Bill requiring a transvaginal ultrasound before taking an abortion pill clears Senate
CHEYENNE – Senators overwhelmingly supported a House bill Tuesday afternoon that requires women to undergo a transvaginal ultrasound no more than 48 hours before taking an abortion pill.
House Bill 64, 'Chemical abortion-ultrasound requirement,' will now go back to the House of Representatives for a concurrence vote on the Senate amendments. If House members concur, the bill heads to the governor's desk. If representatives fail to concur, three appointed members from each chamber will meet to debate the bill in a joint conference committee.
Wyoming Freedom Caucus member and House Speaker Chip Neiman, R-Hulett, the bill's primary sponsor, has called HB 64 'compassionate legislation.' The 48-hour waiting period, which is not based on scientific or medical fact, is a time window for women to reflect on the decision before terminating their pregnancy, Neiman said.
The House speaker at first denied this as anti-abortion legislation, running on the premise that it's geared toward protecting women. On the House floor, however, Neiman admitted his intent behind the legislation is to discourage pregnant women from seeking an abortion.
'I definitely want to try everything that I possibly can to provide the opportunity for life to exist and have that chance,' Neiman said during the bill's second reading in the House.
Constitutional arguments
In the Senate, a bipartisan handful of lawmakers spoke against the bill, arguing it violated a Wyoming constitutional provision that allows competent adults to make their own health care decisions. Sen. Chris Rothfuss, D-Laramie, said this bill 'is the poster child' of what that provision 'obligates (the Legislature) to protect against.'
He also pointed to another section of that provision, which requires the state 'to preserve these rights from undue governmental infringement.'
Sen. Chris Rothfuss, D-Laramie (2025)
Sen. Chris Rothfuss, D-Laramie
'Mr. President, that's our job,' Rothfuss said. 'We're the government that is supposed to be there for the people, to preserve these rights from undue governmental infringement. And yet here we are bringing legislation that is unreasonable, irrational and medically unjustified, undue infringement.'
Sen. Cale Case, R-Lander, who voted against HB 64, said the state government is wrongly inserting itself into the state Constitution. The Lander senator also referred to Article 1, section 7 of the Wyoming Constitution, which prohibits 'absolute, arbitrary power.'
Sen. Cale Case, R-Lander (2025)
Sen. Cale Case, R-Lander
'This is the Senate, the Wyoming Legislature, exercising absolute power, going against professional boards that we've established, going against licensing procedures, going against a constitutional amendment that guarantees persons the right to make their own health care decisions,' Case said. 'If you don't like what the Constitution says, you have the right to change it.'
Sen. Lynn Hutchings, R-Cheyenne, said the Wyoming Constitution also allows the Legislature to 'determine reasonable and necessary restrictions … to protect the health and general welfare of the people or to accomplish the other purposes set forth in the Wyoming Constitution.'
Sen. Lynn Hutchings, R-Cheyenne (2025)
Sen. Lynn Hutchings, R-Cheyenne
'I think it's our right and desire to try to do everything we can to either stop it or make it as safe as possible,' Hutchings said.
Sen. Charles Scott, R-Casper, who voted against HB 64, said this bill exacerbated Wyoming's health care crisis.
Sen. Charles Scott, R-Casper (2025)
Sen. Charles Scott, R-Casper
'We're having a shortage of doctors in Wyoming in obstetrics gynecology,' Scott said. 'This is … exacerbating our problem.'
Senate amendments
Sen. Gary Crum, R-Laramie, tried to add an amendment that removed the requirement for the transvaginal ultrasound, based on public testimony arguing this is an extremely invasive procedure. He visited with several medical providers who told him a topical ultrasound would be able to tell the viability of a fetus.
Sen. Gary Crum, R-Laramie (2025)
Sen. Gary Crum, R-Laramie
'I think this bill is to check the viability of life and protect the life of an unborn child,' Crum said, 'not to hurt or embarrass someone.'
However, several Republican senators argued this ultrasound would fail to detect how far along the woman is in the pregnancy, and his amendment failed in a voice vote.
Sen. Evie Brennan, R-Cheyenne (2025)
Sen. Evie Brennan, R-Cheyenne
Sen. Evie Brennan, R-Cheyenne, successfully brought an amendment to the bill that reduces the felony penalty to a misdemeanor. Instead of a sentence of up to five years in prison, up to a $20,000 fine or both, Brennan's amendment reduced it to a maximum of six months imprisonment, up to a $9,000 fine or both.
