Abortion group wants to keep secretary of state, legislators, out of court case

JACKSON — A group of doctors, nonprofits and women of childbearing age who are fighting to keep abortion legal in Wyoming are asking a judge to keep several abortion foes and the secretary of state out of a lawsuit seeking to overturn the state ban.
 
As that court case continues, abortion remains legal in Wyoming after a temporary restraining order by Teton County District Judge Melissa Owens. And amid the legal fight over the ban, a second Wyoming clinic offering abortions opened in Casper this week.
 
A motion filed April 20 asking Owens to deny the request of four intervenors who wish to defend the law said their request is based on little more than an ideological investment in abortion.
 
Last year on Nov. 30, Owens denied a similar request to intervene on behalf of two state lawmakers and an anti-abortion advocacy group that wished to defend the 2022 trigger ban.
 
Now, State Rep. Rachel Rodriguez-Williams, a Cody Republican who sponsored both the 2022 and 2023 bans; state Rep. Chip Neiman, R-Hulett; and Right to Life of Wyoming are joined by Secretary of State Chuck Gray in their request to join the case and defend the 2023 law. They are being represented by a national Christian legal advocacy group, the Alliance Defending Freedom.
 
A more detailed version of the 2022 trigger ban, the new law passed in the 2023 legislative session, bans abortions except in cases of sexual assault, incest, imminent peril and various medical circumstances. It also expressly states that “abortion is not health care.”
 
“In support of their motion, the proposed intervenors have filed a virtually identical brief making the exact same arguments the Court previously rejected,” plaintiffs’ attorneys John Robinson, Marci Bramlet, Peter Modlin and Megan Cooney wrote in their opposing response.
 
The lawyers state that courts “routinely” reject intervention by similarly situated groups in reproductive rights cases like this one.
 
The filing also states that the intervenors have not identified how the outcome of the case would impair their outlined interests of crafting laws, advocating for anti-abortion causes and policy preferences. They can continue to do those things in the future, the lawyers state.
 
“Unlike the plaintiffs, nothing in this action could prevent them from making their own choices related to abortion,” the 28-page filing states.
 
In their request, the proposed intervenors argued that Special Assistant Attorney General Jay Jerde was inadequate in his defense of the ban. He is not presenting the kind of evidence they plan to present — namely, that abortions harm women and the unborn.
 
The plaintiffs stated that the proposed intervenors’ qualms amount to mere strategical differences and Attorney General Bridget Hill, who is named as a defendant in the suit, has committed to fully participating.
 
The plaintiffs include two women of childbearing age, two obstetric physicians and two abortion access nonprofits. They are suing the state, Gov. Mark Gordon, Attorney General Bridget Hill, Teton County Sheriff Matt Carr and Jackson Chief of Police Michelle Weber. Jerde is representing the state defendants.
 
The legislators have asked to intervene to ensure that their constituents’ policy preferences take effect.
 

 
Secretary of State Chuck Gray was not involved in enacting either last year’s trigger ban or the law that has now replaced it. By virtue of his role as “custodian of legislative acts,” Gray stated, he has an interest in enforcing the will of the people.
 
Right to Life Wyoming wrote that it wishes to intervene to ensure that its advocacy efforts on behalf of women and children are not wasted. The president of Right to Life Wyoming, Marti Halverson, also has experience crafting laws as a House representative for Lincoln, Sublette and Teton counties from 2013 to 2018.
 
In her denial last year, Owens found that the legislators’ ability to enact laws was not infringed upon.
 
She also wrote that while the intervenors “unquestionably” have a personal stake in the litigation, this is a generalized interest held by many, including the entire state Legislature and “likely by any Wyoming citizen.”
 
In their response opposing intervention, the plaintiffs wrote that this generalized interest logic also applies to Gray.
 
The April 20 opposing motion states that allowing the intervenors into the case would unduly delay its outcome. Owens agreed with this last year.
 
“The fact that the proposed intervenors [would delay the case] is illustrated by the evidence they attempted to submit in opposition to the plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order,” the filing states.
 
That evidence included a “lengthy” affidavit from Dr. Ingrid Skop, the plaintiffs state, who works for an anti-abortion advocacy organization.
 
The briefing cites five instances from 2021 to 2023 where courts in Florida and South Carolina determined Skop’s testimony on certain abortion complications was inaccurate, overstated or based on decades-old data and “provided no credible scientific basis.”
 
In her April 17 order outlining the legal arguments behind her temporary restraining order, Owens stated that she is working to resolve the intervenors’ request. Once she issues her decision on whether they’ll be allowed to intervene, future hearings will be set.
 
This story was published on April 22, 2023.