A Teton County judge on Monday struck down Wyoming’s two abortion bans, ruling they violate the state constitution.
The decision by Judge Melissa Owens keeps most abortions legal in the state. She concluded a near-total ban on abortion and a prohibition against abortion medications — laws that were passed by state legislators in 2023 after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade — conflicted with a 2012 constitutional amendment that protects individuals’ rights to make their own health care decisions.
“The Defendants have not established a compelling governmental interest to exclude pregnant women from fully realizing the protections afforded by the Wyoming Constitution during the entire term of their pregnancies, nor have the Defendants established that the Abortion Statutes accomplish their interest,” Owens wrote. “The Court concludes that the Abortion Statutes suspend a woman’s right to make her own health care decisions during the entire term of a pregnancy and are not reasonable or necessary to protect the health and general welfare of the people.”
Owens put the bans on hold last year while considering the arguments for and against their constitutionality. The bans were challenged by a group of women, health care providers and an aid group who asserted the laws violated a dozen provisions of the Wyoming Constitution.
In Monday’s ruling, Owens honed in on the 2012 provision pertaining to health care autonomy. The state of Wyoming, which defended the laws, asserted an abortion does not constitute a woman’s “health care decision” since it affects both the woman and the fetus. The judge disagreed.
“The Health Care Amendment does not prohibit a person from making their own health care decision if their decision impacts any other person,” she wrote. “As the Plaintiffs argued, only a pregnant woman can make a decision to have an abortion. No other person can make that decision for a competent pregnant woman. To adopt Defendants’ argument the Court would have to rewrite the Health Care Amendment.”
The case is expected to be appealed to the Wyoming Supreme Court. In the meantime, two medical providers in Wyoming — one in Jackson and one in Casper — continue to offer abortion services. An arsonist set fire to the Casper clinic in 2022, delaying its opening.
Lawmakers react
Owens’ decision spurred swift reaction from state lawmakers.
Rep. Karlee Provenza (D-Laramie) told WyoFile she was “grateful to the Wyoming Constitution and the people of Wyoming who voted to protect our right to reproductive health care.
“And I’m grateful that, for at least now, we don’t have to worry about politicians forcing women into pregnancies that they shouldn’t have and that they don’t want to have for health care or personal reasons, it doesn’t matter. So this is a win for health care access in this state.”
Rep. John Bear (R-Gillette), chairman emeritus of the Wyoming Freedom Caucus, was not surprised by the ruling but was disappointed nonetheless.
“I think it’s a huge failure of the judicial system to take two years to come to this conclusion, almost three years,” Bear told WyoFile. “And I’m very disappointed that the will of the people was not upheld. So I look forward to an appeal, and hope that it can move quickly — much more quickly than it did via Judge Owens’ decision.”
The Freedom Caucus echoed Bear’s comments on Facebook.
“We are sickened by the decision out of Teton County today. Contrary to [Gov. Mark] Gordon’s radical judicial appointees and the talking points of Kamala Harris, killing a defenseless human being is NOT healthcare, and judges don’t get to legislate from the bench,” a Monday night post read.
Rep. Rachel Rodriguez-Williams (R-Cody), sitting chair for the Freedom Caucus, did not respond to WyoFile’s request for comment.
A spokesman for Gordon also did not respond to a request for comment on Monday evening.
Constitutional amendment
In her decision, Owens cited a state constitutional amendment that more than 75% of Wyomingites voted for in 2012.
As a rebuke of the Affordable Care Act — a.k.a. Obamacare — Republican state lawmakers pushed for the amendment in order, they said, to protect health care choices for people in Wyoming.
The language they gave to voters to add to the Wyoming Constitution states, among other things, “Each competent adult shall have the right to make his or her own health care decisions.”
It also states the Legislature “may determine reasonable and necessary restrictions” on the health care rights “to protect the health and general welfare of the people or to accomplish the other purposes set forth in the Wyoming Constitution.”
The plaintiffs maintained the constitutional amendment barred lawmakers from banning abortion — regardless of whether that was the authors’ intention.
