JACKSON, Wyo. — Ninth District Court Judge Melissa Owens heard arguments in the case of Johnson v. Wyoming, which will determine whether two recent abortion bans are legal under the Wyoming Constitution, at a 3.5-hour-long pretrial conference on Thursday, Dec. 14, at the Teton County Courthouse.
The hearing commenced at 1 p.m. and wrapped up at 4:40 p.m. Owens opened the meeting by stating that she did not intend to issue a ruling during the conference. Owens could issue a ruling in the coming weeks, or determine that a spring trial is necessary.
The plaintiffs’ side kicked things off, with three of its attorneys taking turns on the floor to argue against the abortion bans on medical, constitutional and equal protection grounds.
Attorney Peter Modlin focused on the medical implications of an abortion ban, arguing that the “barbaric” bans would cause pain and suffering for women in Wyoming.
“They want the court to blind itself to the devastating real world impacts,” Modlin said.
Modlin also said that the bans’ exceptions would put the state’s physicians in “an impossible position,” with guidelines too opaque for doctors to feel comfortable knowing when an abortion would be legal.
“There is no medical meaning or guidance to the exceptions…We know [physicians’] judgment is always going to be subject to second-guessing,” Modlin said. “We know that because it happened this week in Texas,” he said, citing the ongoing case of a Texas woman who left the state to seek a health-preserving abortion after learning of her fetus’ fatal diagnosis.
Attorney John Robinson took up the plaintiffs’ case next, turning to language in the Wyoming Constitution. He contended that the document’s invocation of “natural rights” protects women’s rights to bodily autonomy.
“Our constitution… is a beautiful document,” Robinson said. “If the Wyoming Declaration of Rights provides…all the citizens of this state with that right, the right to control their own body, why wouldn’t we rely on that for the basis for this decision? Why would we need to go anywhere else?”
Attorney Marci Bramlet handled the equal protection portion of the plaintiffs’ arguments, calling the abortion bans “nothing short of a direct assault on women” and arguing that the bans’ supporters “seek to wind back the clock on decades or even centuries of progress.” Bramlet also quoted Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s famous line, “I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off of our necks,” originally coined by suffragist Sarah Grimke.
“These bans place the state’s feet on the necks of Wyoming’s women,” Bramlet said, adding that they would be “relegating women to only childbearers.”
Special Assistant Attorney General Jay Jerde, defending the state, leaned into Wyoming’s historical stance on abortion legality, noting that it had been criminalized in the state until Roe vs. Wade.
“From 1869 until 1973, nobody questioned whether the statute was grounded in religion… It’s a traditionalist view of abortion,” Jerde said. “It’s not related to religion at all.” Jerde later added that the “traditionalist view” of abortion is the “idea that abortion isn’t what society wants.”
Jerde’s arguments also included the state’s assertion that abortion does not qualify as healthcare, and its contention that an embryo possesses human rights.
“Science believes that life begins at conception…” Jerde began.
“I’m not sure that all science points to that,” Owens interjected.
Throughout the meeting, Owens asked a few clarifying questions, and generally kept the proceedings light. During Jerde’s remarks, she even predicted the point he would make next, noting, “We’ve been at this for so long.”
