Court Twist Angers Conservatives

A wooden gavel resting on a sound block with an American flag in the background — CONSERVATIVES IN OUTRAGE

Wyoming’s Supreme Court just handed pro-life advocates a devastating blow by striking down the state’s abortion bans in a shocking 4-1 decision that exploits a constitutional amendment originally designed to fight Obamacare.

Story Snapshot

The Wyoming Supreme Court ruled 4-1 to overturn both abortion bans, including the nation’s only outright abortion pill prohibition
The Court twisted a 2012 anti-Obamacare constitutional amendment into a weapon protecting abortion access
Governor Mark Gordon immediately called for a constitutional amendment vote to restore pro-life protections
This decision forces pro-life lawmakers to pursue the difficult path of amending the state constitution rather than simple legislation

Court Exploits Anti-Federal Healthcare Amendment

The Wyoming Supreme Court weaponized Article 1, Section 38 of the state constitution against pro-life protections, claiming it safeguards abortion access. This constitutional provision was enacted by Wyoming voters in 2012 specifically to resist federal healthcare mandates under the Affordable Care Act.

Conservative voters championed this amendment to preserve individual liberty and resist government overreach in healthcare decisions, never intending to create a loophole for abortion advocates to exploit decades later.

In a 4–1 ruling, the Wyoming Supreme Court struck down several abortion restrictions, including the nation’s first ban on abortion pills, legalizing abortion in Wyoming.

Follow: @AFpost pic.twitter.com/98qHELRck0

— AF Post (@AFpost) January 6, 2026

Activist Judges Override Legislative Will

Four justices—Boomgaarden, Fox, Jarosh, and Fenn—voted to invalidate both a near-total abortion ban and Wyoming’s unique prohibition on abortion pills enacted in March 2023. The court applied “strict scrutiny” review, demanding the state prove these restrictions served compelling governmental interests while narrowly tailoring protections.

Only Justice Kari Gray dissented, arguing for appropriate deference to the legislature’s constitutional authority to enact reasonable healthcare limitations reflecting the will of Wyoming’s predominantly Republican electorate.

The majority opinion demonstrates judicial activism at its worst, with unelected judges substituting their policy preferences for the democratically enacted will of the people.

Wyoming’s Republican-controlled legislature passed these pro-life protections following the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision, which properly returned abortion policy to state governments. These activist judges have now circumvented that democratic process by stretching constitutional language far beyond its original intent.

Governor Gordon Fights Back

Governor Mark Gordon immediately responded to this judicial overreach by calling for a vote on a constitutional amendment this fall. “It is time for this issue to go before the people for a vote, and I believe it should go before them this fall,” Gordon declared.

This represents the only viable path forward for protecting unborn life in Wyoming, though it requires the more challenging process of amending the state constitution rather than simple legislative action.

The decision effectively strips power from elected representatives and forces pro-life advocates to pursue constitutional amendments requiring voter approval.

This judicial power grab redistributes authority from the legislature to activist courts, undermining the democratic process and creating additional barriers to implementing conservative values through normal legislative channels.

National Implications for Pro-Life Movement

This ruling threatens to encourage similar constitutional challenges in other conservative states where abortion rights advocates might exploit broadly worded healthcare provisions.

Wyoming was the only state implementing a complete abortion pill ban, making this decision particularly damaging to nationwide efforts to protect unborn life.

The court’s interpretation could inspire litigation strategies in states with similar constitutional language, potentially undermining pro-life legislation nationwide.