Wyoming Supreme Court Rules Abortion Will Remain Legal, Overturning State Bans

The Wyoming Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that abortion will remain legal in the state, striking down two restrictive laws, including the nation’s first explicit ban on abortion pills. In a decisive 4-1 ruling, justices determined both laws violated the Wyoming constitution’s healthcare provisions.

The court’s decision upholds previous lower court rulings and represents a significant victory for abortion rights advocates in one of America’s most conservative states. All five justices were appointed by Republican governors, highlighting the legal rather than partisan nature of the decision.

The case centered on a 2012 state constitutional amendment that ensures competent adults have the right to make their own healthcare decisions. While acknowledging the amendment wasn’t specifically written to address abortion, the justices declined to “add words” to the constitution to exclude abortion from healthcare protections.

“But lawmakers could ask Wyoming voters to consider a constitutional amendment that would more clearly address this issue,” the justices wrote in their opinion.

The ruling benefits Wellspring Health Access in Casper, Wyoming’s only abortion clinic, which opened in 2023 after delays caused by an arson attack. The perpetrator of that attack is currently serving a five-year prison sentence for causing extensive damage to the facility.

Julie Burkhart, President of Wellspring Health Access, celebrated the decision in a statement, saying it upholds abortion as “essential health care” free from government interference. “Our clinic will remain open and ready to provide compassionate reproductive health care, including abortions, and our patients in Wyoming will be able to obtain this care without having to travel out of state,” Burkhart said.

The state’s legal team had argued that abortion should not be considered healthcare under the Wyoming constitution, a position the court ultimately rejected.

Wyoming Governor Mark Gordon expressed disappointment with the ruling and called on state lawmakers to pass a constitutional amendment banning abortion when they meet later this winter. Such an amendment would require voter approval in the fall.

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

The ruling overturned two specific laws: one that banned abortion except to protect a pregnant woman’s life or in cases of rape or incest, and another that would have made Wyoming the only state to explicitly ban abortion pills. The medication ban was particularly significant as other states have implemented de facto prohibitions on abortion medication through broader abortion restrictions.

Teton County District Judge Melissa Owens had previously blocked these bans while the lawsuit proceeded, striking them down as unconstitutional in 2024. The Supreme Court’s decision upholds her ruling.

Wyoming also passed additional abortion restrictions last year that would require abortion clinics to be licensed as surgical centers and mandate ultrasounds before medication abortions. These laws remain blocked by a separate legal challenge.

The Wyoming decision stands in contrast to developments in North Dakota, where that state’s Supreme Court recently overturned an earlier ruling to uphold their abortion ban in November. Currently, thirteen states have total abortion bans in effect.

The legal landscape surrounding abortion rights has become increasingly complex and varied by state since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022. Wyoming’s ruling demonstrates that even in deeply conservative states, state constitutions and their specific provisions regarding healthcare autonomy can provide protections for abortion access that supersede legislative attempts at restriction.

As abortion remains legal in Wyoming for now, the issue appears headed for a potential constitutional referendum that would allow voters to directly weigh in on the matter’s future in the state.