They had to expose seven of their RINOs to keep this from passing. And four justices were exposed through this as well. What about the medical right of the child to live. It’s interesting that all these humans that had the right to live will take it away from others. Keep that same energy when you’re on you knee before God and your name isn’t found in the Book of Life.
By Dave Andrusko | Cheyenne, Wyoming
A measure to place a pro-life constitutional amendment on the ballot this fall in Wyoming fell short by a single vote of the 2/3rds threshold of votes required during a budget session. The final Senate tally was 20-11, with nine Republicans and the state’s only two Democrat senators casting nay votes.
Senate Joint Resolution 7 was sponsored by Riverton Republican Sen. Tim Salazar, who said, “This is one of the most important issues of our day.” He added, “I and many others simply seek a dialogue.”
The vote follows a 4-1 decision by the Wyoming Supreme Court last January that “determined the bans conflict with a 2012 amendment to the Wyoming Constitution that protects individuals’ rights to make their own health care decisions,” according to Katie Klingsporn.
The Court rejected House Bill 152 “Life is a Human Right Act” and Senate File 109, “Prohibiting Chemical Abortions,” both of which passed in 2023 and were signed by Governor Gordon on March 17, 2023.
The “Life is a Human Right Act” protects unborn babies except in cases of rape or incest or to save a woman’s life. Senate File 109 made Wyoming the first state to specifically make it illegal “to prescribe, dispense, distribute, sell or use any drug for the purpose of procuring or performing an abortion on any person,” with the exceptions for rape, incest, miscarriages and when the mother’s life is at risk.
Gov. Gordon immediately issued the following statement which he reiterated during his State of the State Address on Monday.
This ruling is profoundly unfortunate and sadly only serves to prolong the ultimate and proper resolution of this issue. 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, and I believe it should go before them this fall. A constitutional amendment taken to the people of Wyoming would trump any and all judicial decisions.
I call on the legislature to pass and place a clear constitutional amendment on my desk during the upcoming Budget Session. I remain committed to the mission of saving our unborn. Every year that we delay the proper resolution of this issue results in more deaths of unborn children. This is a dilemma of enormous moral and social consequence.
In his State of the State Address, Gov. Gordon said
The question of abortion deserves careful `deliberation,’ ….I urge the Legislature to take up this issue earnestly and put forward a genuine solution to the voters of Wyoming that provides a clear, irrefutable, durable and morally sound resolution to this fraught issue.”
All five justices agreed that Article 1, Section 38 of the Wyoming Constitution — the 2012 amendment— “includes abortion as a woman’s own health care decision.” Ironically, voters approved the constitutional amendment to “combat ‘Obamacare’ mandates, but [the amendment] promises health care autonomy to competent adults and parents on behalf of their children,” according to Mead Gruver of the Associated Press.
The amendment did not mention abortion!
Reviewing arguments made before the Court in April 2025. Mead Gruber of the Associated Press wrote
Wyoming Special Assistant Attorney General Jay Jerde argued in court that abortion is not health care. He also said that voters passed the amendment not to allow abortion but in response to the federal Affordable Care Act, and lawmakers may make “reasonable and necessary” restrictions under the amendment.
“This court is extremely deferential to the Legislature in terms of what laws are necessary,” Jerde told the five justices.
Maggie Mullen and Andrew Graham, writing for The Wyoming News, quoted and paraphrased Jerde at length:
When you have an individual right that’s fundamental, when the state regulates, it has to have a compelling reason for doing so. And the restrictions imposed have to restrict the right to the minimum amount possible while still accomplishing the compelling purpose.
But the right of individuals to make their own health care decisions, as specified in the state’s constitution, is not a fundamental right, because of how it is qualified by another section of the constitution that empowers the Legislature.
“The Legislature may determine reasonable and necessary restrictions on the rights granted under this section to protect the health and general welfare of the people or to accomplish the other purposes set forth in the Wyoming Constitution,” Section 38, Subsection C reads.
However, four justices–Fox, Boomgaarden, and Robert Jarosh”– all concluded that the law should falls under the legal standard of ‘strict scrutiny’ — the toughest court standard applied to any government action.
But as the lone dissenter, Justice Gray. keenly observed, the Court majority went astray when they determined
that any restriction on the right of a competent adult to make one’s own health care decisions is subject to strict scrutiny, which requires the State to prove (1) the restriction is necessary to further a compelling state interest and (2) that interest cannot be served in a less onerous or restrictive manner or, stated differently, the restriction is narrowly tailored to achieve the compelling state interest. I disagree that strict scrutiny applied.
However, she noted,
It is a misconception that strict scrutiny applies whenever a fundamental right is involved …Indeed, there are more fundamental rights not subject to strict scrutiny than those that are subject to strict scrutiny.