By Dave Andrusko \u00a0 | \u00a0Cheyenne, Wyoming<\/a><\/a><\/a><\/a><\/a><\/a><\/a><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n 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\u2019s only two Democrat senators casting nay votes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Senate Joint Resolution 7 was sponsored by Riverton Republican Sen. Tim Salazar, who said, \u201cThis is one of the most important issues of our day.\u201d He added, \u201cI and many others simply seek a dialogue.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The vote follows a 4-1 decision by the Wyoming Supreme Court last January that \u201cdetermined the bans conflict with a 2012 amendment to the Wyoming Constitution that protects individuals\u2019 rights to make their own health care decisions,\u201d according to Katie Klingsporn.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court rejected House Bill 152 \u201cLife is a Human Right Act\u201d and Senate File 109, \u201cProhibiting Chemical Abortions,\u201d both of which passed in 2023 and were signed by Governor Gordon <\/a>on March 17, 2023.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The \u201cLife is a Human Right Act\u201d protects unborn babies except in cases of rape or incest or to save a woman\u2019s life. Senate File 109 made Wyoming the first state to specifically make it illegal \u201cto prescribe, dispense, distribute, sell or use any drug for the purpose of procuring or performing an abortion on any person,\u201d with the exceptions for rape, incest, miscarriages and when the mother\u2019s life is at risk.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Gov. Gordon immediately issued the following statement which he reiterated during his State of the State Address on Monday.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n In his State of the State Address, Gov. Gordon said<\/p>\n\n\n\n The question of abortion deserves careful `deliberation,\u2019 \u2026.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.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n All five justices agreed that Article 1, Section 38 of the Wyoming Constitution \u2014 the 2012 amendment\u2014 \u201cincludes abortion as a woman\u2019s own health care decision.\u201d Ironically, voters approved the constitutional amendment to \u201ccombat \u2018Obamacare\u2019 mandates, but [the amendment] promises health care autonomy to competent adults and parents on behalf of their children,\u201d according to Mead Gruver of the Associated Press.<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n The amendment did not mention abortion!<\/p>\n\n\n\n Reviewing arguments made before the Court in April 2025. Mead Gruber of the Associated Press<\/em> wrote<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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 \u201creasonable and necessary\u201d restrictions under the amendment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThis court is extremely deferential to the Legislature in terms of what laws are necessary,\u201d Jerde told the five justices.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Maggie Mullen<\/a> and Andrew Graham<\/a>, writing for The Wyoming News,<\/em> quoted and paraphrased Jerde at length:<\/p>\n\n\n\n When you have an individual right that\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But the right of individuals to make their own health care decisions, as specified in the state\u2019s constitution, is not a fundamental right, because of how it is qualified by another section of the constitution that empowers the Legislature.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe 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,\u201d Section 38, Subsection C reads.\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n However, four justices\u2013Fox, Boomgaarden, and Robert Jarosh\u201d\u2013 all concluded that the law should falls under the legal standard of \u2018strict scrutiny\u2019 \u2014 the toughest court standard applied to any government action.<\/p>\n\n\n\n![\"\"\/](\"https:\/\/www.lifenews.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/07\/ultrasound3d56.jpg\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n