Wyoming Court Rules State’s Abortion Bans Unconstitutional, Reaffirms Abortion as form of Health Care

Jackson, Wyoming: Court Blocks Abortion Bans

On Monday, Teton County District Court Judge Melissa Owens declared Wyoming’s two abortion bans unconstitutional, ruling that abortion is a form of health care and that the state Constitution protects a woman’s right to access it. This decision concluded a lawsuit that lasted over a year and a half, sparking significant discussions about women’s healthcare rights in Wyoming.

Legal Background

The lawsuit, filed in March 2023, involved several plaintiffs, including an abortion clinic, an abortion support group, and two women of childbearing age. They contested the state of Wyoming and Teton County authorities, claiming the bans violated the Wyoming Constitution. This was not the first attempt to challenge these bans, as the same plaintiffs had previously sued the state in July 2022 after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

Details of the Abortion Bans

The two bans included one that would have prohibited nearly all abortions, permitting them only in cases of rape, incest, or serious health risks to the mother. The second ban aimed to restrict the marketing of chemical abortion drugs, again with limited exceptions. Following the filing of the lawsuit, Judge Owens temporarily blocked these laws from taking effect, allowing abortion to remain legal in Wyoming throughout the legal proceedings.

Court’s Findings

In her summary judgment, Judge Owens emphasized that abortion is health care. She pointed out that the Wyoming Constitution grants each competent adult the right to make personal health care decisions. This provision was established by voters in a 2012 amendment linked to the Obama-era health care reforms, often referred to as “Obamacare.”

The judge firmly dismissed the state’s arguments that abortion should not be categorized as health care. She stated that legislative findings are not legally binding and highlighted various aspects of Wyoming law that define health care more broadly.

State’s Interests vs. Women’s Rights

The ruling also addressed the state’s justifications for the bans, which included protecting prenatal life, enhancing maternal health, and mitigating fetal pain. However, Judge Owens concluded that the state had not provided sufficient evidence to support these claims. “The State did not present any evidence countering the extensive medical testimony from the Plaintiffs,” she noted, casting doubt on the alleged dangers of abortion compared to childbirth.

Judge Owens referred to abortion bans as “facially unconstitutional,” meaning they fail to respect constitutional rights regardless of individual circumstances. She stated, “The restriction begins even at the earliest stages of embryonic development,” indicating the inadequacy of separating the rights of the fetus from those of the woman.

Moving Forward

With this judgment, the implications for abortion access in Wyoming are significant. Abortion will remain legal until fetal viability, which is expected to be upheld while this ruling stands. The decision has prompted reactions from both sides of the abortion debate, particularly among lawmakers and advocacy groups.

Looking ahead, Wyoming lawmakers have several options to consider. The state can appeal Judge Owens’ ruling to the Wyoming Supreme Court. Alternatively, the Legislature might explore crafting a different set of laws that could pass constitutional muster. Another possibility includes pursuing a new constitutional amendment, either to impose stricter limits on abortion or to clarify what constitutes health care in this context. Governor Mark Gordon has indicated support for revisiting the issue to possibly introduce an amendment.

This ruling marks a pivotal moment for reproductive rights in Wyoming, emphasizing the need for balancing state interests with the fundamental rights of women to make decisions about their health and bodies.