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.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

New York Post

13 minutes ago

• New York Post

Rhode Island lawmakers pass bill to ban sales of assault weapons

Rhode Island's Democratic-controlled state House on Friday approved legislation that would ban the sale and manufacturing of many semiautomatic rifles commonly referred to as assault weapons. The proposal now heads to the desk of Democratic Gov. Dan McKee, who said in a post on the social platform X on Friday evening that he plans to sign the bill into law. If that happens, Rhode Island will join 10 states that have some sort of prohibition on high-powered firearms that were once banned nationwide and are now largely the weapon of choice among those responsible for most of the country's devastating mass shootings. Advertisement 3 Rhode Island's state House approved legislation that would ban the sale and manufacturing of assault weapons. AP Gun control advocates have been pushing for an assault weapons ban in Rhode Island for more than a decade. However, despite being a Democratic stronghold, lawmakers throughout the country's smallest state have long quibbled over the necessity and legality of such proposals. Advertisement The bill only applies to the sale and manufacturing of assault weapons and not possession. Only Washington state has a similar law. Residents looking to purchase an assault weapon from nearby New Hampshire or elsewhere will also be blocked. Federal law prohibits people from traveling to a different state to purchase a gun and returning it to a state where that particular of weapon is banned. Advertisement Nine states and the District of Columbia have bans on the possession of assault weapons, covering major cities like New York and Los Angeles. Hawaii bans assault pistols. 3 Two men inspected AR-10s for sale at the Belle-Clair Fairgrounds & Expo Center Gun Show in Belleville, Ill. REUTERS Democratic Rep. Rebecca Kislak described the bill during floor debates Friday as an incremental move that brings Rhode Island in line with neighboring states. 'I am gravely disappointed we are not doing more, and we should do more,' she said. 'And given the opportunity to do this or nothing, I am voting to do something.' Advertisement Critics of Rhode Island's proposed law argued that assault weapons bans do little to curb mass shootings and only punish people with such rifles. 'This bill doesn't go after criminals, it just puts the burden on law-abiding citizens,' said Republican Sen. Thomas Paolino. Republican Rep. Michael Chippendale, House minority leader, predicted that if the legislation were to become law, the US. Supreme Court would eventually deem it unconstitutional. 'We are throwing away money on this,' he said. It wasn't just Republicans who opposed the legislation. David Hogg — a gun control advocate who survived the 2018 school shooting in Parkland, Florida — and the Rhode Island Coalition Against Gun Violence described the proposed ban as the 'weakest assault weapons ban in the country.' 'I know that Rhode Islanders deserve a strong bill that not only bans the sale, but also the possession of assault weapons. It is this combination that equals public safety,' Hogg said in a statement. 3 A crowd of gun-rights advocates filled the State House rotunda in Rhode Island in March to protest a proposed ban on the manufacture and sale of assault-style weapons. David DelPoio/The Providence Journal / USA TODAY NETWORK via Imagn Images Advertisement Elisabeth Ryan, policy counsel at Everytown for Gun Safety, rejected claims that the proposed law is weak. 'The weakest law is what Rhode Island has now, no ban on assault weapons,' Ryan said. 'This would create a real, enforceable ban on the sale and manufacture of assault weapons, just like the law already working in Washington state, getting them off the shelves of Rhode Island gun stores once and for all.' Nationally, assault weapons bans have been challenged in court by gun rights groups that argue the bans violate the Second Amendment. AR-15-style firearms are among the best-selling rifles in the country. The conservative-majority Supreme Court may soon take up the issue. Advertisement The justices declined to hear a challenge to Maryland's assault weapons ban in early June, but three conservative justices — Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas — publicly noted their disagreement. A fourth, Brett Kavanaugh, indicated he was skeptical that the bans are constitutional and predicted the court would hear a case 'in the next term or two.'

Wall Street Journal

32 minutes ago

• Wall Street Journal

The Trump-Era Rollback of Transgender Rights Is Gaining Steam

Voters in at least 10 states have elected a transgender person to their legislature. A transgender man has argued a case before the Supreme Court. Last year, the first transgender woman was elected to Congress. Transgender people have become visible in ways that were unthinkable five years ago, a development that advocates thought would generate more societal acceptance. And yet, the political and legal tides are shifting in a different direction.

