Wyoming House Republicans have advanced two bills related to abortion.
The first would ban abortions when there is a “detectable fetal heartbeat,” while the second would set specific informed consent requirements when terminating pregnancies.
Human Heartbeat Act
Republican lawmakers are supporting the Human Heartbeat Act, or HB 126, after failing to implement two near-total abortion bans that passed in 2023. The Wyoming Supreme Court stuck down those laws last month, saying they violate the state’s constitution.
Speaker of the House Rep. Chip Neiman (R-Hulett) said in a Feb. 16 committee meeting that the goal of the heartbeat act is to draw a “line in the sand.” He’s sponsoring the bill.
“We’re trying to find some place here that is palatable for everyone involved, but not throwing Wyoming’s gates wide open to unlimited abortion,” Nieman said.
The bill does not specify when exactly there is a detectable fetal heartbeat, though similar bills in other conservative states have been interpreted as six-week bans, when cardiac activity can first be detected. It does not outline any exceptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest.
The bill refers to uncited "substantial medical evidence” that an “unborn child” can experience pain by 15 weeks.
According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), which advocates for abortion access, fetuses can’t experience pain until at least 24 weeks.
Britt Boril, executive director of the reproductive freedom group Wyoming United, said the bill is unconstitutional and would only spark more lawsuits. She referenced Gov. Mark Gordon’s call to instead let Wyoming voters weigh in on the abortion issue.
But that effort, in the form of a proposed constitutional amendment, failed by one vote. If passed by a majority of Wyomingites, the language in SJ 7 would have given lawmakers more power to determine what constitutes healthcare and cleared the way for them to try to ban most abortions.
“They [lawmakers] know the majority of Wyomingites would vote in favor of keeping abortion safe and legal,” Boril said.
Neiman said at a Jan. 26 town hall that he wasn’t convinced a constitutional amendment was the right path, as he was hearing from people who worried voters could codify abortion as a healthcare right in the constitution.
Rep. Elissa Campbell (R-Casper) said she filed a resolution asking voters if they want to enshrine the Life is a Human Right Act, one of the recently overturned 2023 laws that attempted to ban most abortions, into the state constitution. However, the resolution was never introduced this session.
Committee lawmakers instead voted to advance the heartbeat act 7 to 2.
Informed consent
The other abortion bill is HB 117, entitled “Stop harm-empower women with informed notices.”
It would require medical professionals to give pregnant women specific written notices before getting an abortion.
That notice would include information about the proposed abortion method, any medical risks associated with abortion and pregnancy, alternatives like adoption and parenting, and the “unborn child’s” likely gestational age and anatomical characteristics.
The bill would allow patients to sue any providers for not less than $25,000 when they feel they’ve been coerced into getting an abortion.
The text cites two studies on women who have had abortions, showing a majority of respondents felt pressure to end their pregnancies.
Rep. Mike Yin (D-Jackson), the only committee member to vote against the bill, said the studies should be categorized as online surveys, saying they targeted a skewed demographic.
Supporters of the bill, such as sponsor Rep. Martha Lawley (R-Worland), said she’s personally heard from women who said they were coerced into getting an abortion.
Critics, such as Boril, said medical providers already provide patients informed consent.
Lawmakers passed another bill last year mandating that women seeking medication to end their pregnancies get a transvaginal ultrasound two days before receiving abortion pills. That law has been held up in court.
The written statement required by the bill would also tell pregnant women that mifepristone is not always effective in ending a pregnancy. That is the first medication patients take when getting a medical abortion.
The bill requires the notice to say, “If after taking mifepristone the pregnant woman regrets her decision, she should consult a physician or health care provider immediately to determine if there are options available to assist her in continuing her pregnancy but that time is of the essence.”
This refers to a method known as abortion reversal, where someone takes a dose of progesterone to halt the abortion. This is not supported by science, according to ACOG, though many anti-abortion, faith-based pregnancy centers continue to assert the practice is safe.
The Wyoming House passed a bill to protect those centers from government regulation on Feb. 16. It now heads to the Senate.
