By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In a significant decision, the Wyoming Supreme Court ruled that two state laws banning abortion, including a unique ban on abortion pills, are unconstitutional. The court, comprised of justices appointed by Republican governors, sided with the state’s sole abortion clinic and others who challenged the bans enacted after the overturning of Roe v. Wade. The ruling affirmed the right of competent adults to make healthcare decisions under a state constitutional amendment. Governor Mark Gordon expressed disappointment and called for a constitutional amendment to ban abortion, which would be put to a vote this fall.
Read the original article here
Abortion stays legal in Wyoming after the state Supreme Court struck down laws including the country’s first explicit ban on abortion pills, ruling Tuesday that they violate the state constitution. This is indeed a significant development, especially considering the broader landscape of reproductive rights across the United States. It’s a clear win for those who advocate for healthcare autonomy and access. The court’s decision specifically highlighted the violation of the Wyoming constitution, which guarantees the right to make one’s own healthcare decisions.
The irony here is pretty rich. The very state that passed a constitutional amendment to protect healthcare access, spurred by fears surrounding the Affordable Care Act (ACA), has now had its abortion restrictions struck down. The argument from the state’s attorneys that abortion isn’t healthcare is particularly baffling. It’s almost as if they’re trying to redefine medical terminology to fit their political agenda. If abortion isn’t healthcare, then neither is pregnancy, and therefore wouldn’t require any medical intervention. It just doesn’t make sense.
This outcome is particularly interesting because the court’s reasoning behind the decision is available. Article 1, § 38 of the Wyoming Constitution explicitly protects the right to make healthcare decisions, as well as the right of the state to preserve these rights. The court found that the anti-abortion laws unreasonably and unnecessarily infringed upon this right, using the “strict scrutiny” standard, which is a high bar to clear. This should be viewed as a reminder that healthcare decisions remain under the purview of those who seek the care.
It is worth noting that the attorneys who made the losing arguments, even if they don’t agree, are obligated to make them. The separation of powers demands the judiciary’s interpretation, and the state’s legal teams must defend the laws to allow that interpretation to occur. The role of the legal professionals is to execute the laws, and the Supreme Court ultimately decides the constitutionality of the laws. That said, it certainly must be a trying situation to defend a law, even under court-mandated obligation, that you may not personally believe in.
This ruling should be taken as a signal that the fight for bodily autonomy isn’t over. A state passing a healthcare amendment in the past might now be the same state to have its abortion restrictions struck down. One can reasonably predict this is not the end of the line, that the fight will continue. It’s possible for those who are unhappy to challenge the decision or attempt to amend the state’s constitution, but as the Wyoming Supreme Court has ruled, it would seem that healthcare is an inherent right of Wyoming’s citizens.
This situation reveals the ongoing struggle between conservative values and individual liberties. The consistent push by some groups to control what individuals do with their bodies highlights a broader trend of certain political factions attempting to impose their personal moral values on everyone else. The party of “small government” ironically seems intent on using the government to control people’s personal decisions. This is an irony that can’t be ignored.
One thing that is clear is that the Wyoming Supreme Court ruling is not just a legal victory, but also a moment of relief. It’s a reminder that even in the face of ongoing efforts to restrict reproductive rights, there are places where the law recognizes and protects a person’s right to make their own healthcare decisions. And, though the fight continues, this may be an indicator that it is on its way to the courts.