Yahoo

2 hours ago

• Yahoo

How Trump's 'One Big Beautiful Bill' Could Impact Skiing

On Wednesday, June 11, 2025, the US Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee published a provision to the current reconciliation bill that was introduced by the House earlier this year. The bill is referred to as the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' by President Donald bill and its provision introduce a number of polarizing policies on things like funding for environmental and land management agencies, as well as the sale of huge parcels of public lands, which has a potentially massive impact on outdoor recreation in the US. One of the key points in the bill's most recent provision mandates the sale of between 0.5% and 0.75% of the 193 million acres of land managed by the US Forest Service, and 245 million acres managed by the BLM for housing development. In total, the bill references between roughly 2.2 million and 3.3 million acres of land split between BLM (1.23-1.84 million acres), and the Forest Service (between 956,000 and 1.45 million acres) that would be sold across 11 western states including Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Utah, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, New Mexico, Nevada and what does this mean for skiers? Keep reading for to keep up with the best stories and photos in skiing? Subscribe to the new Powder To The People newsletter for weekly updates. According to a fact sheet issued by the Committee, which is led by Utah Senator Mike Lee, the sale excludes the sale of National Parks, National Monuments, National Recreation Areas, components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, National Wildlife Refuge System, National Fish Hatchery Systems, Wilderness Preservation Areas, and 'nearly every other protected designations.''This is not about our most sacred and beautiful places. This is often about barren land next to highways with existing billboards that have no recreational value', said Interior Secretary Doug Burgum. The fact sheet also notes that the US Department of the Interior estimates that the BLM has 1.2 million acres of land within a mile of a population center and another 800,000 acres between one and five miles of a population center. The Forest Service has another million acres within one mile of population centers, all which may qualify for 'disposal.' While lands like those in our National Parks and Monuments are protected under their current federal designations, a recent Justice Department opinion means that the President is allowed to both designate and repeal National Monuments, and their land protections, without a vote from Congress, per the Antiquities Act. President Trump is no stranger to the Act, as he significantly reduced the size of Bear's Ears National Monument in Utah in 2017, in what was the largest reversal of federal land protections in U.S. history. A map released by the Wilderness Society shows the large splotches of Forest Service and BLM land that could be included in these disposals across the 11 western states. A quick scroll through the map (included at the top of this article) shows the footprints of many ski areas covered by the green overlay of Forest Service land. While the protections of National Parks and National Monuments feel precarious under the bill and the current administration, the fact sheet does note that land with valid existing use permits cannot be sold as part of the it pertains to skiing, many ski areas in the US operate on Forest Service land with a Ski Area Term Special Use permit, created under the National Forest Ski Area Permit Act of 1986. Section IV of this permit notes that these permits qualify as valid existing rights, making it highly unlikely, at least in the bill's current state, that any of the Forest Service lands that ski areas are on such as Mt. Bachelor, Arapahoe Basin, Mt. Hood, Steamboat, Keystone, Copper, and more could be sold and developed. So, while the current provision to the bill might not threaten ski area footprints themselves, there are other pieces of the bill that would certainly have an effect on skiing, and more broadly, the use of our public lands for recreation. For one, land near ski resorts doesn't necessarily fall under the rights of a Ski Area Special Use permit, and could hypothetically be sold. The fact sheet says that 'the proposal prioritizes lands that are nominated by States or units of local governments; are adjacent to existing developed areas; have access to existing infrastructure; are suitable for residential housing; reduce checkerboard land patterns; or are isolated tracts that are inefficient to manage.' However, with a number like 2.2 million acres as the minimum number of land acreage mandated to be sold in the bill, there is a distinct possibility that the footprint of lands sold would bleed beyond those dubbed 'prioritized' by the proposal. Given the bill's $29 billion in expected revenue, and an emphasis on building housing, a resource that can be sparse in mountain towns that are often bordered by expanses of Forest Service and BLM land, the idea that precious wilderness would be sold is not remotely impossible. Along with the potential sale of lands managed by The Forest Service, proposed funding would also be rescinded for a number of Forest Service programs, including the protection of old growth forests. These budget cuts to the US Forest Service could be up to $392 million in management alone, and another $391 million to Forest Service operations budgets in an effort to 'restore federalism by empowering states to assume a greater role in managing forest lands within their borders.' Additionally, Interior Secretary Burgum is pushing for a bill that would cut $900M in funding for the National Park Service, which would potentially lead to the closure of up to 350 sites managed by the National Park Service, and the cutting of 5,000 full-time Park Service rescinding of funds for the National Park System and Bureau of Land Management would also impact funding for the carrying out of projects concerning the conservation, protection, and resiliency of lands and resources managed by the two agencies, as well as for certain conservation and habitat restoration projects on NPS and BLM Lands. In total, the administration's 2026 budget recommendations would cut around a billion dollars from the NPS. 'Isn't it a betrayal of the relationship (between Congress and the Forest Service) to be cutting programs in half in preparation for shutting them down completely when the vision has not been laid out by Congress to do so?' said Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley, who also expressed concern over a reorganization of the country's firefighting teams, an issue close to the hearts of many Oregonians. Beyond the bill's provision on public lands, there are other facets of the bill that have potentially catastrophic long term effects on our climate. As skiers, we know that climate change is already a threat to our winters, livelihoods, and passed, the bill would rescind funding for a number of government agencies and programs that monitor and collect data on climate change-related metrics, as well as for federally funded conservation programs. Specifically, the bill rescinds funding to implement the EPA's addressing of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), a commonly used component in traditional ski waxes that have been found to have significant negative environmental impacts. The bill would also rescind funding for the Council on Environmental Quality as it pertains to collecting data related to environmental and climate issues, amongst other things. Funding for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and USGS, whose work is essential in weather forecasting and studying climate change, would be rescinded. This could be detrimental to certain communities when preparing for extreme weather summarize, the bill and provision in question have the potential for a massive reduction in size to public lands used for recreation, like skiing, and funding cuts to government led research and management of climate change, that could have significant impacts on the planet's rapidly warming climate. Conservation groups such as the Outdoor Alliance and Protect Our Winters, as well as a slew of brands, athletes, and outdoor climate activists in skiing have taken to social media to share information and encourage the public to contact their Senate representatives with their opinions on the bill passed in The House on May 22, 2025, and is now up for debate in the Senate. President Trump is reportedly hoping for a Senate vote to take place by July 4, 2025, but any number of things could delay that vote. If passed, the bill would be sent back to the House for approval before being sent to the oval office to be Trump's 'One Big Beautiful Bill' Could Impact Skiing first appeared on Powder on Jun 18, 2025