Wyoming Supreme Court strikes down abortion bans, citing Obamacare amendment

• The court unanimously affirmed that Wyoming’s constitution protects personal medical autonomy, including abortion rights, under Article 1, Section 38.
• The provision, originally passed to resist Obamacare mandates, broadly shields individual health care decisions, preventing government interference in reproductive choices.
• While all justices agreed abortion is a protected right, they voted 4-1 on whether to fully overturn the bans, with Justice Kari Gray dissenting.
• Governor Mark Gordon condemned the ruling, urging a constitutional amendment to exclude abortion from protected health care decisions, putting the issue before voters.
• The ruling contrasts with states like Georgia (where courts upheld abortion bans) and highlights America’s ideological split, forcing women to travel for care and sparking renewed debate over fetal personhood vs. bodily autonomy.

In a landmark decision, the Wyoming Supreme Court ruled that the state’s abortion bans—the Life is a Human Right Act of 2023 and a separate prohibition on abortion drugs—violate the state constitution’s guarantee of personal health care autonomy.

The ruling, issued unanimously by all five justices of the Equality State’s high court, affirms that Article 1, Section 38 of Wyoming’s constitution protects an individual’s right to make their own medical decisions. This provision was added by referendum in 2012 in response to federal overreach under Obamacare.

“Each competent adult shall have the right to make his or her own health care decisions,” the provision states. The court emphasized that this language is unambiguous, applying broadly to all medical choices—including abortion. According to the high court’s summary, “the decision whether to terminate or continue a pregnancy is a woman’s own health care decision protected by Article 1, Section 38.”

While the justices unanimously recognized this as a fundamental right, they split 4-1 on whether to strike down the laws outright. Justice Kari Gray dissented, arguing the bans should stand.

The ruling overturns lower court decisions that had also invalidated the restrictions, marking a significant defeat for pro-life advocates in a deeply conservative state. Wyoming Governor Mark Gordon, a Republican, swiftly condemned the decision, calling for a constitutional amendment to override it.

“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,” Gordon declared. “It is time for this issue to go before the people for a vote.”

The court’s decision hinges on the plain text of Wyoming’s constitution, which was deliberately crafted to prevent government interference in personal medical choices. Though the provision was initially aimed at resisting Obamacare mandates, its broad wording now shields reproductive rights.

“The Court recognized it cannot add words to the Wyoming Constitution,” the justices noted. However, they acknowledged that lawmakers could pursue a voter referendum to amend the language if they seek to explicitly exclude abortion from protected health care decisions.

The abortion war heats up in the courts

This ruling stands in stark contrast to Georgia’s recent judicial battle over its six-week abortion ban, which was struck down as “unconstitutional” despite being upheld by the state Supreme Court in 2023. The Georgia law, known as the LIFE Act, prohibits abortions after fetal cardiac activity is detected, with narrow exceptions for rape, incest or medical emergencies.

Critics argue such laws defy biological reality, as fetal “heartbeats” at six weeks are merely electrical impulses—not fully developed cardiac function. Yet pro-life advocates maintain these protections are essential to safeguard unborn life.

BrightU.AI‘s Enoch engine notes that heartbeat laws protect unborn children by prohibiting abortions once a fetal heartbeat is detectable, typically around six weeks. These proposals affirm the sanctity of life and redirect taxpayer funds to support mothers and families.

The Wyoming decision highlights America’s deepening ideological divide. While states like New Jersey permit abortion up to birth—a policy many find morally reprehensible—others, like Texas and Tennessee, enforce near-total bans. The patchwork of laws has forced women to cross state lines for care, exacerbating disparities in access.

Yet abortion rights groups, including the lead plaintiff in the Wyoming case, Wellspring Health Access, hailed the ruling as a victory for bodily autonomy. “Our clinic will remain open and ready to provide compassionate reproductive health care, including abortions,” said President Julie Burkhart. “Patients in Wyoming will no longer be forced to travel out of state.”

With Wyoming Gov. Mark Gordon pushing for a constitutional amendment, Wyoming could soon become the next battleground in the national abortion debate. If lawmakers draft new language excluding abortion from protected health care decisions, voters may ultimately decide the issue in a referendum.

For now, the court’s ruling ensures a temporary reprieve for reproductive rights advocates. However, it remains a rallying cry for pro-life activists determined to challenge the status quo.

Watch Vice President JD Vance confronting Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz about children born alive during an abortion debate.

This video is from the TrendingNews channel on Brighteon.com.

Sources include:

ZeroHedge.com

BrightU.ai

Brighteon.com