Wyoming judge considers abortion laws
Judge didn't decide whether to uphold or strike down law this week, but may in the coming months
Oral arguments continued this week in a Wyoming case that will determine the fate of medication abortion in the state.
Both anti-abortion and abortion rights attorneys argued that a judge should uphold or strike down new laws regulating abortion without having a trial. The Associated Press reports that Teton County District Judge Melissa Owens in Jackson didn’t immediately rule after the arguments, however, saying the complex constitutional questions in the case would take time to assess.
A three-day bench trial is set for April 15 if Owens chooses not to rule before then on the two new laws. One bans abortion except to protect to a pregnant woman’s life or in cases involving rape and incest. The other made Wyoming the only state to explicitly ban abortion pills, though other states have instituted de facto bans on the medication by broadly prohibiting abortion.
In July, Teton County Judge Melissa Owens ruled that it couldn’t go into effect until after the legal challenge had been resolved. Several pro-abortion agencies and organizations filed a complaint in the ninth judicial district in Teton County on March 17. The law that forbids medication abortion also details punishment for pharmacists who provide mifepristone and misoprostol, the two drugs that work in tandem to cause an abortion.
During the entire judicial process, the state didn’t produce one expert to testify on behalf of the new law that bans medication abortion.
Christine Lichtenfels, board member of Chelsea’s Fund, said that a ballot initiative would be virtually impossible given the makeup of the state’s legislature. Both chambers have to approve of the language placed before voters. The other possibility is a constitutional convention.
“They put up significant barriers,” Lichtenfels said. “It's not the easiest thing to do to get the right percentage of the voters out or the right percentage of counties. But what might be possible would only be for a statute that would not allow us to get a constitutional amendment.”