This story is part of our Quick Hits series. This series will bring you breaking news and short updates from throughout the state.
A Natrona County judge has granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) on the state’s six-week abortion ban.
This means that abortion is legal once again in the state.
In his April 24 order, Judge Dan Forgey said that the plaintiffs "made a sufficient showing of irreparable injury” if the six-week ban stays in effect.
He also said they sufficiently demonstrated “probable success that justifies their request for temporary injunctive relief,” particularly when the law is evaluated alongside Article 1, section 38, in the Wyoming Constitution, the amendment which guarantees residents the right to make their own healthcare decisions.
Julie Burkhart, president of the Wellspring Health Access clinic in Casper, said this lawsuit has been “yet another nerve-wracking experience” but that she’s “delighted” the clinic can start fully serving patients again.
For the past almost two months, many patients have been driving to Colorado or Montana for care.
Marti Halverson, president of Wyoming Right to Life, said she was hopeful the Natrona County judge's decision wouldn't go this way.
"As usual, we are terribly disappointed in Wyoming’s judiciary," Halverson said.
The restraining order is in place as litigation continues on the Human Heartbeat Act.
In March, the Wyoming Legislature passed the law, which restricts most abortions when there’s cardiac activity. That’s typically detectable around six weeks, when many people may not know they’re pregnant. There’s an exception for cases where the pregnant person’s life is at risk, but there are no exceptions for instances of rape or incest.
In late March, the plaintiffs, a group of abortion rights supporters, sued the state in Natrona County District Court, arguing the partial ban is “vague” and "arbitrary" and that it violates the Wyoming Constitution just like past abortion bans have in the state.
Earlier this year, the Wyoming Supreme Court struck down two near-total abortion bans, saying they violated residents’ state-provided right to make their own healthcare decisions.
The state, however, has argued that these laws, and the new heartbeat law, are constitutional. Plaintiffs, all abortion rights advocates, said a lot of the state’s arguments at the April 22 hearing revolved around it having a compelling interest to protect life.
The state has also argued the Legislature can enact “reasonable and necessary restrictions" to “protect the health and general welfare of the people,” according to the state constitution.
