CHEYENNE—As the Wyoming House of Representatives passed two bills this week to further restrict abortion here, its top leader acknowledged the effort was aimed at ending the practice, rather than simply making it safer.
One bill would regulate facilities that provide in-clinic abortions, while the second piece of legislation would require a patient undergo a transvaginal ultrasound before taking abortion medication.
Wyoming’s near-total ban on abortion and a prohibition against abortion medications violated the state’s constitution, District Court Judge Melissa Owens concluded in November. The state is appealing the ruling to the Wyoming Supreme Court. Until the state’s high court weighs in, Republican lawmakers have said abortion regulations, such as House Bill 42, “Regulation of surgical abortions” and House Bill 64, “Chemical abortions-ultrasound requirement” are needed to keep patients safe.
The messaging around safety shifted this week when Speaker of the House Chip Neiman, a Hulett Republican and main sponsor of House Bill 64, made an admission Tuesday on the floor.
“Bang, you got me,” Neiman said. “I want the mother to be able to have time to think about this,” referring to the added step of a transvaginal ultrasound before taking abortion medication.
Neiman reiterated that his bill was about preventing abortions while it was on second reading Wednesday.
“Yep, you got me,” he said. “I do, I absolutely believe life is precious. That we should do everything that we possibly can to protect it. ”
Democratic lawmakers and a handful of Republicans pushed back.
“I think we should just be honest here,” Rep. Karlee Provenza, a Laramie Democrat, said on the floor Tuesday.
“If we want to ban abortion, which I think is, you know, the intent,” she said, then, “bring a constitutional amendment, send it to the voters.”
It’s unclear whether such an effort would be successful — even in a deeply red state such as Wyoming. Polling released in November by the University of Wyoming found that residents’ views on abortion varied, with only 10% wanting to ban the practice entirely and another 31% supportive of a ban with exceptions for rape, incest or when a woman’s life is in danger.
Ultimately, House Bill 64 passed 48-13 with one excused. House Bill 42 passed 52-8 with two excused.
A third abortion-related bill — House Bill 159, “Protecting water from chemical abortion waste” — passed out of committee earlier in the week and was set to be debated in the House at publication time.
Clinic regulations
House Bill 42 requires Wyoming clinics that perform abortions to be licensed as ambulatory surgical centers — which are health care facilities not part of a hospital that perform surgeries.
Casper’s Wellspring Health Access is the one facility in Wyoming to perform in-clinic abortions. The clinic is also among the plaintiffs who sued the state over its abortion bans.
The bill’s main sponsor, Worland Republican Rep. Martha Lawley, previously told WyoFile such regulations are needed so long as abortion is legal in Wyoming.
Lawley brought a similar bill last year, and it passed both chambers. Gov. Mark Gordon, however, vetoed the bill in an effort to “keep our current court case on track for a speedy resolution,” he wrote in his veto letter, a reference to the case then before Judge Owens.
The bill would enact several regulations. It would require, for example, all of the clinic’s physicians to have admitting privileges at a hospital no further than 10 miles away.
Rep. Lloyd Larsen, a Lander Republican, brought an amendment to change that requirement to simply the closest hospital. That’s what state law currently requires of ambulatory surgical centers, he said.
“I think we just need to be consistent,” Larsen said.
Lawley said the amendment went against the intent of the bill, which is “continuity of care.”
The amendment failed, as did one from Jackson Democrat Rep. Mike Yin.
The latter would have added two other procedures to the bill — a hysteroscopy and a loop electrosurgical excision.
“I want to make sure that if we are … keeping women safe in situations where the uterine lining is damaged, that again, they are all within a facility that they could have immediate, imminent care,” Yin said.
Transvaginal ultrasounds
House Bill 64 would require a patient to get a transvaginal ultrasound no more than 48 hours before taking abortion medication.
Violators would be charged with a felony, as well as a maximum of five years in prison, up to a $20,000 fine, or both.
The House approved two amendments to the bill, both of which were brought by Neiman.
Both changed the requirements of the ultrasound provider. The first changed a requirement to provide the age and weight of the embryo or fetus, to the age, length and head diameter. The second would require them to give the patient an opportunity to “view the fetal heart motion.”
