A Wyoming legislative committee has advanced three contentious abortion-related bills, drawing criticism and sparking debate about government overreach and public health concerns, Casper Star-Tribune reports.
The bills, sponsored by members of the Wyoming Freedom Caucus, passed the House Labor, Health and Social Services Committee after nearly four hours of testimony last week. They have now moved to the House floor for debate.
The proposals include stricter licensing requirements for the state’s sole abortion clinic, a mandatory transvaginal ultrasound at least two days before an abortion, and a bill aimed at regulating the disposal of abortion-related medical waste in water systems.
Rep. John Bear, R-Gillette, a Freedom Caucus leader, presented House Bill 159, which focuses on the collection and disposal of chemical abortion waste. Bear argued that such waste poses environmental and public health risks, claiming that pharmaceutical substances pass through sewage treatment plants and agricultural systems, potentially affecting fertility and development in animals and humans.
“This bill is focused on protecting the life and health of the mother, as well as the public,” Bear said. “It is not designed to protect the life of the unborn child, which unfortunately will never be able to own a business and have a family.”
Opponents sharply criticized the proposals, particularly House Bill 159. Minority Floor Leader Mike Yin, D-Jackson, expressed disbelief over what he described as “shameful” provisions. Yin contended that the bill was less about water quality and more about discouraging women from seeking abortions.
“It’s not really honest about what it’s trying to achieve,” Yin said. “Telling [women] they have to capture their miscarriage in a bag is probably one of the most shameful things I’ve seen the government ask people.”
Emma Laurent, representing Wyoming United for Freedom, argued that the proposed requirements for handling medical waste violate women’s dignity and privacy rights.
“Asking a woman to collect what is often a small amount of blood and cells in addition to other bodily fluids … is demeaning, to say the least,” Laurent said.
She criticized the biohazard disposal requirement as a “public humiliation” that infringes on HIPAA protections.
Public testimony during the committee meeting was divided. Supporters of the bill cited the need for medical oversight and environmental protection, with some suggesting it could pave the way for broader drug regulation impacting water quality.
However, challengers rebutted these claims, pointing to Food and Drug Administration studies and questioning the legal feasibility of enforcing the regulations.
