Posted on 01/07/2026 11:21:38 AM PST by Morgana
The Wyoming Supreme Court has struck down two pro-life laws banning most abortions, allowing the killing of unborn babies to continue.
In a 4-1 ruling on Tuesday, the court declared the bans unconstitutional, citing a 2012 state constitutional amendment that protects the right to make health care decisions, despite the fact that killing babies in abortions is a denial of health care for unborn babies.
The laws, passed in 2023, included a comprehensive prohibition on abortion with exceptions for rape, incest or to save the mother’s life, and the nation’s first explicit ban on abortion pills.
“A woman has a fundamental right to make her own health care decisions, including the decision to have an abortion,” the ruling states.
“The State did not meet its burden of demonstrating the Abortion Laws further the compelling interest of protecting unborn life without unduly infringing upon the woman’s fundamental right to make her own health care decisions. As such, the Abortion Laws do not constitute reasonable and necessary restrictions on a pregnant woman’s right to make her own health care decisions.”
The decision affirmed a lower court ruling by Teton County District Judge Melissa Owens, who blocked the bans in 2023 and struck them down as unconstitutional in November 2024.
Gov. Mark Gordon, a Republican, expressed disappointment and urged lawmakers to pursue a constitutional amendment to ban abortion, putting the issue before voters.
“This ruling may settle, for now, a legal question, but it does not settle the moral one, nor does it reflect where many Wyoming citizens stand, including myself. It is time for this issue to go before the people for a vote,” Gordon said.
The justices noted that the 2012 amendment was not originally intended for abortion but suggested lawmakers could seek voter approval for changes.
“But lawmakers could ask Wyoming voters to consider a constitutional amendment that would more clearly address this issue,” the justices wrote.
The ruling means killing unborn babies remains legal in Wyoming, with abortions continuing at Wellspring Health Access in Casper, the state’s only abortion business.
In a related development last year, another judge blocked additional pro-life measures, including requirements for abortion centers to be licensed as ambulatory surgical centers and for ultrasounds before chemical abortions.
Senior Assistant Attorney General John J. Woykovsky defended the ultrasound law, stating, “Before a woman obtains a chemical abortion, she should have full information. And part of that information is an ability to visualize the fetus and the ability to hear the heartbeat.”
But retired District Judge Thomas Campbell ruled against the state.
“A woman has a fundamental right to make her own health care decisions,”
Killing a child is not a healthcare decision.
These judges are saying murdering someone else can be considered a “healthcare decision” if it in any way is related to their own health.
So, I guess in that light, murdering a judge who interferes with someone’s healthcare in any way is just a healthcare decision.
How does a state like Wyoming have such evil dingbats on its Supreme Court?
This is so depressing. Two of my favorite possible locations for retirement are both murder states, Kansas and Wyoming. Guess I can strike both of them off my list. I don’t want my state tax dollars to go towards killing people.
I don’t get it either. Actions like this are so provocative in their evil, I wouldn’t be surprised if someone took them out, explaining that the justices are just blobs of tissue that were inconveniencing his/her body. The logic is impeccable that if one person can say another human being is not a person in order to rationalize killing them without penalty, then anyone else should be able to do the same.
In the case of abortion, "health" certainly includes "mental health" ... the abortion industry and its government toadies have made that abundantly clear.
Therefore, if Mr. Smith is driving Mr. Jones crazy ... and Mr. Jones does something to Mr. Smith ... like, maybe, terminating Mr. Smith's adulthood ... I guess that's OK. Right? Because the State can't interfere with Mr. Jones' healthcare decisions ...
“So, I guess in that light, murdering a judge who interferes with someone’s healthcare in any way is just a healthcare decision.”
Health insurance CEOs should be even more worried...
Unborn child is entirely dependent on mother’s body for 4.5 months. After that the fetus can survive on its own, especially in 3rd trimester. Killing a fetus which can survive on its own is murder.
How does a state like Wyoming have such evil dingbats on its Supreme Court?
Great question. As awful as this is the ruling probably is in compliance with their constitution. When RvW got struck the rats went to work to get state constitutions altered to keep the baby killings rolling. Even Ohio has 9 month abortions now.
Well, if their Supreme Court has interpreted that 2012 Amendment incorrectly, the voters/legislators can amend it.
well that puts the ‘red’ in a GOP red state.
Transplants from Commiefornia.
One would think that would resolve the issue...
...but suggested lawmakers could seek voter approval for changes. Which further suggests that the voters would also need to vote on any other dingbat interpretations.
Heartbreaking.
Tennessee
““So, I guess in that light, murdering a judge who interferes with someone’s healthcare in any way is just a healthcare decision.”
Health insurance CEOs should be even more worried...”
Seems perhaps a probable defense, doesn’t it?
“Motion to Dismiss. Why? Courts have found murder is acceptable by women if they think it affects their healthcare, and murdering the CEO of a healthcare company was certainly just that.”
“Wyoming Welcomes You” I guess for 4 justices of their supreme court babies not so much.
A woman has a fundamental right to make her own health care decisions, including the decision to have an abortion, the ruling states.
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
In stark contrast to the elite Democratic and RINO vote-winning, politically correct mantra that women can do anything that they want to with their bodies, consider that the now-repealed 18th Amendment (18A), which effectively prohibited the consumption of alcoholic beverages, is an example of a law that was intended to prohibit people from doing certain things with their bodies.
Excerpted from 18A:
18A, Section 1: After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale [all emphases added], or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.
As mentioned elsewhere, the states have never amended the Constitution to make the murder of unborn children an express, constitutionally protected right, the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade a major constitutional scandal imo.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.