“I do believe this is a piece of legislation of compassion,” Neiman said, before adding.
Yin offered another perspective.
“When we think of an ultrasound, we think of that ultrasound wand, you put it over the belly, put some gel on the belly, non-invasive. And that’s not a big deal,” Yin said.
But what the bill requires is not that, Yin said.
Instead, the bill calls for “sticking a wand inside of a person to do an ultrasound,” Yin said.
“If the government told me that I had to have something stuck inside me to do something I legally can do right now in the state of Wyoming, I would probably give the government a lot of words and a lot of gestures, because the government shouldn’t be doing that,” he said.
Elissa Campbell, a Casper Republican, brought an unsuccessful amendment that would have required the ultrasound to be offered but would have given patients the option to decline.
“Show me the evidence that mandating transvaginal ultrasounds falls within the realm of public safety and welfare,” Campbell said.
The legislation now heads to the Senate for deliberation.
Since the Wyoming Legislature feels the need to protect females, then I demand that the Wyoming Legislature also protects males. (Using male and female due to Trump’s declaration of the 2 sexes.)
1. Stop all Erectile Dysfunction drugs – OTC and prescribed. There needs to be extensive testing, with journaling and papers so that CDC and HHS can verify that there are not harmful to the male.
2. Stop all non-medicinal therapeutic and/or surgical procedures for Erectile Dysfunction. This would include massaging, certain clothing, etc. Again, there needs to be extensive, years long testing, to verify that it is not harmful to the male.
3. Require the male to provide a DNA sample at the age of 16 so that parentage can be established for every child born in the United States. The male will then be required to pay child support for the child until the child reaches the age of 21. A penalty can be stipulated for non-payment. But since I am sure the male will be happy with any child he fathered, there may not need be a penalty for non-payment.
4. Enact the Contraception Begins at Erection Act that is being considered in Mississippi. It would make it illegal for males to masturbate or engage in any sexual activity without the “intent to fertilize an embryo.” That is the sole purpose of the sperm – is it not?
5. Once any Erectile Dysfunction drugs are approved, and non-medicinal procedures are approved, then before receiving treatments, the male must submit to a rectal ultrasound to verify that all is medically in place – before EACH treatment.
Every single anti-choice person (especially those who do not have a uterus) should read the book “Ejaculate Responsibly: The Conversation We Need to Have About Men and Contraception” by Gabrielle Blair.
Every single unwanted pregnancy is caused by a man. Remember – ejaculation is voluntary, ovulation is not.
Let’s turn the tables and legislate for mandatory vasectomies prior to puberty until each man is proven to be responsible enough to be a father and provider. Then and only then will the vasectomy be reversed.
I feel that an abortion should the choice of the individual female and maybe the perspective father otherwise the state is delving in to a realm where has no right to be. Naturally the state could offer to pay all experiences for the pregnancy, take the baby as soon as it is born and take it to an orphanage for adoption by someone who wants the baby and can afford it! Funds to accomplish this could come from those legislators who who voted for it.
Fascism marches on. Ya gets what ya votes for, idiots.
I wonder if the legislators see the absolute lack of consistency between their arguments and actions. On the one hand, Neiman said “I do, I absolutely believe life is precious. That we should do everything that we possibly can to protect it.” Then the legislature moves forward with a bill to slash reimbursement rates for maternity care. And I don’t see anything to suggest the legislature is going to do anything to help with the cost of child care for working mothers, or other social benefits to help low-income women support their children. “’I want the mother to be able to have time to think about this,’ referring to the added step of a transvaginal ultrasound before taking abortion medication.” Gosh, not a whole lot to think about here–unborn babies get the full support of the legislature, but once born–they and their mothers are on their own.
If patient safety is the concern, should not endoscopy, dentists, oral surgeons, ophthalmologists and freestanding surgical centers need stricter regulations to protect the patient?
They say that a raper does it for power. Figuratively, that’s what the freedom caucus goofballs are doing to your wife, daughter, sister, girlfriend.
Representative Neiman and his fellow anti-abortionists know that their views are too radical for the people of Wyoming. So, being the political animals that they are, they try this way and that to accomplish their radical ends.
