During the 2021 Wyoming Legislative Session, the number of anti-abortion bills supported by the Diocese of Cheyenne outnumbered support for bills of other issues. Some may see this as evidence that the diocese is overly focused on “one issue.” But it is important to remember the true nature of what this one issue concerns, without being anesthetized by soft-sounding language.

I wish we only had to support one bill that would seek to give full, legal protection to every preborn child. Unfortunately, previous decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court prevent states from considering the issue head-on. The best strategies for giving the preborn the most protection possible right now, as well as strategies for how best to compel the Supreme Court to re-examine previous decisions, are anything but certain. This is the reason why some states are putting forward so many different pro-life bills.

Last year, the governor vetoed this bill. This year, a slightly different version of the bill was brought forward, and it passed and was signed by Governor Gordon. To understand the need for this bill, we must understand that abortion providers are not confused by political rhetoric surrounding the abortion debate. Providers know the preborn baby is a living human being. They also understand how arbitrary it is to be told that the same life they intend to terminate, must now be saved simply because it has passed the birth canal. This law seeks to interrupt the inertia of finishing what one has started by clearly stating that the must be treated the same as a child who happens to be born prematurely.  

This bill created the possibility of first- and second-degree murder charges for crimes committed against a pregnant woman that result in the death of her unborn child. Existing law only allows for the penalty of murder for the death of the child, if the mother dies as well. If the mother lives, and the child dies, prior to this bill there was no possibility of a murder charge.

When this law goes into effect in July 2021, our legal schizophrenia will become very evident. We will see that being alive and being human are not enough to qualify for full, legal protection in Wyoming. The final necessary qualifier for human rights is whether or not one is wanted. We have to ask ourselves, “Do we remember what it is like to feel unwanted? Are we comfortable with that being a precedent through which the state can void its responsibilities for anyone?” 

One particular loss I was disappointed with was the Human Life Equality Act, which was brought by Representative John Romero. This bill would have prohibited abortions sought because of the preborn child’s sex, race, or disability. This legislation would have been hard to enforce, but it would have given pause to those providers who actively counsel parents of Down’s Syndrome children to abort them.

According to a CBS News report, 67 percent of babies diagnosed with Down's Syndrome in the United States were aborted between 1995 and 2011.   

This year, supporters of this bill gave another valiant effort. This time, it was introduced in the senate, but it failed, 11-19. My initial reaction to the debate was that none of the legislators ever will have to watch the implementation of a person’s state-ordered death. I would guess most of them probably have never seen another person die as the result of another person’s intentional actions. And if/when Wyoming executes another prisoner, none of them will have to be troubled by watching the state carry it out. 

Naturally, a lot of focus of the debate was on victims and their families—as there needs to be. Many people are unable to acknowledge that humans are incapable of restoring perfect justice. We can never restore what is taken from a victim’s family by murdering the perpetrator. One well-respected senator, talked about how the death penalty is a tool for the state. She said prosecutors can use it to make the accused plea bargain. The threat of the death penalty also may be used to compel the convicted to provide information about the location of victims’ bodies. These are important considerations, of course. That kind of information can go a long way to help victims’ loved ones gain closure.

But at what cost?

Holocaust survivor Viktor Frankl once said that there were only two kinds of politicians—he did not say Republican and Democrat. He said one kind are those who believe that a good end is justified by the means, any means at all. The other kind, he said, are those who recognize that there are some means that would desecrate even the most noble of ends.

Helping a murder victim’s family gain closure is a most noble end. The state threatening to become a murderer in the name of the people and using tax dollars to do it is a desecration of that noble end.

Indeed, the death penalty can be used as a tool. A “Google” search reveals that many countries around the world agree. Are we comfortable being on that list?   

As someone who was once accused by a state senator of hate for merely showing up to a meeting while being Catholic, I do have a significant interest in this discussion.

In my opinion, the most glaring omission in the bill draft was the fact that politics were not listed. I believe that politics is what is driving most of the hate our country is witnessing today. To say we are going to increase penalties for crimes committed out of hatred for various reasons and leave out politics is inexplicable.

A representative for the ACLU testified that studies indicate that hate crime laws do not lead to a decrease in hate crimes.

But the Cheyenne Chamber of Commerce, Wal-Mart, UPS, and several other businesses all testified in favor of the hate crimes bill. It seemed to me that there was a lot of good intent at play, but if what the ACLU says is true, passing a hate crimes bill is really nothing more than virtue signaling, and there are significant concerns about how these laws are implemented. 

