Connect with us

Wyoming

Will a new Wyoming law protect providers or limit abortions? It depends on which lawyer you ask. – WyoFile

Published

on

Will a new Wyoming law protect providers or limit abortions? It depends on which lawyer you ask. – WyoFile


The same group of abortion rights advocates whose legal challenges have stymied past attempts to stop or limit abortion in Wyoming is seeking to block part of another new law.

That statute, which goes into effect July 1, codifies what is already a long-standing medical practice: that providers can legally prescribe U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved medications for unapproved or off-label uses without fear of punishment from Wyoming licensing boards. But the new law exempts drugs intended to induce an abortion from those protections.

Abortion rights advocates worry the law “indirectly bans abortion medication by threatening physicians and pharmacists with disciplinary action for prescribing off-label use” of certain drugs that are commonly used for medication abortions. On Monday, they asked a judge to block enforcement of the part of the statute that pertains to abortion while their broader lawsuit against it and two other new abortion laws proceed through the courts.

Filings from the lawsuit challenging Wyoming’s abortion bans. (Angus M. Thuermer, Jr./WyoFile)

State attorneys, who are defending all three of the laws, asked Judge Thomas T.C. Campbell to allow the off-label law to go into effect as written. They dispute that the law is another attempt to limit access to abortion medications in Wyoming. Instead, they contend it merely clarifies that the law would not supersede the Wyoming Legislature’s 2023 ban on abortion medications, which is on hold pending a Wyoming Supreme Court ruling expected later this year.

Advertisement

In the meantime, abortion remains legal in Wyoming.

Off-label prescriptions

Prescribing medications for off-label purposes — in other words, uses not approved by the FDA — is common practice and can be a valuable tool for health care providers. Drugs approved to treat one type of cancer might be prescribed off-label for another type of cancer. Or a doctor might, for example, prescribe propranolol, which is approved for treatment of high blood pressure, for some types of anxiety. A medication in a different dose than what is FDA-approved would also qualify as off-label use.

In 2023, the Wyoming Legislature considered a bill intended to offer protections for providers who prescribe off-label drugs. Then Rep. Sarah Penn, R-Lander, sponsored the bill in the wake of a COVID-era controversy over hydroxychloroquine, an FDA-approved malaria drug that some providers prescribed to treat the virus. Some of those doctors faced the prospect of disciplinary actions in other states for providing what critics said was misinformation about the drug.

Rep. Gary Brown listens at the House Corporations, Elections and Political Subdivisions meeting on Jan. 15, 2025. (Mike Vanata for WyoFile)

Penn’s bill failed, but Rep. Gary Brown, R-Cheyenne, successfully brought back a similar measure this year. House Bill 164, “Medical prescriptions-off-label purposes,” codified the practice of prescribing off-label medications. But it specified those protections did not apply to schedule I or II controlled substances (such as heroin or fentanyl), gender care for children and medications intended to induce an abortion. 

The most common regimen of those abortion medications includes the drugs mifepristone and misoprostol. Typically, a patient takes mifepristone first, then misoprostol one or two days later, according to medical providers cited in the plaintiff’s court documents. Both drugs are used off-label for abortion care in some circumstances.

Old case, new challenge

Wyoming’s lone abortion clinic — Casper’s Wellspring Health Access — and a group of abortion rights advocates are already suing to challenge two other laws from the 2025 legislative session. One added more stringent restrictions on abortion clinics, while a second required ultrasounds and a 48-hour waiting period. 

Advertisement

In April, Judge Campbell blocked enforcement of those laws while the legal challenge proceeds. On Monday, both sides appeared virtually in Natrona County District Court to debate whether HB 164 should also be halted while the broader case plays out.

Wellspring Health Access is pictured in February 2025 in central Casper. The clinic provides abortion services. (Joshua Wolfson/WyoFile)

Like past court hearings, abortion rights advocates used a 2012 amendment to the Wyoming Constitution, which protects people’s rights to make their own health care decisions, to help make their case. That amendment allows the Legislature to determine “reasonable and necessary restrictions” when they protect general health and welfare, and was cited by Teton County District Judge Melissa Owens when she struck down a pair of 2023 abortion bans in November.

