Anti-abortion lawmakers and Right to Life Wyoming won’t be joining the legal fight to preserve abortion bans in the state — at least not directly.
The Wyoming Supreme Court ruled Friday that this group, which had fought since fall 2022 to join the suit against the two bans, will not be allowed to intervene. The Wyoming Attorney General’s Office is already defending the bans.
“The district court reasonably concluded the State Defendants adequately represented the Proposed Intervenors’ interest and permissive intervention would cause undue delay and prejudice,” the justices wrote in their decision. “It therefore did not abuse its discretion in denying permissive intervention.”
Justices added that they didn’t question the dedication or efforts of the lawmakers or Right to Life Wyoming, but disagreed that their interests are unique from the public generally.
“The persuasive weight of authority holds that advocating for a policy and lobbying for legislation to enact that policy does not give an individual or entity a protectable interest in a legal challenge to the subsequently enacted law,” they stated.
The justices added that their concern with allowing intervention “based on a policy interest shared by the general public is the potential for interjection of political debate into a purely legal proceeding. Courts are not forums for such debates.”
Reps. Chip Neiman (R-Hulett), Rachel Rodriguez-Williams (R-Cody) and the anti-abortion organization fought to join the suit because they said their work outside — and inside — the Wyoming Legislature could be threatened if the bans were blocked. The lawmakers were also sponsors or co-sponsors in both abortion bans, which are on hold as the legal challenge to them proceeds through the courts.
The three also argued the state wasn’t presenting enough factual evidence in the case to support the bans.
However, the justices disagreed on all points, finding the trio didn’t have the standing to intervene, nor could they intervene because they simply disagreed with the state’s approach.
“The Proposed Intervenors do not have a protectable interest in this litigation, and thus the district court did not err in denying them intervention as of right,” the opinion states.
As to whether lawmakers’ work at the Legislature could be affected by this lawsuit, the justices were unequivocal: “Regardless of the outcome of this case, the legislature may still legislate in these areas. To the extent it must do so within constitutional parameters established by a court decision in the case, that is not a diminution of its power, but is instead a product of the separation of powers that underpins our government.”
In response to the court’s opinion, Rodriguez-Williams stated in an email that, “While we are disappointed in the court’s decision, we are proud to continue our pro-life work in the legislature and in our everyday lives. I pray that the courts will uphold Wyoming’s pro-life law, which will save lives and protect women’s health.”
The trio’s legal counsel — conservative Christian advocacy group Alliance Defending Freedom — added that Wyoming will “continue its life-saving efforts.”
“We’re proud to serve alongside Right to Life of Wyoming and Reps. Rachel Rodriguez-Williams and Chip Neiman, who remain dedicated to seizing every opportunity to protect vulnerable members of our society,” ADF Senior Counsel Tim Garrison stated.
Had they been allowed to intervene, the case before the 9th District Court in Teton County could’ve been set back months as various motions and arguments were relitigated, according to the plaintiffs’ arguments before the high court. Their concern over unwarranted delays was shared by the justices.
“The district court found that because the Proposed Intervenors and the State Defendants seek the same objective in the litigation, intervention would risk duplicative and cumulative argument, which would delay the matter to the detriment of the parties,” the opinion states.
Plaintiffs in the larger abortion ban suit include women, health care providers and an aid group. Defendants include the state, governor, attorney general, Teton County sheriff and Jackson’s chief of police.
Justice Lynne Boomgaarden also signaled in a December hearing that she was concerned this appeal to the Wyoming Supreme Court was premature. That’s because the judge in Teton County could determine there were no fact issues in this case — which the intervenors wanted to present evidence on — and issue a summary judgment in favor of one of the parties, effectively deciding the case without a trial.
The history
This group of three initially sought to intervene in the first lawsuit against Wyoming’s “trigger” abortion ban, which was set into motion once Roe v. Wade was overturned.
That ban was challenged in court and, the day it was set to go into effect in July 2022, 9th District Judge Melissa Owens issued a temporary restraining order followed by a preliminary injunction.
Then, Owens denied the trio intervention in that lawsuit, so they appealed her decision to the Wyoming Supreme Court. However, that case was voluntarily dismissed earlier this year after state lawmakers passed two new abortion bans in the 2023 legislative session.
House Bill 152 – Life is a Human Right Act is a near-total abortion ban that replaced the trigger ban. It carves out exceptions for cases of rape, incest or if a mother’s life is threatened. However, plaintiffs in the lawsuit argue that these exceptions can be difficult if not impossible to clearly meet, given reporting requirements and ambiguous medical language.
Senate File 109 – Prohibiting chemical abortions is the state’s second ban. It was the first of its kind in the country that specifically banned medications used to induce abortion. In Wyoming, that was how nearly all reported abortions were performed before Wellspring Health Access opened in April in Casper, providing surgical abortions.
The near-total ban was set to go into effect upon passage while the medication ban was slated to go into effect in July.
A suit was filed against the near-total ban on the day the governor let it go into effect without his signature — March 17 — and Owens stalled its enforcement on March 22. The medication ban was later rolled into that same lawsuit, receiving its own temporary restraining order in June.
Once again, the trio of anti-abortion advocates filed to actively join the lawsuit as intervenors. However, this time they were joined in the fight by Secretary of State Chuck Gray.
Plaintiffs in the case argued that none of them should be allowed to intervene, while the state only specifically argued against Gray joining.
“Public officers such as the Secretary of State ‘have and can exercise only such powers as are conferred to them by law,’” the state’s filing says. “In his official capacity, Secretary of State Gray cannot intervene in this case unless a Wyoming statute authorizes him to do so.”
Gray contended he has standing, but didn’t continue his fight to intervene beyond his initial request.
Owens denied the group intervention in June, and the original three — sans Gray — appealed that decision to the Supreme Court.
As it stands, the lawsuit against Wyoming’s two bans remains in district court in Teton County. Owens is now mulling over dueling requests from the plaintiffs and state for her to rule on their behalf without a trial. She could also decide that a trial is necessary and schedule it for a later date.
To review summaries of the plaintiffs’ or state’s arguments in this case, go here, here and here.
Most abortion remains legal in Wyoming.
This is a breaking news story and more information will be added as it becomes available. Last update was on Feb. 2 at 3:58 p.m.
Excellent reporting. Thank you.
Detailed, clear court reporting is appreciated. Access to the sequence of decision points is valued. Thanks to Madelyn Beck and WyoFile for the continuity of coverage.
Always be wary of an organization that has the words “defending freedom or liberty” in its title. It’s almost always the exact opposite.
I am certainly supportive of life; however, pregnancies and circumstances are unique. For example, my cousin and his wife a were delighted to learn they were having a baby. As the pregnancy proceeded they were told the child would not survive. They decided against an abortion and the child was born with no lower digestive system. He and his wife were devastated as they watched their son essentially die of hunger. He told me that, in retrospect, they were thinking more about themselves than their son, and they should have terminated the pregnancy.
As a retired School Psychologist, I also saw the outcomes of unwanted children being subjected to neglect and abuse in spite of the best efforts of the school and DFS. I suggest that those promoting right to life also
consider how we are letting down some of those babies after they are born. For example, Universal early childhood education programs would provide early intervention especially for these at-risk children. I was also frustrated by the lack of predictable emotional and financial support for the often single mothers with whom I worked.
I do wish an incisive reporter would get Rachel Rodriguez-Williams on the record , explaining why she suddenly left her day job as the Executive Director of Cody’s Serenity Pregnancy Resource Center 13 months ago. She had been making $ 50,000 annually for a few years as the only salaried person there amid a working group of many professionals and even M.D.s , all the while pushing her aggressive anti-abortion legislation in Cheyenne as a citizen lawmaker.
My theory ? Her legislative initiatives if they became law would have provided a direct material gain for her and Serenity, a blatant conflict of interest , by definition . Serenity’s public tax filings show the center spent an average of $ 1600 per patient when you apportion their posted expenses among number of persons served. Serenity also reported having quite a significant amount of assets at the time that were all exempted from taxation because of their Christian nonprofit categorization for tax purposes. Was Rachel gaming the system ? Sure looks like it to me.