The Judiciary committee will be looking at this idea during the interim.

This bill also was sponsored by Representative John Romero-Martinez. Many current and former Republican members of the Joint Appropriations Committee spoke in favor of it. They testified that they had voted against it for many years, but they were unable to find acceptable alternate solutions. So, they finally decided it was the only option and the right thing to do.

Unfortunately, the bill was voted down in the Senate Labor/Health Committee 2-3.

If you are unfamiliar with Medicaid expansion, below is a brief summary.

If an individual makes enough money to afford health insurance, he or she will have healthcare coverage. If an individual is at or below 138% of the federal poverty level (FPL) which is about an $8.50 hourly wage for a single individual, Medicaid will provide healthcare coverage. However, if that individual earns just over that amount, he or she will lose Medicaid coverage, and that income amount is still too low for a person to reasonably afford healthcare coverage. So, in many cases, people will pass on taking higher paying jobs because they will lose healthcare coverage. This prevents upward mobility—in some cases it prohibits pursuing dignified work.

So, in this scenario, if the same three individuals contract the same treatable illness, two of them will receive treatment and one will not. While this is not the same as a direct attack on human life, it is still a prolife position.

One of the arguments I heard from senate committee members was that government should not be in the business of providing healthcare. I spent some time working for the government. I’ve certainly seen how inefficient it can be, so that argument carries some weight.

But the Wyoming Department of Health has been around a while. Like it or not, the government has been providing healthcare for a long time. It also occurred to me that the VA is government healthcare. Certainly, the VA has had its problems. And I am a vet. I’m not trying to raise the hackles of my veteran brothers and sisters. I’m just asking the question of those who claim to stand against Medicaid expansion on the principle that the government shouldn’t be in the business of healthcare. Is that a principle you are willing to consistently stand on? Or is it just something brought up when it comes to ensuring the poor?

I just can’t imagine anyone suggesting that until we find a private solution, our veterans should go without healthcare on the premise that government should not be involved in healthcare.   

Others who opposed the bill said that people would take advantage of the coverage and abuse it. Wherever human beings are, there will always be someone who may potentially abuse the system. It is good stewardship for legislators to take measures to limit abuse as much as possible. But the absence of a perfect solution is never an argument against making a positive impact for the common good.

Also important to note is that healthcare coverage is not the same as welfare. I don’t know anyone who dreams about spending more time in the doctor’s office. It is actually the last place most people want to be, but access to healthcare is a pro-life issue.

Nevertheless, the bill failed. Reportedly, it could come back up during the special a special session this summer.

An amendment to last year’s budget bill prohibited the University of Wyoming from using funds to provide healthcare coverage for elective abortions. HB253 sought to codify that budget amendment into state statute. It also expanded the mandate to include community colleges. Unfortunately, a Senate amendment was adopted that limited the prohibition to “appropriated” funds, meaning that funds raised through student fees, for example, can still be used to provide elective abortion coverage. The amended bill passed and was signed by Governor Gordon.

Until now, surrogacy was not treated in state statute. It wasn’t legal or illegal but it has been happening. This bill was brought by a legislator who has a couple in his district who could not conceive. The couple had the wife’s sister become a surrogate. When the child is born, the biological father and the surrogate mother will be on the birth certificate. This bill makes it possible for the biological mother to automatically be on the birth certificate just like the biological father.  

Unfortunately, by positively treating surrogacy in statute without any restrictions, the bill opens a dangerous door. Unlike adoption, surrogacy is the creation of a child with the intention of separating the child from the birth mother. Even aside from all of the ethical problems with IVF, surrogacy agreements are contracts that commodify children.

My colleague in South Dakota has been studying this issue for years and has shared some incredible stories.

One woman formed a contract with a couple from Spain who wanted twins, one boy and one girl. Unfortunately, the girl died in the womb, and the boy turned out to be twin boys. The couple was furious because, in their words, “They didn’t pay for twin boys.”

Another woman, who is in favor of legalizing surrogacy, contracted with a couple from China. They actually stated in the contract that even though the child would be born in the U.S., something that normally grants a child U.S. citizenship, the child would, in fact, be a Chinese citizen.

Children are a gift. No one has a “right” to children. No one has a “right” to another person. This is the language of slavery.
Imagine the poor single mother who is contracted with the promise of making money by renting out her womb, or the vulnerable college student.   

Unfortunately, our concerns were largely ignored, and the bill passed. They did amend the bill so that couples will have to be residents of Wyoming for a year before they can contract with a surrogate. That was helpful, but many problems still remain.