How long will anti-abortion opponents keep going full-speed ahead, passing bans and restrictions on safe, healthcare procedures that the courts later knock down as unconstitutional?

Opinion

House Speaker Chip Neiman, R-Hulett, said as long as it takes. After retired District Court Judge Thomas Campbell on Friday handed down a sweeping ruling against three unconstitutional laws that state lawmakers passed in 2025, Neiman criticized the courts for going against “the will of the Legislature.”

Please note that he did not say the will of Wyomingites. That’s notable because the far-right Freedom Caucus and its allies know they do not have public support. 

If they did, they would have done what Gov. Mark Gordon told them last year and voted to put a constitutional amendment to ban abortion on the ballot this November. Instead, they went back to a formula that hasn’t worked yet by passing three bills destined to be challenged by pro-choice plaintiffs who saw two abortion bans thrown out by the Wyoming Supreme Court prior to this year’s legislative session.

Campbell ruled against a trio of new restrictions. One imposed a mandatory, invasive ultrasound requirement and a 48-hour waiting period for women seeking abortions. The second was a new set of more stringent regulations on abortion clinics, intended to make their operation too expensive. The third restricted abortions by governing the prescription of off-label medications.

Campbell followed the Wyoming Supreme Court’s previous reasoning. He ruled that the state’s restrictions on abortion violated the constitutional protection for Wyomingites to make their own health care decisions without interference by the government.

Ironically, such protection wouldn’t be enshrined in the Wyoming Constitution today if Republicans hadn’t thumbed their nose at then-President Barack Obama’s signature win during his first term, the Affordable Care Act. In 2012, these zealots adopted a constitutional amendment they sold to voters as the way to prevent the federal government from infringing on healthcare autonomy.

The amendment wasn’t necessary to stop Obamacare. But it’s proven effective at protecting abortion rights. The Wyoming Supreme Court ruled 4-1 in January against two statewide bans because abortion is a fundamental health right under the constitution.  

The Natrona County Townsend Justice Center in downtown Casper is home to the county’s district and circuit courts. (Joshua Wolfson/WyoFile)

To prevail in court, the state would have to show it has a compelling interest to restrict abortions and the Legislature passed laws that were narrowly tailored to do so. The Wyoming Attorney General’s Office, which defended lawmakers’ work, struck out three times with Campbell, who repeatedly noted that defenders of the law did not offer evidence backing their claims.

Campbell wrote that the ultrasound and waiting period for abortions were both medically unnecessary. He added that plaintiffs cited Wyoming Department of Health data indicating zero complications or deaths resulting from abortion in the state. 

The state tried to put Wellspring Health Access in Casper, the only Wyoming clinic that provides surgical and medication abortions, out of business by classifying it “an ambulatory surgical center” that needed to make expensive changes to its facilities to meet state regulations. But Campbell concluded there was no evidence or a causal link to indicate that not operating under such stringent regulations would negatively impact women’s health and welfare.

The final law that was struck down would have protected physicians who prescribe FDA-approved medications for off-label purposes, like Ivermectin for COVID-19. But the Legislature made sure physicians who prescribed off-label treatments such as the combination of mifepristone and misoprostol, the most common medications used for chemical abortions, would not be covered.

Campbell said carving out physicians who prescribe chemical abortions from the bill would have “greenlit” consequences for them from medical regulatory agencies.

The Legislature is hanging its collective hat on the notion that a ban on abortions after a fetal heartbeat can be detected, usually after six weeks, can pass constitutional muster. But a different district court judge already cited the constitutional provision protecting abortion as a fundamental right when he temporarily blocked enforcement of the new law in April.

There is no practical reason to believe that the law won’t be ruled unconstitutional by the same judge or the state Supreme Court, if the case is ultimately appealed to that venue.

Neiman criticized the judiciary in a video posted to the Freedom Caucus’ Facebook page for thwarting and ignoring the will of the Legislature.

The caucus tried this same tactic when it threatened to downsize the Wyoming Supreme Court, make judges an elected position, and even cut $3.6 million for court security. The latter was proposed by Rep. Rachel Rodriguez-Williams, Freedom Caucus chair, who is now running for secretary of state. All of these far-right tantrums failed.

Community members sit inside the Wyoming Supreme Court before the court hears an the appeal of a district court abortion decision on Wednesday, April 16, 2025, in Cheyenne. Abortion rights advocates wore green in support of Latin America’s Green Wave movement that signifies hope. (Milo Gladstein/Wyoming Tribune Eagle)

The Freedom Caucus already controls the Wyoming House. Now, Neiman and four other Freedom Caucus members or allies — Reps. Abby Angelos of Gillette, Paul Hoeft of Powell, Ken Pendergraft of Sheridan and Daniel Singh of Cheyenne — are running for the Senate to try to take over the upper chamber. In light of the caucus’ failure to ban or restrict abortions and having its package of draconian budget cuts shot down in flames, it should be a fool’s errand.

But the Freedom Caucus is hell-bent on gaining power. The best way to keep this from happening is to defeat its members and followers in the Republican primary on Aug. 18.

The focus should be dumping the anti-abortion lawmakers who want to invade doctors’ offices and keep women from making their own healthcare choices, and replacing them with candidates who respect the Wyoming Constitution.

The Freedom Caucus continues to push a false narrative that Wyomingites want to ban all abortions. Surveys and previous elections show it’s not true.