Exempting abortion medications from off-label protections is not reasonable or necessary for public health, and is therefore unconstitutional, plaintiff’s attorney Bethany Saul argued. Most abortions are performed with medications, and the evidence shows those drugs are safe and rarely produce serious complications. 

And yet, health care providers who prescribe abortion drugs would be singled out by HB 164 and exempted from its protections without good reason, Saul told the court. If the law goes into effect as it’s now written, she added, providers may not prescribe the proper medications for their patients due to fears they might face future disciplinary actions from state licensing boards.

“This is not just a perceived risk,” she said. “We are facing a real risk.”

After receiving a ruling from District Court Judge Melissa Owens, Marci Bramlet, an attorney representing the plaintiffs suing the state, talks with plaintiffs Dr. Giovannina Anthony and Christine Lichtenfels on March 25 in district court in Jackson. (Kathryn Ziesig/Jackson Hole News&Guide/pool)

Senior Attorney General John Woykovsky defended the law, arguing the plaintiffs were misinterpreting HB 164. Brown, the bill’s chief sponsor, included the abortion medication exemption not as a backdoor attempt at banning the practice, but rather to align his legislation with the medication abortion ban passed by lawmakers in 2023. 

That ban, while on hold, could go into effect if the Wyoming Supreme Court rules it constitutional. The state’s highest court heard arguments on that case in April and is expected to rule later this year. If the justices affirm a lower-court decision that the ban is unconstitutional, then the abortion medication exemption in HB 164 has no effect, Woykovsky argued. He disputed the idea that the new law would discourage providers from prescribing off-label use of the medications.

Advertisement

“As it stands now, there are no laws in place to prohibit the use of off-label drugs for abortions,” he said. “And there should be no chilling effect.”

Judge Campbell listened to about an hour of arguments from both sides. He did not rule at the hearing, but said he would issue a decision as soon as possible given the law will go into effect in just over a week.





Source link

Advertisement

Wyoming

Teton Pass closed in both directions due to avalanche, possibly until Tuesday

Published

on

Teton Pass closed in both directions due to avalanche, possibly until Tuesday


WILSON, Wyo. — Another complicated day for Teton Pass commuters.

WY22 over Teton Pass is closed in both directions due to avalanche control as of 8 a.m. on Monday, Dec. 22, according to an alert issued by the Wyoming Department of Transportation (WYDOT). WYDOT’s estimated opening time for the road is between noon and 2 p.m. on Tuesday, Dec. 23.

Photo: Bridger-Teton Avalanche Center

WYDOT had closed the pass at 3 a.m. Monday for avalanche control. According to a post by the Bridger-Teton Avalanche Center (BTAC), a “large explosive triggered avalanche” ended up covering both lanes of the Pass.

“Early this morning, WYDOT crews brought down a large, controlled avalanche at Glory Bowl during their mitigation mission,” the agency posted to Facebook Monday morning. “Due to the extent of the clean up, estimated opening time is between noon and 2 p.m. tomorrow.”

Advertisement
Photo: WYDOT Teton County on Facebook

WYDOT confirmed to Buckrail that the dense, heavy slide is being addressed by a dozer on Monday morning, and that clearing the snow will take several hours. The agency expects to share an updated opening time estimate as the cleanup unfolds.

According to BTAC’s Monday forecast, high avalanche danger exists in the Tetons.

“Heavy snowfall and strong wind has created very dangerous avalanche conditions on wind loaded middle and upper elevation terrain,” its forecast states.

This is a developing story. Buckrail will provide information as details become available.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Wyoming

Man taken into custody after police standoff in Wyoming

Published

on

Man taken into custody after police standoff in Wyoming


WYOMING, Mich. (WOOD) — Wyoming police officers were seen taking a man into custody after an hours-long standoff Sunday night.

Police swarmed Thorndyke Avenue near 44th Street SW in Wyoming for several hours after a man barricaded himself inside a home. A News 8 crew watched officers remove a man from the barricaded home in handcuffs around 11:35 p.m. Sunday.