State legislation, court action
Months before the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to an abortion in June 2022, the Wyoming Legislature passed a “trigger bill” that would enact a ban in the Equality State should Roe fall. When the trigger bill went into effect that summer, it faced an immediate challenge from many of the same plaintiffs. Owens halted enforcement while she weighed the case.
While that lawsuit worked its way forward, state lawmakers drafted new abortion bans.
Those included the near-total abortion ban, House Bill 152 – Life is a Human Right Act, and a ban on using medications to induce abortion called Senate File 109 – Prohibiting chemical abortions. Both of them passed the Legislature, though Gordon only signed the latter, simply letting the former go into effect without his signature.
“While [the near-total ban] may offer some improvement to the bill I signed just last year, I believe now more than ever that if the Legislature seeks final resolution on this important issue, it ultimately may have to come through a Constitutional amendment,” he stated in a letter to the secretary of state.
The near-total ban went into effect as soon as Gordon let it pass into law, but earlier that day, abortion rights advocates levied a new, preemptive legal challenge against it.
That suit came from the same group who’d challenged the trigger ban. The defendants were the same, too, including the state, governor, attorney general, Teton County sheriff and Jackson’s chief of police.
Just four days later, Owens issued a new restraining order. The lawsuit soon grew to challenge the medication ban, too. That ban was set to go into effect in July 2023, but on June 22 of that year, Owens halted its enforcement.
Anti-abortion lawmakers and Right to Life Wyoming both tried to intervene in the suit, but failed.
The push to restrict abortion in Wyoming comes amid a rightward turn in the Wyoming Legislature. Lawmakers sought this past session to enact new restrictions on abortion clinics and require doctors to perform mandatory ultrasounds, but Gordon vetoed the measure, arguing it would further delay legal resolution on the question of abortion’s legality in Wyoming.
Lawmakers are expected to pursue additional restrictions this session, despite the anticipated appeal of Owens’ ruling to the Wyoming Supreme Court. POLITICO reported recently that Sen. Tim Salazar, the Riverton Republican who sponsored the ban on abortion medications, planned to introduce legislation that would require doctors who prescribe the pills to be responsible for the disposal of fetal tissue. That would mean, according to POLITICO, that patients who take the medication at home would have to return the tissue in medical waste bags.
A survey released earlier this month by the University of Wyoming found that public views on abortion have largely held steady here. It showed 10.5% of Wyomingites want all abortions banned. Another 31% supported restrictions on abortion while allowing it in the case of rape, incest or when a woman’s life was in danger. A further 19.7% preferred those exceptions along with additional ones, “but only after the need for the abortion has been clearly established.” Finally, 38.8% said abortion should remain a matter of personal choice.
Thank you, Judge Owens, for standing up for ALL of the individual rights of the people of Wyoming!! I’ll back you any day!!
In other words the “rights” of one human, the unborn baby, need to take the back seat to the rights of another (the one who helped create the life) No matter how you shake it, the “rights” of 2 individuals are involved. One the right to live, one the right to end that life. In the event of rape does the ability to kill the baby actually ease the pain. What about the rapist, shouldn’t he too be put to death?
What’s wrong? Maybe Wyoming Maga can’t attract and or keep young people in Wyoming so they figure one way to boost population is forced pregnancy..
Naw that can’t be right. Maybe its that the educational system that’s so well funded and producing so many superior students that they want to spread the rising level of economic opportunity to the next generation. No that can’t be right either. Oh I get it its called male dominance. A measure of testosterone on display. How could a woman make the decision about her own body….that means she has the nerve to protect her health and welfare. The women who think otherwise ought to learn how to stand upright.
From my side of the room it seems a little hypocritical, please let me explain.
Killing is killing and dead is DEAD. With that in mind one side says the women’s/homosapien’s lives are at risk of DEAD the other side the child/homosapien is DEAD but both sides of the room they agree to “protect” from DEAD.
