The Wyoming Legislature’s response to the January Wyoming Supreme Court decision on abortion wasn’t just confusing — it was defiant.
The Court didn’t hedge. It didn’t hint. It drew a bright, unmistakable line: abortion is a healthcare decision, and under Article 1, § 38, that decision belongs to the patient.
Then the Court handed the Legislature a roadmap.
Not a suggestion. A roadmap.
The justices said their job was to interpret the Constitution “according to its plain terms.” If the people didn’t intend to include abortion as protected healthcare, the fix wasn’t for judges to rewrite the Constitution. The fix was for the Legislature to ask the voters — directly — through a constitutional amendment.
Clear. Clean. Constitutional.
So what did the Legislature do?
They drove straight into the ditch.
Let’s rewind. In 2012, Wyoming voters amended the Constitution to guarantee that competent adults have the right to make their own healthcare decisions, free from undue government interference.
Last session, the Senate proposed an amendment giving them full authority to determine what constitutes health care.
They didn’t tweak that balance — it detonated it.
Instead of narrowly addressing abortion, the proposal gave the Legislature power to define what counts as “health care.” Read that again. If lawmakers don’t like a medical decision, they can simply declare it not healthcare — and regulate it out of existence.
Not just abortion. Any healthcare decision.
That’s not a scalpel. That’s a chainsaw.
It failed.
And it should have.
Because the simple, honest language was an amendment that said: “The Legislature may pass laws regulating abortion.” Narrow. Direct. Transparent. Exactly what the Court suggested.
The Legislature chose not to take it.
Instead, it passed the “Human Heartbeat Act.”
The law criminalizes abortion once there is a “detectable fetal heartbeat,” punishable by up to five years in prison, a $10,000 fine, and loss of a medical license. It even includes a legal fallback—if struck down, a second provision banning abortion after viability springs into existence.
In other words, when Plan A fails, Plan B fails.
Even Pro-Life Governor Mark Gordon saw the problem. He said, “this Act represents another well-intentioned but likely fragile legal effort with significant risk of ending in the courts rather than in lasting, durable policy. Rather than finding a remedy that saves the unborn, I fear we have only added another chapter to the sad saga of repeatedly trying to force a specific solution.”
So why ignore the Court’s roadmap and pass another law headed for the constitutional shredder?
Start with the cynical answer: politics.
Abortion is a reliable campaign issue in Wyoming. Resolve it, and you lose a rallying cry. Keep it alive, and you keep the mailers flowing and the base engaged.
Then there’s a darker possibility.
If you want to weaken the courts, you need a reason. Pass laws you know — or should know — won’t survive judicial review, and when they get struck down, you have your talking point: activist judges, broken system, time to “reform” the courts.
Manufacture the conflict. Then campaign against it.
I don’t believe legislators are that callous about unborn life. But some are not above using a predictable court loss as political fuel.
The simplest explanation, though, may be the most revealing.
They don’t trust the voters.
Former Freedom Caucus leader John Bear said, “The pro-abortion lobby comes in with a lot of money and tells lies and — you know, we just don’t have that much money in Wyoming, to keep the propaganda from being spread.”
He added, “If you look at these other states that have tried to do an amendment to the
Constitution to protect unborn life, several times it’s gone the other direction.”
There it is.
The argument against letting the people decide… is that the people might against Freedom Caucus interests.
The irony is thick. The same political movement that rode into power on waves of out-of-state money and targeted messaging now warns that voters can’t be trusted because of outside influence.
That’s not a legal argument.
That’s a lack of faith in democracy.
So here’s what comes next.
The “Human Heartbeat Act” will likely be struck down — for the same reasons as before. The Constitution hasn’t changed. The Court’s reasoning hasn’t changed.
And when it happens, expect outrage. Expect speeches. Expect blame aimed everywhere but the mirror.
But let’s be clear.
The Court gave the Legislature a lawful path. A durable path. A constitutional path.
The Legislature chose politics instead.
Make no mistake — the Wyoming Legislature owns this mess.
Tom Lubnau served in the Wyoming Legislature from 2004 to 2015 and is a former Speaker of the House. He can be reached at: YourInputAppreciated@gmail.com
