Wyoming’s sole provider of procedural abortions, Wellspring Health access in Casper, is at risk of closing its doors due to House Bill 42 (HB 42). The legislation,which has passed both chambers of the Wyoming legislature,now awaits Gov. Mark Gordon’s decision. This marks the second attempt in as many legislative sessions to enact such a measure, sparking meaningful debate over abortion access in the state. The bill’s requirements could force the clinic to shut down, raising concerns about reproductive healthcare access in Wyoming.

HB 42 mandates that Wellspring Health Access adhere to the stringent standards of a licensed ambulatory surgical center. This would necessitate extensive and costly renovations to the Casper facility, including modifications to doorways and hallways to meet specific size requirements. Moreover, the bill stipulates that the clinic’s physicians must obtain admitting privileges for their patients at a hospital within a 10-mile radius of Wellspring.

Wellspring Health Access has already faced considerable adversity.in 2022, an arson attack delayed the clinic’s initial opening. Since finally opening in 2023,the clinic has become a regular site for anti-abortion protests. Staff members have reported frequent threats of violence and intimidation directed at them, creating a challenging and stressful work habitat.

Supporters of HB 42 maintain that the bill is intended to safeguard the health and well-being of women seeking abortions in Wyoming, where abortion remains legal. Rep. Martha Lawley (R-Worland), the bill’s sponsor, testified before the House Labor Committee on jan. 22, stating, “[This bill] provides for basic common sense regulations for surgical abortions to protect the health and safety of women who choose to get a surgical abortion. Ther can be botched abortions,and than there’s a need for a higher level of care for that patient.“

Gov. Gordon has several options regarding HB 42. he can sign the bill into law, at which point it would take effect promptly. he can also allow the bill to become law without his signature. Notably, Gordon vetoed a similar version of HB 42 last year, citing ongoing legal challenges surrounding abortion laws in Wyoming. The governor’s decision will significantly impact the future of abortion access in the state.

Critics of HB 42 argue that the legislation is a disguised attempt to force Wellspring Health Access to close, effectively eliminating access to procedural abortions in wyoming. They point out that procedural abortion is a safe medical procedure, citing a study in the journal UCSF Research that indicates a complication rate of less than 2%. While healthcare providers sometimes refer to procedural abortion as “surgery,” it is indeed generally considered minimally invasive and frequently enough does not require anesthesia.

Kimya Forouzan, principal state policy adviser for the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit research center focused on reproductive health, emphasized the potential long-term consequences of clinic closures. “When these bills shutter clinics, we know that even if the law later changes, the rebuilding of the infrastructure to provide care can’t automatically resume,” Forouzan said at a recent press conference.

Forouzan further explained, “Even if you don’t necessarily have a total abortion ban on the books, shuttering the clinics makes it so that peopel cannot access the care in the clinic that they want or need. The provision of compassionate abortion care is not a light switch that can be turned on and off as soon as the law changes.“

The debate surrounding HB 42 underscores the ongoing conflict between those seeking to restrict abortion access and those advocating for reproductive rights. The bill’s passage through the Legislature highlights the continued efforts to regulate abortion in Wyoming, even as legal challenges to existing abortion laws persist. A Teton County district judge struck down two of the state’s abortion laws last year, citing the state Constitution and its language concerning the right of Wyomingites to make their own healthcare decisions.

The fate of Wellspring Health Access and the future of abortion access in Wyoming now hinge on Gov. Gordon’s decision regarding HB 42.The bill passed both chambers of the Legislature on Feb. 21, and the House voted to concur with the Senate’s amendments on Feb. 24, when it also landed on the governor’s desk. It’s one of at least eight bills having to do with abortion that were received for introduction during the ongoing session.

To further understand the potential impact of HB 42, we spoke with Dr. Emily Carter, a leading expert in reproductive health policy and law.

interviewer: Dr. Carter, Wyoming’s HB 42 is poised to substantially impact abortion access. Can you break down the key provisions of this bill and its potential ramifications for the state’s sole abortion provider, Wellspring Health Access?