A neighbor who lives on Thorndyke Avenue told News 8 that the incident began when a man who lives on the street left his house to confront a group of men who were working on the roof of a nearby property. The neighbor heard a single gunshot before the man retreated into his home.

Advertisement

Thorndyke Avenue was blocked off for hours with those living on the street unable to get to their houses. Those already inside were asked to remain inside.



Source link

Continue Reading

Wyoming

Hunting: Arkansas might feel ripples from Wyoming public land access case | Northwest Arkansas Democrat-Gazette

Published

on

Hunting: Arkansas might feel ripples from Wyoming public land access case | Northwest Arkansas Democrat-Gazette


Hunters won a major decision for public land access in Wyoming recently, and the ripples will ultimately reach Arkansas.

In October, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Iron Bar Holdings, LLC v. Cape et al., preserving a unanimous decision by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals’ upholding the legality of “corner crossing.” The case involved a Wyoming landowner that pressed trespassing charges against four Missouri hunters who cut across the corner of the landowner’s fence to get from one public parcel to another.

Law enforcement has traditionally supported landowners in “corner crossing” situations. It is an effective method to restrict public access to public land that is surrounded by private land. By restricting corner crossing, landowners have exclusive access to public land abutting their property. They can hunt it without competition, and they can run guided hunts on it.

We have encountered that situation personally while hunting in Oklahoma. A situation in Arkansas occurred about a decade ago where a landowner closed a road on his property that leads to a remote portion of Cache River National Wildlife Refuge. There’s the ongoing conflict between public land hunters in northeast Arkansas and the Hatchie Coon Hunting Club.

Advertisement

Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, which in 2021 successfully campaigned to prevent the University of Arkansas from selling the Pine Tree Experimental Station Wildlife Demonstration Area to private interests, filed amicus filings in the Wyoming case and raised funds for the hunters’ legal defense. Backcountry Hunters & Anglers said in a release that the 10th Circuit’s decision preserves access to more than 3.5 million acres of public lands in Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, Kansas and Oklahoma. Impact might also expand to about 8.3 million acres across the West.

“The Supreme Court’s action affirms a principle hunters and anglers have long understood: corner crossing is not a crime,” said Devin O’Dea, western policy and conservation manager for Backcountry Hunters & Anglers. “Access to 3.5 million acres of public lands has been secured because four hunters from Missouri took a leap of faith across a corner, and the Wyoming Chapter of BHA stood up in their defense. It’s a victory worth celebrating, and a key domino in the fight for public land access across the West.”

In a sense, the Iron Bar Holdings decision dovetails with Arkansas v. McIlroy, a landmark 1980 case that preserved and expanded public access to Arkansas streams and rivers with a creative interpretation of the term “navigable.” Before McIlroy, “navigable” referred to the farthest distance upstream that a steamboat could go in high water. Landowners on the Mulberry River strung barbed wire across the river. Sometimes they physically accosted paddlers. McIlroy extended navigability definition to canoes and kayaks, creating the paddling environment that so many people enjoy.

Missouri recognizes public access rights to paddlecraft navigable waters, but one still risks an adversarial encounter with territorial landowners on many streams in the state. My former boss Dan Witter and several other Missouri Department of Conservation employees were forced off a well-known river at gunpoint. As Witter told me at the time, the law was on their side, but a streamside encounter with an armed and angry landowner is not the time or place to debate it.

Some public parcels are entirely enclosed by private land. There is no access to those parcels, corner crossings or otherwise. I have a friend in Roger Mills County, Oklahoma, whose land enclosed a 160-acre public Bureau of Land Management parcel. I quipped that it would be worthwhile for a hunter to hire a helicopter to airlift him into the property.

Advertisement

Without cracking a hint of a smile, the landowner said a helicopter pilot would have to get permission to overfly his property, and that he would not grant it.

As people migrate away from cities and turn rural hamlets into suburbs, the demand for access to public land will intensify. The courts appear to sympathize with the public in access disputes, and the Iron Bar decision will ultimately factor into access disputes in Arkansas.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending