By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Wyoming Republicans introduced Senate File 125, aiming to restrict abortion access by narrowly defining “healthcare” to exclude procedures causing harm to various body systems. This definition, however, inadvertently jeopardizes numerous life-saving medical treatments, including chemotherapy and heart surgery, due to its broad language. Legal experts and healthcare professionals widely criticize the bill for its potential to severely limit healthcare providers’ actions and for its lack of consultation with medical professionals. The bill’s constitutionality is also highly questionable, given Wyoming’s existing constitutional right to healthcare decisions.
Read the original article here
Wyoming Republicans’ anti-abortion bill, in its attempt to restrict abortion access, has inadvertently—or perhaps advertently—created a sweeping restriction on a wide range of medical procedures. The bill’s language, which prohibits any act causing harm to vital organs, is so broadly written that it casts a wide net, encompassing far more than just abortion.
This vagueness concerning the definition of “harm” is the central problem. The bill states that no treatment causing harm to the heart, respiratory system, central nervous system, brain, skeletal system, limbs, or organ function should be considered healthcare. This seemingly straightforward clause, however, opens the door to interpreting almost any medical intervention as harmful. Even common procedures that involve incision or the administration of drugs with side effects could fall under this broad definition.
Consider elective surgeries, for instance. Any surgery that involves cutting the skin, an organ in itself, would be potentially illegal under this legislation. This means that many necessary procedures, from appendectomies to the removal of cancerous growths, might be classified as illegal, simply because they inevitably cause some degree of harm during the process of treatment. The same logic applies to orthopedic surgeries, many of which involve work on bones, creating a situation where even fixing broken bones could be classified as illegal.
The ambiguity extends beyond surgery. Chemotherapy and radiation treatments, cornerstones of cancer treatment, frequently cause harm to various organs in the process of killing cancer cells. Similarly, hormone therapy, a common treatment for certain cancers, also falls under potential illegality under the bill’s broad definition. The lack of precision in defining “harm” effectively creates a legislative loophole that allows for arbitrary interpretation, prioritizing the ideological aims of the bill’s authors above any understanding of medical necessity.
The problematic phrasing also potentially impacts various forms of contraception. Permanent forms of birth control, such as tubal ligations or vasectomies, inevitably cause some degree of harm, as they involve surgical procedures. Even the use of certain medications with potential side effects could face similar prohibitions. This inadvertently renders crucial medical procedures subject to the whims of a legislative body demonstrably lacking the requisite medical expertise.
The impact is not limited to merely restricting access to certain procedures. The bill’s ambiguity encourages arbitrary interpretation and selective enforcement. This opens the door for authorities to decide which exceptions to apply and which to disregard, creating a system where access to vital healthcare becomes subject to personal biases and arbitrary decisions, rather than established medical guidelines.
This lack of medical understanding in the drafting of such legislation leads to a dangerous precedent. Allowing non-clinicians to dictate medical practices leads to bills that are not only ineffective but potentially catastrophic in their reach. The seemingly unintended consequences underscore the critical importance of having healthcare professionals involved in the legislative process to ensure laws are evidence-based, safe and effective, and avoid creating insurmountable barriers to access crucial medical care. The current language leaves the interpretation of vital healthcare practices to subjective and potentially uninformed assessments. The focus on ideological goals overshadows a fundamental understanding of human health and well-being.
The situation highlights the risks of allowing legislators to make sweeping decisions on medical practices without proper medical consultation. This Wyoming bill serves as a stark reminder of the dangers of poorly drafted legislation and the vital importance of ensuring that experts in relevant fields have a voice in the policy-making process. In short, this bill reveals the problematic consequences of allowing legislative bodies to dictate medical treatment based on ideologies rather than scientific fact and evidence-based practices.