Other Senate amendments adopted in the bill altered some definitions to align with medical terminology or other legislation.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Russia won't let Ukrainian forces rest until Putin's demands are met – Russian deputy foreign minister
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov has stated that Moscow will not allow the Armed Forces of Ukraine to "use any pause to rest and regroup" without "eliminating the root causes of the conflict". Source: Ryabkov in an interview with Kremlin-aligned Russian news agency TASS Details: Ryabkov emphasised that US President Donald Trump's return to the White House has become a "reason for cautious optimism" in Russia regarding the normalisation of relations with the United States. He said that Russian leader Vladimir Putin during phone conversations with Trump "confirmed the basic directive on the necessity to eliminate the root causes of the conflict within the framework of political and diplomatic efforts". Ryabkov noted that if the Kremlin's conditions are not met, Russia will act to prevent the Armed Forces of Ukraine from taking advantage of "any pause to rest and regroup". According to him, the Kremlin's position is well known to Washington and threats of sanctions will not change it. "It is strange that hotheads in the US Senate, who have lost their last remnants of common sense, are ignoring this reality. We will continue efforts to achieve the objectives of the special military operation [Russian propaganda term for the war in Ukraine – ed.]. Thus, the decision and the choice are up to Washington, up to Trump," Ryabkov concluded. Background: On 3 June, Dmitry Medvedev, Deputy Chairman of Russia's Security Council and former president of the Russian Federation, declared that the true purpose of the so-called peace talks with Ukraine in Istanbul is to ensure Russia's swift and complete victory. Support Ukrainska Pravda on Patreon!
an hour ago
Democratic states double down on laws resisting Trump's immigration crackdown
As President Donald Trump's administration targets states and local governments for not cooperating with federal immigration authorities, lawmakers in some Democratic-led states are intensifying their resistance by strengthening state laws restricting such cooperation. In California alone, more than a dozen pro-immigrant bills passed either the Assembly or Senate this week, including one prohibiting schools from allowing federal immigration officials into nonpublic areas without a judicial warrant. Other state measures have sought to protect immigrants in housing, employment and police encounters, even as Trump's administration has ramped up arrests as part of his plan for mass deportations. In Connecticut, legislation pending before Democratic Gov. Ned Lamont would expand a law that already limits when law enforcement officers can cooperate with federal requests to detain immigrants. Among other things, it would let 'any aggrieved person' sue municipalities for alleged violations of the state's Trust Act. Two days after lawmakers gave final approval to the measure, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security included Connecticut on a list of hundreds of 'sanctuary jurisdictions' obstructing the enforcement of federal immigration laws. The list later was removed from the department's website after criticism that it errantly included some local governments that support Trump's immigration policies. Since taking office in January, Trump has enlisted hundreds of state and local law enforcement agencies to help identify immigrants in the U.S. illegally and detain them for potential deportation. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement now lists 640 such cooperative agreements, a nearly fivefold increase under Trump. Trump also has lifted longtime rules restricting immigration enforcement near schools, churches and hospitals, and ordered federal prosecutors to investigate state or local officials believed to be interfering with his crackdown on illegal immigration. The Department of Justice sued Colorado, Illinois and New York, as well as several cities in those states and New Jersey, alleging their policies violate the U.S. Constitution or federal immigration laws. Just three weeks after Colorado was sued, Democratic Gov. Jared Polis signed a wide-ranging law expanding the state's protections for immigrants. Among other things, it bars jails from delaying the release of inmates for immigration enforcement and allows penalties of up to $50,000 for public schools, colleges, libraries, child care centers and health care facilities that collect information about people's immigration status, with some exceptions. Polis rejected the administration's description of Colorado as a 'sanctuary state,' asserting that law officers remain 'deeply committed' to working with federal authorities on criminal investigations. 