The Wyoming Supreme Court has upheld abortion access and struck down the state’s two near-total abortion laws. On Jan. 6, justices said the laws violate Wyomingites’ right to make their own healthcare decisions.
The battle over abortion rights in the state is far from over, but this closes a chapter.
Here’s a look back at how we got here and what could happen next.
What was the Wyoming Supreme Court ruling on?
The state’s high court was looking at the constitutionality of two abortion laws passed by the Wyoming Legislature.
Like in many conservative states, Wyoming lawmakers have been trying to ban most abortions ever since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022. That returned decision-making power over abortion access back to states.
In 2023, Wyoming lawmakers passed the Life is a Human Right Act, which banned most abortions. They also passed a “chemical,” or medical, abortion ban. That banned abortion pills in most cases.
Do the Wyoming abortion laws have exceptions?
Yes. Both laws have exceptions for sexual assault and incest if it's reported to law enforcement. They also have exceptions for when abortions are needed in “the physician's reasonable medical judgment to prevent the death of the pregnant woman” or “to preserve the woman from an imminent peril that substantially endangers her life or health.”
The Life as a Human Right Act also made exceptions for lethal fetal anomalies or molar pregnancies, which could both be lethal to the fetus. There's also exceptions for medical treatment provided to a pregnant woman “that results in the accidental or unintentional injury to, or the death of, an unborn baby.”
One study from the Kaiser Family Foundation found laws like this don't always account for all situations. They've resulted in women being unable to get medical care until their lives are on the line.
Did the laws ever go into effect?
Yes, but only for a few days when they first passed. Since then, a group of abortion access advocates have been suing the state and getting them blocked in court.
The group includes two OB/GYNs, a Teton County nurse, advocacy group Chelsea’s Fund, abortion clinic Wellspring Health Access and a woman of childbearing age.
What have the courts said?
In the end of 2024, a Teton County district judge struck the laws down. She said they violate the Wyoming Constitution. A few days later, the state appealed that decision to the Wyoming Supreme Court. There was a hearing back in mid-April.
Now, after nearly a year of waiting, the majority of justices say they agree with the district court: These laws violate the state constitution.
What parts of the Wyoming Constitution did justices say the laws violate?
Article 1, section 38. It says “each competent adult shall have the right to make his or her own healthcare decisions.”
This was added to the state Constitution in 2012 by a majority (77%) of Wyoming voters. Lawmakers say they put it on the ballot as a way to oppose the Affordable Care Act. They didn't like the tax penalties people faced at the time for not having insurance.
Then-Sen. Drew Perkins (R-Casper) spoke about the amendment on the Senate floor back in 2011.
“I think it’s about choice, about whether you’re free to choose it, about whether you’re free not to choose it,” said Perkins, who’s now Gov. Mark Gordon’s chief of staff.
Did lawmakers worry about consequences of creating a right to healthcare decisions?
Yes. Several worried about the consequences of keeping the language so broad and how the courts could interpret it. Former Sen. Phillip Nicholas (R-Laramie) even brought up abortion issues back in 2011.
“Suppose the issue is the person's right to reproductive options,” he said to fellow senators. “That's a healthcare decision and seems to me that a competent adult, under this, should have that right.”
Wrapping up his speech, he said, “I do believe that it creates a lot of issues that you really have to begin to wonder on second reading whether or not this is an appropriate constitutional amendment with a new guarantee.”
But lawmakers moved the amendment forward anyway. And now it's coming back to bite the many lawmakers in the Legislature today who want to ban abortion.
What arguments did the Wyoming Supreme Court make?
Under the constitutional amendment, “the legislature may determine reasonable and necessary restrictions on the rights granted under this section to protect the health and general welfare of the people or to accomplish the other purposes set forth in the Wyoming Constitution.”
In the Jan. 6 ruling, the majority, including Chief Justice Lynne Boomgaarden, former Chief Justice Kate Fox and Justice Robert Jarosh, said the state didn't present enough evidence to show the abortion laws are no more restrictive than necessary.
They said the laws aren't as narrow as possible, or the least burdensome way the state could achieve its goal of protecting prenatal life.
Justice John Fenn arrived at the same conclusion following a slightly different line of thinking.
There was also one dissenting opinion. Justice Kari Jo Gray said the laws constitute a reasonable and necessary restriction and don't violate Article 1, section 38. She said that's because of the exceptions in the abortion laws, such as for rape and incest.
How have Wyomingites been reacting?
Jackson OB-GYN Giovannina Anthony said the decision is a huge win. She's part of the group suing the state to protect abortion access.
“I don't have to lie to patients about what they can and can't do,” she told Wyoming Public Radio. “I don't have to send them out of state. I don't have to figure out how to fly them somewhere.”
Abortion is still legal in neighboring states Montana and Colorado.
The Wyoming Democratic Caucus also celebrated. They said they'll continue to stand up for the Constitution.
But many Wyoming officials aren't so happy. Speaker of the House and State Freedom Caucus member Chip Neiman (R-Hulett) said the ruling is an “abomination.”
“Those little unborn human beings, those little men and women, those girls and boys in the womb have rights,” Neiman told Wyoming Public Radio. “Who's listening to their voices?...I can hear them. I don’t know about you, but I can hear them.”
Gov. Mark Gordon called the ruling “profoundly unfortunate,” saying it settles a legal question, not a moral one.
What are elected officials saying about the Wyoming Supreme Court justices?
Some, such as members of the Wyoming Freedom Caucus and Secretary of State Chuck Gray, say the justices are too liberal.
“After decades of liberal leadership in the governor’s office, the State Supreme Court has been filled with jurists who reject basic biology and human dignity,” the caucus’ statement reads.
Some say they want to bring back a draft bill that died earlier this year. It could require Senate approval for Wyoming Supreme Court appointments. Right now, a nominating commission selects candidates and the governor picks one.
Rep. Andrew Byron (R-Hoback Junction) objects to all of this. He says he’s “pro-choice” and voted against the two abortion laws.
“This is how government works, right? I mean, the system of checks and balances, the three branches,” he told Wyoming Public Radio. “To immediately go after the Wyoming State Supreme Court justices and say that they got it wrong, I mean that's the process we have. If folks don't like that, maybe they should reconsider what country they live in.”
What’s next?
- Lawmakers will likely consider language for another constitutional amendment when their budget session starts on Feb. 9. Neiman said they’re drafting bills right now. It’s unclear what that'll look like, but he said he wants legislation to “recognize life in the womb.” Gordon also said he supports a vote by the people. The language would need a two-thirds vote from both the Wyoming House and Senate. It could go to voters as early as this fall and would need a majority from voters participating in the election.
- Gordon has also directed the state attorney general's office to file a petition to rehear the case. That needs to be filed within 15 days of the decision. The abortion access advocates would then have a chance to respond, and the justices would decide if they’ll rehear the case, according to Wyoming Judicial Branch Communication Director Jacob Just. He said if the justices take on the case, they may or may not hold oral arguments.
- We could also see more bills restricting abortion in other ways. The Legislature has already passed laws requiring ultrasounds for abortion seekers and building renovations at abortion clinics. Those have also been held up in the courts.