From my side of the room they from both sides of the room can agree to “PROTECT”! INSTANTLY AGREE to TAKE A HOMOSAPIEN’S LIFE especially when a homosapien makes DEAD both if a vehicle operator makes DEAD either one or both DEAD or when a homosapien makes DEAD either one or both DEAD by murder and all by current law because DEAD is done to one or both and the homosapien responsible for DEAD will be DEAD?
So now the current LAW that makes the responsible for one DEAD must be rewritten to not make the one who KILLED for one and not/never BOTH of the DEAD and no arrest for manslaughter or murder.
Of COURSE if MURDER or MANSLAUGHTER is JUSTICE sought and KILLER is judged to be DEAD then BOTH are HOMOSAPIENS correct? If BOTH are not homosapiens JUSTICE cannot and will not be delivered for BOTH because KILLER KILLED BY LAW correct? Thank you if you read this far, SEMPER FI!
I applaud Judge Melissa Owens for her decision. I’m so disgusted with the so called “Freedom Caucus” politics. The problem with the “Freedom Caucus“ is they want freedom for everyone who thinks like they do to live their lives according to their shared beliefs. Yet they do not want people who disagree with them to have freedom to live in accordance with their beliefs. Its not “Freedom” if you are trying to take away the rights of others who do not think like you. As a woman, I should have the right to made decision about my body and doctors should not have to fear do abortions. It’s not the governments business.
Tax payer money should not be used for abortions. Only in cases of incest/rape should tax payer money be used. Otherwise the sperm donar and woman can pay for it.
Harvey/ Chuck. First off neither or none of you know what I own in Wyoming. 2nd off I can voice any opinion on any matter I wish to do so. If you don’t like it. I could care less. I pay Wyoming taxes. I have vehicles licensed in Wyoming. I have Wyoming cell phone. I vote. I left blood sweat tears in forgein countries in defense of this great nation. So in other words both you and all other sorry lefties can stick it where the sun don’t shine. P. S my opinions are not about “domination” of women. I could care less if woman gets abortions. I just don’t want MY TAX DOLLARS PAYING FOR IT. Her sperm donor can do that.
All men and women in this great state should commend Judge Owens for her knowledge of the state constitution and her courage to stand up against the Taliban styled religious right and their attempts to eliminate a women’s right to make decisions about her own Body.
It’s easy, My body, my choice. We don’t need the legislature in our doctors offices telling us what to do. Old, white men just love to dictate to women. Mind your own damn business!
This decision highlights the importance of having legislators who are knowledgeable and understand the full impact of their legislation and aren’t just trying to own the liberals. The Freedom Caucus insisted on the constitutional amend so they could negate the Affordable Care Act and covid precautions. Once they got it they released they had gone much further than they intended. Now they want the courts to say that an individual doesn’t have autonomy in their medical decisions if it impacts another life (I won’t debate the other life issue, that’s between you and your conscience). If they were to get that decision, where might it lead? Let’s see, you have a communicable disease that might be fatal to me, you decide you don’t want to wear a mask or anything to prevent infecting me with that disease. If the court accepts the new Freedom Caucus position, I could then require you to wear a mask because you decision impacts me. It is unfortunate that the people of Wyoming are now at the mercy of a legislative splinter group that has proven time and again it is incapable of governing responsibly. If 3 out of 4 legislative sessions require a special session, you have proven you cannot do your work in the time allotted, if you had an employee who performed like that they wouldn’t be working long.
Judge Owen made a common sense judgement within the law. I stand with her decision promoting freedom.
I could kill my fetus and go to work the next day. If my comment makes anyone cringe maybe you shouldn’t be making my decisions.
All of us kill Mother Earth on a daily basis…some folks could care less about that.
Good ole boy Cody Robert’s likes to kill with a little terrorizing on the side. The pelican killer who had the big boy tantrum and called his neighbors cry babies. He likes to kill. He’s so smart he takes part in creating a food source for pelicans and is angry they showed up. First thought, let’s kill em! ( I would bet these bright men are against women making their own decisions, that’s scary)
Killing is killing…
It’s puzzling that the sexually insecure men and the obedient woman who follow them (and vote against their own rights) pick and choose when killing fits their needs. The crucial reason a woman must make her own decision is simply she has to live with that decision.