Dr. Carter: “HB 42, at its core, imposes stringent new regulations on abortion clinics in Wyoming. These requirements, notably the mandate to function as a licensed ambulatory surgical center, are incredibly burdensome and expensive. The bill’s stipulations regarding admitting privileges at a nearby hospital also pose a major challenge. For Wellspring Health Access, compliance with these mandates is likely to be practically impossible, effectively leading to the clinic’s closure and eliminating access to procedural abortions in the state. The potential ramifications are severe, impacting not only women in Wyoming seeking abortion care but also the broader landscape of reproductive healthcare access across the region. This could led to increased reliance on unsafe methods of abortion, increased healthcare disparities, and a number of other deleterious outcomes.“

Interviewer: Supporters of HB 42 frame it as a safety measure for women seeking abortions. How do you respond to this claim, given established medical consensus on the safety of procedural abortion?

Dr. Carter: “The claim that HB 42 prioritizes patient safety is misleading. The medical consensus overwhelmingly demonstrates the safety of procedural abortion. Studies consistently show extremely low complication rates. the regulatory burdens imposed by HB 42 are far outweighed by the risks of restricting access to safe,legal abortion care. frame it this way: forcing an already struggling and frequently targeted clinic to undergo costly renovations and meet onerous requirements isn’t about safety; it’s about creating insurmountable barriers to access. This approach undermines patient autonomy and ignores clear medical evidence of its safety, effectively creating a situation that is more harmful and less safe for the individual.“

Interviewer: The bill’s opponents argue it’s a purposeful effort to restrict reproductive rights.What evidence supports this view,and what broader implications does this have for the national debate on abortion access?

Dr. Carter: “The timing and nature of HB 42 strongly suggest its purpose is beyond improving patient safety. The bill’s introduction follows a pattern; other similar bills have been introduced around this time despite a lack of evidence demonstrating the stated need. This, coupled with the well-documented harassment faced by the clinic and the legislative history of restrictive abortion laws in the state, strongly suggest a conscious effort to limit access to crucial reproductive healthcare services. This isn’t an isolated incident; it reflects a broader national pattern of strategic challenges to reproductive rights, using ostensibly ‘safety-based’ regulations to indirectly restrict access. the consequences extend to the ongoing national conversation around abortion access. It’s a textbook example of how states employ restrictive, burdensome regulations to indirectly overturn Roe V.Wade’s ruling and its subsequent implications for reproductive rights within their jurisdiction.“

Interviewer: What are the potential legal challenges ahead for HB 42, considering previous legal battles over Wyoming’s abortion laws?

Dr. Carter: “Given the recent legal challenges to Wyoming’s abortion laws, resulting in the prosperous overturning of some restrictive abortion measures by the courts, HB 42 is sure to face similarly robust legal battles.The argument that HB 42 unduly burdens a woman’s right to choose will likely be central to the challenges. The state constitution’s language regarding healthcare decisions provides a legal foothold for challenging the law’s constitutionality. We’re likely to see lawsuits filed arguing that HB 42’s restrictions violate essential constitutional rights. This is especially true given that the governor previously vetoed a similar bill.“

Interviewer: What recommendations would you offer to individuals and organizations hoping to support individuals seeking reproductive healthcare in Wyoming, and in other states facing similar restrictions?

Dr. Carter: “Individuals and organizations can take various actions to support reproductive healthcare access. This includes:

• Supporting organizations that provide legal assistance and resources to abortion providers and patients: Such groups help protect access to legal services and fight restrictive legislation.
• Advocating for policies that guarantee access to extensive sexual and reproductive healthcare services,including abortion: We must work to change the legal and political landscape where restrictions on essential healthcare threaten millions of people.
• Getting involved in political processes: We must vote to elect people who support reproductive rights and publicly support organizations working to make access to reproductive healthcare universally available to all.
• Donate to organizations that provide financial and logistical support to people seeking abortions in states with restrictive laws.

“

Interviewer: Thank you, Dr. Carter, for your insightful perspective on this critical issue.Your expertise has illuminated the complexities surrounding HB 42 and its wider implications.