A November 2024 University of Wyoming poll found only 10% of residents backed a total abortion ban. Abortion restrictions with exceptions for rape, incest, or when a woman’s life is in danger were favored by 31%.

Another 20% said the law should permit abortion for those reasons and others, after the need for an abortion has been clearly established. And 39% said abortion should be a personal choice.

Those numbers don’t add up for a group of lawmakers that insists on enacting a total ban on abortion and keeps passing laws that would imprison physicians who perform the safe procedures. They know voters won’t pass it.

Reps. Rachel Rodriguez-Williams and Chip Neiman sit in court with their hands on their faces
Reps. Rachel Rodriguez-Williams and Chip Neiman listen during a 2023 hearing on their request to defend Wyoming’s abortion ban. (Brad Boner/Jackson Hole News&Guide/Pool)

The only time an abortion ban initiative was put on a Wyoming ballot was in 1994, and it failed with only 39% in favor.

In response to last week’s court losses, Neiman vowed, “We will not quit, we will not give up, and we will not stop.”

I believe he’s telling the truth, which means everyone who wants to uphold the constitution and preserve the right of adults to make their own healthcare decisions must show up at the polls with a critical common goal: Keep them all out of office.

Veteran Wyoming journalist Kerry Drake started writing "The Drake's Take" for WyoFile weekly in 2013. He is a communication specialist for Better Wyoming.

Join the Conversation

8 Comments

WyoFile's goal is to provide readers with information and ideas that foster constructive conversations about the issues and opportunities our communities face. One small piece of how we do that is by offering a space below each story for readers to share perspectives, experiences and insights. For this to work, we need your help.

What we're looking for: 

  • Your real name — first and last. 
  • Direct responses to the article. Tell us how your experience relates to the story.
  • The truth. Share factual information that adds context to the reporting.
  • Thoughtful answers to questions raised by the reporting or other commenters.
  • Tips that could advance our reporting on the topic.
  • No more than three comments per story, including replies. 

What we block from our comments section, when we see it:

  • Pseudonyms. WyoFile stands behind everything we publish, and we expect commenters to do the same by using their real name.
  • Comments that are not directly relevant to the article. 
  • Demonstrably false claims, what-about-isms, references to debunked lines of rhetoric, professional political talking points or links to sites trafficking in misinformation.
  • Personal attacks, profanity, discriminatory language or threats.
  • Arguments with other commenters.

Other important things to know: 

  • Appearing in WyoFile’s comments section is a privilege, not a right or entitlement. 
  • We’re a small team and our first priority is reporting. Depending on what’s going on, comments may be moderated 24 to 48 hours from when they’re submitted — or even later. If you comment in the evening or on the weekend, please be patient. We’ll get to it when we’re back in the office.
  • We’re not interested in managing squeaky wheels, and even if we wanted to, we don't have time to address every single commenter’s grievance. 
  • Try as we might, we will make mistakes. We’ll fail to catch aliases, mistakenly allow folks to exceed the comment limit and occasionally miss false statements. If that’s going to upset you, it’s probably best to just stick with our journalism and avoid the comments section.
  • We don’t mediate disputes between commenters. If you have concerns about another commenter, please don’t bring them to us.

The bottom line:

If you repeatedly push the boundaries, make unreasonable demands, get caught lying or generally cause trouble, we will stop approving your comments — maybe forever. Such moderation decisions are not negotiable or subject to explanation. If civil and constructive conversation is not your goal, then our comments section is not for you. 

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  1. Alert. We really Really REALLY need to not vote Rachel Rodriguez into the state’s 2nd highest office of Secretary of State a/k/a Lieutenant Governor.
    Rachel is the firebreathing dragoness behind most of the recent years’ heinous ridiculous superfluorus anti-abortion bills that have been introduced into the Legislature since she first took her seat there. The California transplant has no original political thoughts or vision of her own . She gets her boilerplate dogma from the national anti-abortion activist groups.
    Wyoming voter turnout this August is more important than it has ever been in my 75 year lifetime here. The Freedom Caucus that she chairs has been able to get into office with as little as 15 percent of the registered vote. The very best thing we can do to stop the anti-abortion scourge is exactly what Kerry suggests. The antidote is administered at the voting booth .
    Vote “NO” on Rachel Rodriguez for Secretary of State in the Primary.

  2. Why is being able to intentionally end an unborn human beings life at the core of left\liberal dogma?

    1. Chad- do you not know any Pro-choice Republicans or Independents ?I certainly do. Quit blaming the Left or imaginary liberals.

  3. Also got to love all the money spent on all these court cases that they keep loosing.

    1. Why do you keep beating the drum in calling a fetus a human being or a child, or whatever tickles your fancy today?

  4. The idea that right to lifers who are really right to birthers are protecting the unborn is questionable. There is more to be concerned with than simply being born. Who assists by taking meals away from hungry kids and fails to care about the hunger in Wyoming? Who is worrying about the health and dental care of children? Who is working to solve problems of kids who age out of the foster care system and then are on their own? How is an 18 year old with no resources expected to have anything but a very difficult life? Who is working to help those who do not want a pregnancy to prevent an unwanted pregnancy? Wyoming has had its share of child abuse and child death. Is anyone correlating to see what could have been done to prevent these deaths or look toward ways to prevent future incidents? Electing those who are willing to work on problems should be elected.
    When does the soul enter the body? In utero or at birth?