'But to be clear, state and local law enforcement cannot be commandeered to enforce federal civil immigration laws,' Polis said in a bill-signing statement. Illinois also has continued to press pro-immigrant legislation. A bill recently given final approval says no child can be denied a free public education because of immigration status — something already guaranteed nationwide under a 1982 U.S. Supreme Court decision. Supporters say the state legislation provides a backstop in case court precedent is overturned. The bill also requires schools to develop policies on handling requests from federal immigration officials and allows lawsuits for alleged violations of the measure. Democratic-led states are pursuing a wide range of means to protect immigrants. A new Oregon law bars landlords from inquiring about the immigration status of tenants or applicants. New laws in Washington declare it unprofessional conduct for bail bond agents to enforce civil immigration warrants, prohibit employers from using immigration status to threaten workers and let employees use paid sick leave to attend immigration proceedings for themselves or family members. Vermont last month repealed a state law that let law enforcement agencies enter into immigration enforcement agreements with federal authorities during state or national emergencies. They now need special permission from the governor to do so. As passed by the House, Maryland legislation also would have barred local governments from reaching immigration enforcement agreements with the federal government. That provision was removed in the Senate following pushback from some of the seven Maryland counties that currently have agreements. The final version, which took effect as law at the start of June, forbids public schools and libraries from granting federal immigration authorities access to nonpublic areas without a judicial warrant or 'exigent circumstances.' Maryland Del. Nicole Williams said residents' concerns about Trump's immigration policies prompted her to sponsor the legislation. 'We believe that diversity is our strength, and our role as elected officials is to make sure that all of the residents within our community — regardless of their background — feel safe and comfortable,' Williams said. Though legislation advancing in Democratic states may shield against Trump's policies, 'I would say it's more so to send a message to immigrant communities to let them know that they are welcome,' said Juan Avilez, a policy associate at the American Immigration Council, a nonprofit advocacy group. In California, a law that took effect in 2018 already requires public schools to adopt policies 'limiting assistance with immigration enforcement to the fullest extent possible.' Some schools have readily applied the law. When DHS officers attempted a welfare check on migrant children at two Los Angeles elementary schools in April, they were denied access by both principals. Legislation passed by the state Senate would reinforce such policies by specifically requiring a judicial warrant for public schools to let immigration authorities into nonpublic areas, allow students to be questioned or disclose information about students and their families. 'Having ICE in our schools means that you'll have parents who will not want to send their kids to school at all,' Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener said in support of the bill. But some Republicans said the measure was 'injecting partisan immigration policies' into schools. 'We have yet to see a case in California where we have scary people in masks entering schools and ripping children away,' said state Sen. Marie Alvarado-Gil. 'Let's stop these fear tactics that do us an injustice.'
an hour ago
The 911 presidency: Trump flexes emergency powers in his second term
WASHINGTON -- Call it the 911 presidency. Despite insisting that the United States is rebounding from calamity under his watch, President Donald Trump is harnessing emergency powers unlike any of his predecessors. Whether it's leveling punishing tariffs, deploying troops to the border or sidelining environmental regulations, Trump has relied on rules and laws intended only for use in extraordinary circumstances like war and invasion. An analysis by The Associated Press shows that 30 of Trump's 150 executive orders have cited some kind of emergency power or authority, a rate that far outpaces his recent predecessors. The result is a redefinition of how presidents can wield power. Instead of responding to an unforeseen crisis, Trump is using emergency powers to supplant Congress' authority and advance his agenda. 'What's notable about Trump is the enormous scale and extent, which is greater than under any modern president,' said Ilya Somin, who is representing five U.S. businesses who sued the administration, claiming they were harmed by Trump's so-called 'Liberation Day' tariffs. Because Congress has the power to set trade policy under the Constitution, the businesses convinced a federal trade court that Trump overstepped his authority by claiming an economic emergency to impose the tariffs. An appeals court has paused that ruling while the judges review it. The legal battle is a reminder of the potential risks of Trump's strategy. Judges traditionally have given presidents wide latitude to exercise emergency powers that were created by Congress. However, there's growing concern that Trump is pressing the limits when the U.S. is not facing the kinds of threats such actions are meant to address. 'The temptation is clear,' said Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Brennan Center's Liberty and National Security Program and an expert in emergency powers. 'What's remarkable is how little abuse there was before, but we're in a different era now.' Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., who has drafted legislation that would allow Congress to reassert tariff authority, said he believed the courts would ultimately rule against Trump in his efforts to single-handedly shape trade policy. 'It's the Constitution. James Madison wrote it that way, and it was very explicit,' Bacon said of Congress' power over trade. 