Proudly Serving the Hulet and Devils Tower Community
Proudly Serving the Hulet and Devils Tower Community
JACKSON — In a written opinion filed Friday morning, the Wyoming Supreme Court declined the appeal of two state lawmakers and an anti-abortion nonprofit to become parties to a case challenging two abortion bans.
The intervenors — represented by Tim Garrison of the Alliance Defending Freedom, a national Christian legal advocacy group — argued in front of the justices Dec. 12 that they were not being adequately represented by the state Attorney General’s Office and that they had special interests in the case’s outcome.
The three parties — Right to Life of Wyoming, and state Reps. Rachel Rodriguez-Williams, R-Cody, and Chip Neiman, R-Hulett — appeared before the justices after appealing a June denial by 9th Judicial District Court Judge Melissa Owens.
Right to Life of Wyoming drafted the Life is a Human Right Act, a general ban on abortion with some exceptions, and Rodriguez-Williams was the chief sponsor of the legislation.
In addition to the Life is a Human Right Act, a second ban on medication abortions is also being challenged by the group of plaintiffs. They include Jackson OB-GYN Dr. Giovannina Anthony, Dr. Rene Hinkle, two women of childbearing age and two abortion access nonprofits.
It is the first ban on medication abortions in the nation.
Both laws were halted in March while the case plays out in Teton County District Court.
In her second denial of the intervenors in two years, Owens wrote in June that allowing their evidence and arguments might politicize the case. The Wyoming Supreme Court agreed.
“Our concern with allowing intervention based on a policy interest shared by the general public is the potential for interjection of political debate into a purely legal proceeding,” the opinion filed Feb. 2 stated. “Courts are not forums for such debates.”
The Alliance Defending Freedom’s Garrison said at the December hearing that contrary evidence was needed to rebut the plaintiffs’ evidence, evidence that the Attorney General’s Office has declined to include, stating the case merely requires a legal analysis of whether the two laws are constitutional or unconstitutional on their face.
“What [the intervenors] have shown is a difference in litigation strategy, which is insufficient to establish inadequacy of representation,” the opinion said.
The trio cited their years of advocacy as a reason their interests rose above that of the general public’s in the outcome of the case. The justices said their advocacy did not rise to the legal standard for intervention.
The written decision concluded that Teton County District Court did not “err or abuse its discretion.” The justices affirmed Owens’ decision that their involvement may delay the case.
“The District Court denied permissive intervention on grounds the State Defendants were adequately representing the Proposed Intervenors’ interests and intervention would unduly delay and prejudice the case’s adjudication,” the opinion said. “We find no abuse of discretion in its ruling.”
Following a Dec. 14 hearing, Owens is weighing whether to rule in favor of the plaintiffs or the state defendants ahead of trial. However the case is decided in District Court, it’s expected that the decision will be appealed to the Wyoming Supreme Court.