I’m not sure how the Code of the West (which they invoke when it suits them) covers this political maneuvering. Seems as though they need an addition, along the lines of, “Tell folks whatever you have to tell them, to get what you want.”
More… and much heated debate about government protecting “patients” and “embryos”. Once again, we are conveniently forgetting something here: Patients and embryos are only two sides of the the genetic triangle. To paraphrase Representative Neiman “Bang, you got me.” “I want the mother to be able to have time to think about this.” Believe you me Mr. Speaker a mother to be –“is thinking”– has been thinking– and will be thinking about things that would tax even your vivid imagination; and a lack of time is not at issue here. If you truly believe that time spent in reflection is the key to making the right decision then I challenge you and every other Yea in the Peoples’ Chamber to spend some extra time yourselves in meditation and deliberation; Factor equally the moral, societal, and financial obligations and responsibilities of both of the donors of genetic material into your equation before you attempt to calculate an answer to your problem. I’m pretty sure you’re convinced that Eve was deserving of what was coming to her, but remember that Adam got a boot to his naked keester as well…. Just saying….
These bills are nothing more than punishing a woman’s personal decision with sexual violation and guilt. And as Neiman confirmed for us making the process so convoluted it’s all but illegal.
Wyoming is the perfect place for menopausal women! Not menopausal yet? Colorado welcomes you
Definitely MY body, my choice. Stay out of my business and my choices. Just because you believe your way is divined, does NOT make it so. I kind of like the Mississippi legislator’s (Tongue in cheek) take: that life should begin at erection. Then, fines for men who ejaculate without the intent of fertilizing an egg. This makes men, 50% of the equation, have some responsibility. What a wild thought?????
Hey Wyoming ‘ rugged independent’ men, would allow one of these goofballs to put something in your wife or daughter? Despicable.
This was never about women’s health or how precious life is for any of the alt-right. It’s about power, their power over WY citizens. If children are gunned down in the classroom, we get some thoughts, prayers and shoulder shrugs, certainly not legislative action. This is about power, not life. Power.
Women in WY will simply drive to a neighboring state for care if team orange continues their blind decent into fascism. At least eggs are now $13 a dozen on the coasts. Got inflation right where we want it.
What “legislative action” would stop a school shooting Coy?
Trying my best to not feed the troll…..
Abortion is the literal ending of a human life. Why is it so widely embraced?
There is a distinction between endorsing abortion and endorsing a woman’s right to choose. It is quite possible to oppose abortion and yet consider the right of a woman to control her life as a more sacred right. You can equally frame this as sacred human life or using the power of the state to force unwilling women into an unwelcomed motherhood. You ask why anyone would endorse ending a human life. I would ask why anyone embrace using the power of the state to force a woman to bear unwanted children. I suspect any opinion that does not consider both of these framings to be ill formed.
When you get pregnant, come back and ask that question. Until then, sit down and shut up because IT IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!!
Abortion is the termination of a lot of things. The word means to cease doing something, and in this case it means to stop being pregnant, for whatever reason a woman decides. Her reasons are nobody else’s business because her life alone is at risk.
Because most times it’s medically required. Making abortion illegal won’t stop it. The rich will just fly overseas and the poor will go with misinformation passed around the Internet. You cannot stop abortion by ignorance, you only make it unsafe, unsanitary, and unregulated. While abortion was legal, rates where dropping yearly because women had a place to get educated about their bodies. Also, its not a human until it can survive on it’s own, which is at 22 weeks(and with medical technology today is more generous than the bible recognized; Leviticus 27:6). Until then it’s part of the mother and her body and should be her choice to carry until viability.
Spoken like a real American man…you’ll make’m but someone else can raise’m. Spoken with a true compassion for women. Sounds like red Wyoming is a great place for ya’. Cheers!
Mr. Ginter: It is your opinion that abortion is the taking of a human life. An opinion is a statement that expresses a feeling, an attitude, a value judgment, or a belief. It is a statement that is neither true nor false. A fact is a statement that can be verified. It can be proven to be true or false through objective evidence.
To answer your question, those who disagree with you have a different opinion. Facts are scientifically determined while opinions are simply beliefs to which all of us are entitled.