'And I get the emergency powers, but I think it's being abused. When you're trying to do tariff policy for 80 countries, that's policy, not emergency action.' The White House pushed back on such concerns, saying Trump is justified in aggressively using his authority. 'President Trump is rightfully enlisting his emergency powers to quickly rectify four years of failure and fix the many catastrophes he inherited from Joe Biden — wide open borders, wars in Ukraine and Gaza, radical climate regulations, historic inflation, and economic and national security threats posed by trade deficits,' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said. Of all the emergency powers, Trump has most frequently cited the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, to justify slapping tariffs on imports. The law, enacted in 1977, was intended to limit some of the expansive authority that had been granted to the presidency decades earlier. It is only supposed to be used when the country faces 'an unusual and extraordinary threat' from abroad 'to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States.' In analyzing executive orders issued since 2001, the AP found that Trump has invoked the law 21 times in presidential orders and memoranda. President George W. Bush, grappling with the aftermath of the most devastating terror attack on U.S. soil, invoked the law just 14 times in his first term. Likewise, Barack Obama invoked the act only 21 times during his first term, when the U.S. economy faced the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression. The Trump administration has also deployed an 18th century law, the Alien Enemies Act, to justify deporting Venezuelan migrants to other countries, including El Salvador. Trump's decision to invoke the law relies on allegations that the Venezuelan government coordinates with the Tren de Aragua gang, but intelligence officials did not reach that conclusion. Congress has granted emergency powers to the presidency over the years, acknowledging that the executive branch can act more swiftly than lawmakers if there is a crisis. There are 150 legal powers — including waiving a wide variety of actions that Congress has broadly prohibited — that can only be accessed after declaring an emergency. In an emergency, for example, an administration can suspend environmental regulations, approve new drugs or therapeutics, take over the transportation system, or even override bans on testing biological or chemical weapons on human subjects, according to a list compiled by the Brennan Center for Justice. Democrats and Republicans have pushed the boundaries over the years. For example, in an attempt to cancel federal student loan debt, Joe Biden used a post-Sept. 11 law that empowered education secretaries to reduce or eliminate such obligations during a national emergency. The U.S. Supreme Court eventually rejected his effort, forcing Biden to find different avenues to chip away at his goals. Before that, Bush pursued warrantless domestic wiretapping and Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered the detention of Japanese-Americans on the West Coast in camps for the duration of World War II. Trump, in his first term, sparked a major fight with Capitol Hill when he issued a national emergency to compel construction of a border wall. Though Congress voted to nullify his emergency declaration, lawmakers could not muster up enough Republican support to overcome Trump's eventual veto. 'Presidents are using these emergency powers not to respond quickly to unanticipated challenges,' said John Yoo, who as a Justice Department official under George W. Bush helped expand the use of presidential authorities. 'Presidents are using it to step into a political gap because Congress chooses not to act.' Trump, Yoo said, 'has just elevated it to another level.' Conservative legal allies of the president also said Trump's actions are justified, and Vice President JD Vance predicted the administration would prevail in the court fight over tariff policy. 'We believe — and we're right — that we are in an emergency,' Vance said last week in an interview with Newsmax. 'You have seen foreign governments, sometimes our adversaries, threaten the American people with the loss of critical supplies,' Vance said. 'I'm not talking about toys, plastic toys. I'm talking about pharmaceutical ingredients. I'm talking about the critical pieces of the manufacturing supply chain.' Vance continued, 'These governments are threatening to cut us off from that stuff, that is by definition, a national emergency.' Republican and Democratic lawmakers have tried to rein in a president's emergency powers. Two years ago, a bipartisan group of lawmakers in the House and Senate introduced legislation that would have ended a presidentially-declared emergency after 30 days unless Congress votes to keep it in place. It failed to advance. Similar legislation hasn't been introduced since Trump's return to office. Right now, it effectively works in the reverse, with Congress required to vote to end an emergency. 'He has proved to be so lawless and reckless in so many ways. Congress has a responsibility to make sure there's oversight and safeguards,' said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., who cosponsored an emergency powers reform bill in the previous session of Congress. He argued that, historically, leaders relying on emergency declarations has been a 'path toward autocracy and suppression.'
