In the wake of the 2025 Wyoming legislative session, a troubling trend is emerging: extreme-right lawmakers are pushing for bills that would severely limit access to abortion. These bills, specifically House Bill 64 and House Bill 42, aim to place further barriers between women and their reproductive rights. These bills, under the guise of ensuring safety, are, in fact, efforts to restrict choice and undermine constitutionally protected rights.

One of the bills, HB 64, called “Chemical abortions-ultrasound requirement,” mandates an unnecessary and costly ultrasound 48 hours before an abortion. Another bill, HB 42, “Regulation of surgical abortions,” forces clinics providing abortion services to acquire a specialized ambulatory surgical center license.

The Question of Safety

The proponents of these bills argue they are necessary to protect women’s health. However, the reality is that these bills are not about safety—they are about control. As a retired obstetrician with experience in prenatal diagnosis and clinical genetics, I have witnessed firsthand how important it is for women to have the autonomy to make informed decisions about their reproductive health. These decisions are not just about individual health but also about the well-being of their families.

Real-life Impact of Reproductive Decisions

I recall one couple whose fetus was diagnosed with osteogenesis imperfecta type II, a severe bone condition that causes underdeveloped lungs and fragile bones. The prognosis was grim—most babies born with this condition do not survive long after birth. When I shared the diagnosis, the couple was devastated, but after much deliberation, they decided to terminate the pregnancy. Sadly, months later, I diagnosed the same condition in their next fetus. Again, they chose to terminate, ultimately going on to have a healthy pregnancy.

This couple’s experience highlights the importance of making thoughtful and compassionate reproductive decisions. They were able to choose a path that avoided unnecessary suffering for their baby and ensured the well-being of their family. Importantly, they made these decisions without the interference of burdensome government mandates that would have only made an already heartbreaking situation more complicated.

The Role of Ultrasounds in Abortion

Mandating ultrasounds, especially before an abortion, is medically unnecessary, particularly in the early stages of pregnancy. In fact, 93% of abortions occur in the first trimester, and studies, including a 2024 study from the University of California, San Francisco, show no difference in outcomes between patients who receive an ultrasound before a medication abortion and those who do not.

Abortion procedures—both surgical and medication-based—are incredibly safe. In fact, they carry lower risks than childbirth, which is 14 times more dangerous. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists states that abortion is safer than common procedures like wisdom tooth extraction and plastic surgery. Despite this, only 2% of women experience complications, most of which are treatable.

The True Costs of These Bills

Bills like HB 64 and HB 42, while they claim to prioritize safety, would actually make abortion access even more difficult, especially for those living in rural areas. The costs—both financial and logistical—would disproportionately affect low-income individuals. Forcing a woman to undergo a 48-hour waiting period, travel for the procedure, and pay for childcare and accommodation is a significant burden, especially when ultrasounds alone can cost around $300.

These bills are not about making abortion safer. They are about creating additional hurdles for women seeking essential health care.

Legislative Overreach and Ideology

Historically, abortion has been provided safely at clinics without mandatory ultrasounds or the need for surgical center licensure. The legislative efforts behind HB 64 and HB 42 are ideologically driven, designed to target abortion services specifically, despite the fact that comparable medical procedures are not subjected to the same level of regulation. These bills represent an overreach of government power and undermine personal freedoms, which are supposed to be cornerstones of Wyoming’s values.

Trusting Medical Expertise Over Legislation

Ultimately, decisions about reproductive health care should be made by doctors, not politicians. Wyoming, a state that prides itself on limited government, should stand against bills that impose unnecessary restrictions on medical practice. The role of legislators should be to protect personal liberties, not infringe upon them by imposing medically unnecessary regulations on health care providers.

Lawmakers must reject HB 64 and HB 42 and instead focus on policies that respect the autonomy of women and uphold the expertise of the medical community. These harmful bills have no place in a state that values individual freedoms and the right to make private health care decisions.

Disclaimer – Our team has carefully fact-checked this article to make sure it’s accurate and free from any misinformation. We’re dedicated to keeping our content honest and reliable for our readers.