Wyoming Supreme Court hears arguments on abortion rights

CHEYENNE, Wyo. (AP) — Whether the Wyoming Constitution enshrines abortion rights was a key subject in state Supreme Court arguments Wednesday, which also delved into whether legislators may regulate the procedure.

Justices took the arguments under advisement and will rule later, typically after a few months.

Wyoming has sought to enact two abortion bans since the U.S. Supreme Court in 2022 overturned its landmark Roe v. Wade decision. The first ban is against abortion generally and the other against medication abortions, which would be the first ban of its kind in the U.S.

However abortion has remained legal since a state judge in Jackson blocked the laws and then ruled they were unconstitutional. The state appealed to the Wyoming Supreme Court.

A 2012 state constitutional amendment that guaranteed the right of competent adults to make their own health care decisions was the crux of the November’s ruling by District Judge Melissa Owens — and the Supreme Court oral arguments.

Wyoming Special Assistant Attorney General Jay Jerde argued in court that abortion is not health care. He also said that voters passed the amendment not to allow abortion but in response to the federal Affordable Care Act, and lawmakers may make “reasonable and necessary” restrictions under the amendment.

“This court is extremely deferential to the Legislature in terms of what laws are necessary,” Jerde told the five justices, all of whom were appointed by Republican governors.

Wyoming currently allows abortion without restrictions up to the time of viability outside the uterus, or about 25 weeks into pregnancy. The abortion bans would make Wyoming the 13th state with a total abortion ban since Roe v. Wade was overturned.

Asked by justices including Kari Gray who should decide when human life begins, Jerde said the state Legislature as the elected body is “closest to the people.”

But an attorney for those suing over Wyoming’s laws, Peter Modlin, argued that when life begins is a fundamentally religious question that government has no business putting into law.

“This is an ongoing political debate the state must not have any role in whatsoever,” Modlin said.

And the laws harm girls and women, Modlin said, because complications make pregnancy and childbirth more than 50 times more dangerous than abortion.

Modlin and two other attorneys including Marci Bramlet represent four women, including two obstetricians, and two nonprofits, including Casper abortion clinic Wellspring Health Access, in challenging the laws.

They violate equal protection between men and women under the law, Bramlet argued.

“These bans force women to surrender their rights any time they are pregnant,” Bramlet said. “This state has never legislated away a man’s right to his health care decisions.”

The same nonprofits and women are suing to challenge two laws passed by the Legislature last winter. Wellspring Health Access has ceased providing either surgical or medical abortions since Feb. 28 because of the laws.

One of the laws requires abortion clinics — specifically Wellspring Health Access in Casper as the state’s only abortion clinic — to be licensed as outpatient surgical centers.

Getting licensed would require costly renovations, clinic officials say. The law also requires the Wellspring Health Access physicians to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital even though that facility is under no obligation to grant such a request.

The other new law requires patients to have an ultrasound at least 48 hours before receiving a medication abortion. While attorneys for the state argue the Legislature has wide regulatory discretion to prevent rare mishaps during abortions, the women and nonprofits argue that ultrasounds are a costly and burdensome requirement.

A judge in Casper is considering a request by the clinic and the others to suspend the new laws while their lawsuit proceeds.

Wellspring Health Access opened in 2023, almost a year later than planned because an arson attack caused heavy damage. A woman convicted for setting fire to the building was sentenced to five years in prison.