CHEYENNE, Wyo. — The Wyoming Supreme Court heard further arguments in the ongoing saga over abortion’s legality in the Equality State on Wednesday, April 16. The Court stated that it would issue its decision at a later date, calling for a recess after an hour of argument presentation and rebuttals.
Johnson v. Wyoming will decide whether the abortion bans passed in 2023 are legal under the Wyoming Constitution. Both pieces of legislation, HB152 “Life is a Human Right Act” and SF109 “Prohibiting chemical abortions,” were struck down by Ninth District Court Judge Melissa Owens in November.
Arguments presented before the court echoed statements made by each side in previous court appearances, with much time spent on whether the notion that “life begins at conception” is an inherently religious belief. The capacity of the term “health care” was also central to the discussion, following Judge Owens’ determination that the legislation in question violated article 1, section 38 of the Wyoming Constitution, “Right of health care access.”
That section of the Constitution served as the crux of the State of Wyoming’s arguments on Wednesday, with Special Assistant Attorney General Jay Jerde insisting that the two abortion bans did not “run afoul” of the Constitution’s language.
“The right provided by [subsection] 38A is the the right to make your own health care decisions, emphasis on the word ‘own,'” Jerde said. “When you have a pregnant woman deciding to get an abortion, she’s not making her own health care decision. … That health care decision is also negatively affecting the health of the unborn baby. So, in fact, she’s making a health care decision for two people.”
Attorneys representing the plaintiffs responded to this application of “health care,” with Peter Modlin stating, “Abortion is not health care for a fetus … abortion is only health care for the mother.”
Attorney Marci Bramlet, also representing the plaintiffs, argued that the legislation runs counter to the state’s “Equal Rights” slogan.
“These bans force women to surrender their rights any time they are pregnant,” she said, adding later, “This state has never legislated away a man’s right to his reproductive health care decisions. … Something like a vasectomy has never been touched by our legislature.”
