws as models for unnecessary regulations on abortion clinics under the disingenuous guise of women’s safety.

Lawley does this in two ways. First, the bill requires the state to regulate abortion clinics the same as “ambulatory surgical centers,” though the procedure is not surgery and does not even require an incision. 

Most states that have approved this type of provision — including Texas and Louisiana, which were overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court — required clinics to meet construction requirements that have nothing to do with patient safety.

Such laws typically mandate the width of hallways, complex HVAC systems, down-to-the-inch dimensions for operating rooms, and specifications for outfitting janitors’ closets.

How in the world do any of these requirements improve the safety of U.S. abortion clinics? The facilities have a 0.3% incidence of major complications (hospital admission, surgery, transfusion), according to a 2023 study in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Making abortion clinics meet ambulatory surgical center standards would be prohibitively expensive for Wellspring, especially since it already had nearly $300,000 worth of damages in 2022 when an arsonist set the building on fire.

The second TRAP provision Lawley employs is the requirement that physicians at abortion clinics have admitting privileges at a hospital within 10 miles of the facility.

With abortion providers rarely needing to admit patients to a hospital, there is no medical reason for this law since they already have emergency transportation plans if a patient must be transferred. The physicians’ low hospital use makes it extremely difficult to get admission privileges.

Both the American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists oppose the burdensome mandates of TRAP laws.

TRAP laws in Texas and Louisiana were narrowly overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, before the current 6-3 conservative majority. It would be a different story today. 

While Owens’ ruling was a win, pro-choice Wyomingites know abortion access is still on shaky ground.

Even if the Wyoming Supreme Court upholds Owens’ decision, abortion could still be effectively unavailable in Wyoming if Lawley’s bill passes, Gordon signs it and the U.S. Supreme Court gives TRAP laws a thumbs-up. Even if Gordon vetoed HB 49, the Freedom Caucus and its allies may have the votes to override it.

Given that scenario, it’s no wonder pro-life Republicans aren’t pressing for a constitutional amendment to ban abortion. As House Minority Leader Mike Yin (D-Jackson) told WyoFile, the freedom of health care access is broadly important to most of Wyoming.

“A constitutional amendment would fail, and they know that, which is why they don’t bring one,” he said.

Yin and other pro-choice lawmakers will again sponsor the Wyoming Reproductive Freedom Act to protect safe pregnancies and give clear rules for doctors. It would codify that everyone — including pregnant women — can make their own health care decisions. 

I believe a majority would support the bill if left up to voters. In a recent University of Wyoming survey, only 10% wanted a complete abortion ban, while 31% favored abortion restrictions with exemptions for rape, incest and when a woman’s life is in danger. Another 20% approved of reasons other than those exemptions once a need for abortion was clearly established, and 39% said abortion should be a personal choice.

But in another example of residents voting against their own interests, they’ve put the Freedom Caucus in charge. Neiman buried the pro-choice bill last year, and voters have given the new speaker a shovel to dig a deeper hole.