How long will anti-abortion opponents keep going full-speed ahead, passing bans and restrictions on safe, healthcare procedures that the courts later knock down as unconstitutional? Opinion House Speaker Chip Neiman, R-Hulett, said as long as it takes. After retired District Court Judge Tho mas Campbell on Friday handed down a sweeping ruling against three unconstitutional laws that state lawmakers passed in 2025, Neiman criticized the courts for going against “the will of the Legislature.” Please note that he did not say the will of Wyomingites. That’s notable because the far-right Freedom Caucus and its allies know they do not have public support.  If they did, they would have done what Gov. Mark Gordon told them last year and voted to put a constitutional amendment to ban abortion on the ballot this November. Instead, they went back to a formula that hasn’t worked yet by passing three bills destined to be challenged by pro-choice plaintiffs who saw two abortion bans thrown out by the Wyoming Supreme Court prior to this year’s legislative session. Campbell ruled against a trio of new restrictions. One imposed a mandatory, invasive ultrasound requirement and a 48-hour waiting period for women seeking abortions. The second was a new set of more stringent regulations on abortion clinics, intended to make their operation too expensive. The third restricted abortions by governing the prescription of off-label medications. Campbell followed the Wyoming Supreme Court’s previous reasoning. He ruled that the state’s restrictions on abortion violated the constitutional protection for Wyomingites to make their own health care decisions without interference by the government. Ironically, such protection wouldn’t be enshrined in the Wyoming Constitution today if Republicans hadn’t thumbed their nose at then-President Barack Obama’s signature win during his first term, the Affordable Care Act. In 2012, these zealots adopted a constitutional amendment they sold to voters as the way to prevent the federal government from infringing on healthcare autonomy. The amendment wasn’t necessary to stop Obamacare. But it’s proven effective at protecting abortion rights. The Wyoming Supreme Court ruled 4-1 in January against two statewide bans because abortion is a fundamental health right under the constitution.   The Natrona County Townsend Justice Center in downtown Casper is home to the county’s district and circuit courts. (Joshua Wolfson/WyoFile) To prevail in court, the state would have to show it has a compelling interest to restrict abortions and the Legislature passed laws that were narrowly tailored to do so. The Wyoming Attorney General’s Office, which defended lawmakers’ work, struck out three times with Campbell, who repeatedly noted that defenders of the law did not offer evidence backing their claims. Campbell wrote that the ultrasound and waiting period for abortions were both medically unnecessary. He added that plaintiffs cited Wyoming Department of Health data indicating zero complications or deaths resulting from abortion in the state.  The state tried to put Wellspring Health Access in Casper, the only Wyoming clinic that provides surgical and medication abortions, out of business by classifying it “an ambulatory surgical center” that needed to make expensive changes to its facilities to meet state regulations. But Campbell concluded there was no evidence or a causal link to indicate that not operating under such stringent regulations would negatively impact women’s health and welfare. The final law that was struck down would have protected physicians who prescribe FDA-approved medications for off-label purposes, like Ivermectin for COVID-19. But the Legislature made sure physicians who prescribed off-label treatments such as the combination of mifepristone and misoprostol, the most common medications used for chemical abortions, would not be covered. Campbell said carving out physicians who prescribe chemical abortions from the bill would have “greenlit” consequences for them from medical regulatory agencies. The Legislature is hanging its collective hat on the notion that a ban on abortions after a fetal heartbeat can be detected, usually after six weeks, can pass constitutional muster. But a different district court judge already cited the constitutional provision protecting abortion as a fundamental right when he temporarily blocked enforcement of the new law in April. There is no practical reason to believe that the law won’t be ruled unconstitutional by the same judge or the state Supreme Court, if the case is ultimately appealed to that venue. Neiman criticized the judiciary in a video posted to the Freedom Caucus’ Facebook page for thwarting and ignoring the will of the Legislature. The caucus tried this same tactic when it threatened to downsize the Wyoming Supreme Court, make judges an elected position, and even cut $3.6 million for court security. The latter was proposed by Rep. Rachel Rodriguez-Williams, Freedom Caucus chair, who is now running for secretary of state. All of these far-right tantrums failed. Community members sit inside the Wyoming Supreme Court before the court hears an the appeal of a district court abortion decision on Wednesday, April 16, 2025, in Cheyenne. Abortion rights advocates wore green in support of Latin America’s Green Wave movement that signifies hope. (Milo Gladstein/Wyoming Tribune Eagle) The Freedom Caucus already controls the Wyoming House. Now, Neiman and four other Freedom Caucus members or allies — Reps. Abby Angelos of Gillette, Paul Hoeft of Powell, Ken Pendergraft of Sheridan and Daniel Singh of Cheyenne — are running for the Senate to try to take over the upper chamber. In light of the caucus’ failure to ban or restrict abortions and having its package of draconian budget cuts shot down in flames, it should be a fool’s errand. But the Freedom Caucus is hell-bent on gaining power. The best way to keep this from happening is to defeat its members and followers in the Republican primary on Aug. 18. The focus should be dumping the anti-abortion lawmakers who want to invade doctors’ offices and keep women from making their own healthcare choices, and replacing them with candidates who respect the Wyoming Constitution. The Freedom Caucus continues to push a false narrative that Wyomingites want to ban all abortions. Surveys and previous elections show it’s not true. A November 2024 University of Wyoming poll found only 10% of residents backed a total abortion ban. Abortion restrictions with exceptions for rape, incest, or when a woman’s life is in danger were favored by 31%. Another 20% said the law should permit abortion for those reasons and others, after the need for an abortion has been clearly established. And 39% said abortion should be a personal choice. Those numbers don’t add up for a group of lawmakers that insists on enacting a total ban on abortion and keeps passing laws that would imprison physicians who perform the safe procedures. They know voters won’t pass it. Reps. Rachel Rodriguez-Williams and Chip Neiman listen during a 2023 hearing on their request to defend Wyoming’s abortion ban. (Brad Boner/Jackson Hole NewsGuide/Pool) The only time an abortion ban initiative was put on a Wyoming ballot was in 1994, and it failed with only 39% in favor. In response to last week’s court losses, Neiman vowed, “We will not quit, we will not give up, and we will not stop.” I believe he’s telling the truth, which means everyone who wants to uphold the constitution and preserve the right of adults to make their own healthcare decisions must show up at the polls with a critical common goal: Keep them all out of office. The post Wyoming’s anti-abortion legislators won’t quit, so vote them out of office appeared first on WyoFile . ...read more read less