It’s important to know where she was coming from at the time this was all going down;.
The article is about the failed intervention motion, not the ethics of abortion.
Intentionally so. the article addressed an unethical attempt to pile useless moralizing on an issue of citizen’s rights. Women have the right to make their own medical decisions. Ethics is only dimly related to legal codes. The law applies to all citizens. Medical decisions are covered under the Tenth Amendment. rights reserved to the people.
This result was obvious from the beginning. I’m sure their lawyers were happy to take their money for this futile stunt.
Trying to attach emotions to a woman’s right too health care is very petty. The truth is that it is a woman’s right to control her body as she determines what is right for her. Don’t want an abortion, then don’t have one. But stay in your lane and out of others.
It’s sad that so many articles on court investigation of abortion rights fail to even mention the second smaller patient in every pregnancy. Are these newest little ones not human beings too?
Does their temporary natural dependency on their mothers cancel their equal and inalienable human right to be protected from deliberate lethal harm? Have they no right at all to go on living?
They are fetuses, not people. Even the Christian Bible defines life as taking that first breath. Genesis 2:7 – then the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being. (NRSV).
The “second smaller patient” better know as an embryo is a collection of cells that has developed from a fertilized egg of a verterbrate animal. The collection of cells will develop into a human in nine months. Until late in development, it does not have feeling or emotions and cannot survive on its own.
Think of a fresh farm eggs (not from a store), the little drop of blood in some of the eggs is the embryo. It does not have inalienable chicken rights, cannot live on its own and is commonly eaten.
Rita I know it is a hard thing to let other people decide what is best for themselves but I see no way for society to intervene in these issues without causing more harm. The patient of which you speak has absolutely no rights as a citizen and it is inconsistent with any rational interpretation of the US Constitution to think otherwise. Why do you think you have a say in another’s pregnancy?
I see you have used language from the Declaration of Independence and I just want to remind you that statement has absolutely ZERO weight in the laws enacted under our Constitution. The power flows from its citizens and in this case women have the primary responsibility in deciding whether they have the health, wealth and trust of the rest of US citizens to present a new US Citizen to America. Why are you trying to dilute women’s rights and ultimately all citizens?
It seems to me that people that despise abortion think that human beings are awful people and are purposely getting pregnant so they can terminate a pregnancy? I do not see humans as evil. just fearful of dying or not being able to be the best parent one can be. That is for individuals to decide without you or your government proxy in the room.
Great decision!
Must be second nature for these people to want to stick their noses in areas they do not have expertise in or should have influence over i.e. a woman’s womb!!
We need to examine Section 1 of the Thirteenth Amendment where it abolishes slavery (mistreatment of persons as property) “within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”
Here, it should be pointed out that the womb is a place. The major significant distinction between a child at home in her/his mother’s womb before birth and that same child at home in her/his mother’s house after birth is a distinction of place.
Human rights are universal. We deny that universality when we discriminate on the grounds of habitat. A human being is entitled to full human rights no matter where that human being currently resides—in gaol in Iran, in a re-education enclosure in Western China, in a sexual slavery brothel in North Africa, or in the womb of one’s mother. Place must not be used as grounds for discriminating between the rights of one human being and another.
Unborn daughters and sons (already existing within definite empirically identifiable coordinates of space and time in their mothers’ wombs) are well within the meaning of “our posterity” as that term is used in the Constitution’s preambular statement of its purposes.
We do not have deadly eviction rights over these little ones/
No, we don’t need to examine section 1 of the 13th amendment. The womb is in an individuals body and it should be left to her if the embryo stays or goes. The individual woman is the “place”. Making her give birth is slavery.
Thank you for the story. It is too bad that our Supreme Court had to waste valuable time on an issue that was clearly wrong.
These elected officials need to keep in their own lane and stop doing stuff that is just wrong.