I’m not pro abortion, I’m pro freedom. To force a woman to breed because of a man’s insecurity within his role in society or to push your honor to your imaginary friend on society is unAmerican.
I never experienced an unwanted pregnancy because my mother taught me the truth about sexuality, to respect yourself, and I had access to planned parenthood.
If women owning their bodies forces men to mature and take on their own sexual responsibilities-that can only create a more sexually responsible society. What American wouldn’t want that?
C’mon boys, time to grow up.
And ladies, we live in a mortal world, it’s time to stand for your own kind and educate your men…
I mean no disrespect. If my words hurt your feelings maybe it’s time to educate yourself…
Lastly, I wonder how many abortions the orange jesus paid for? As I wrote earlier, killing is ok if it fits your needs…
I wish the decision would have been linked in the article. I presume the decision has a lot of nuance and unreported aspects. Governor Gordon has a press release out saying he will appeal the decision.
Now here is novel thought. Women and men could start using birth control!! If one don’t like what on market currently. Simply use the old Egyptian method. Of using crocodile dung. I not sure if they ate it or what. But if good enough for cleopatra it good enough for Wyoming ladies
Here’s an even more “novel” thought: mind your own business and quit trying to dominate women.
Typical male response – make it the woman’s probelm (your last line kind of shows your true thoughts). However it’s amazing how many men still think this is all about women on a whim having an abortion. Being raped by a stranger or a family member, not matter what age is an issue with men causing a problem for women. Women should not be forced to give birth to their rapists or family members child. And pregnancy is a risky issue, even when you desperately want a child. However, women shouldn’t be forced to choose between their life and a fetus’s life – or have to risk having a successful pregnancy in the future because they can’t end a doomed pregnancy now. Why don’t people like you stay in your lane – which is not pregnancy – and let women, their family and health care providers make their own choices – and you can continue to choose not to have an abortion (oh yeah…you can’t get pregnant so there’s that).
The Colorado clowned crusader strikes again.
Since when do Colorado residents dictate what is best for wyoming residents?
Funny that the father and the fetus have a right to life, but not the mother.
Politics and employers need to support healthcare and stay out of healthcare decisions. If you have personal beliefs, no one is preventing you from following them. NO ONE should be imposing their beliefs on others.
Those laws do not uphold the will of the people. They uphold the will of a majority of the legislators, which is clearly at odds with the will of the people. The assertions of Rep. Bear and the Freedom Caucus are just flat wrong. The Freedom Caucus’s endless refrain is “individual freedom and no government mandates”. Nonsense. They’re working hard to limit individual freedom, and impose government mandates.
Well written except for one thing. Abortion was never a constitutional right. It was allowed by a piece of case law. It is an important fact to get right.
I am Pro- Choice.. within reason..
Women should have a choice in that first trimester. That’s plenty of time to decide weather you want / can care for a child. After that first trimester- only medical issues for the mother &/or the fetus should be allowed an aborton.
Unfortunately they don’t really care what Wyomingites want (according to the UW pole and national poles), they want a complete ban to the point where we’d be like Texas and dr.s are afraid to do anything, even if the woman’s life is at risk and women will die or be left infertile due to complications from not being able to get the medical care she needs.
I would absolutely agree with this reasoned assessment and I would hope, and I am certain, that most citizens would adhere to the conditions you outlined. The problem is not pregnant citizens making rational choices, it is the other citizens claiming a mandate to use the power of the state to harass others citizens due to a religious belief and not one based on the Constitution or even humanity.
The only reasonable solution is for the Courts and the people to demand that a pregnant citizen makes the decision when and if she should bring a new citizen into our Republic for her entire pregnancy. Allowing the government to play any role in this decisions invites the harassment of those claiming god tells them they should.
We hold these truths self evident that the conservative push to overturn Roe has been a disaster for our Republic.