And then suddenly the Law of Unintended Consequences arrived at the party

The logic of it, even without reading the Alabama Supreme Court opinion, is clear.

Life begins at conception, and therefore embryos artificially conceived are alive, and entitled to teh same protection as other early infants.

It's not really that shocking, and frankly, I agree with that.

Hence the logcial question presented to the  Alabama Supreme Court by

This Court has long held that unborn children are "children" for purposes of Alabama's Wrongful Death of a Minor Act, 6-5-391, Ala. Code 1975, a statute that allows parents of a deceased child to recover punitive damages for their child's death. The central question presented in these consolidated appeals, which involve the death of embryos kept in a cryogenic nursery, is whether the Act contains an unwritten exception to that rule for extrauterine children -- that is,unborn children who are located outside of a biological uterus at the time they are killed. Under existing black-letter law, the answer to that question is no: the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act applies to all unborn children,regardless of their location.

It's a logical question, and it was brought by the upset parents.

The decision is lengthy, and involves a host of issues, but the basic conclusion is this:

Here,the text ofthe Wrongful Death of a Minor Act is sweeping and unqualified. It applies to all children, born and unborn, without limitation. Itis not the role of this Court to craft a new limitation based our own view of what is or is not wise public policy. That is especially true where, as here, the People of this State have adopted a Constitutional amendment directly aimed at stopping courts from excluding "unborn life"from legal protection. Art.I, 36.06 ,Ala. Const. 2022.1

The Court reached the right decision.

And now people are reacting in horror, including the putative nominee for the Oval Office on the GOP side, who has tweeted: 

Let's start with some obvious things.

Firstly, I don't know what Donald Trump thinks the "ultimate joy in life" is. Given as he's a serial polygamist who cheated on two spouses, I'm skeptical that it's a happy family life.

I'm frankly quite skeptical that Trump really is that against abortion in the first place, although that's just skepticism on my part.  I can't see where Trump really holds that many values on anything in particular, really.

He does value getting reelected however and now he, like a lot of Republicans, are scrambling to figure out how to react to this, in no small part because a large number of Americans are probably now looking at the actual meaning of what social conservatism, and I am a social conservatism, is, and they're now really uncomfortable with it.

Americans overall, or at least a lot of Americans, claim that they are all for traditional values and are conservatives, but what they mean is that they are in favor of marriage, sort of, and family life, sort of, as long as that means you can easily dump your spouse and get remarred as much as you want to, and kill your offspring in utero up to sixteen weeks. This applies as much to Republicans as it does to Democrats.  If you are looking at a GOP candidate, and they've been married more than once, it's frankly a perfectly fair question to ask them if they really believe in what they claim they do.

Indeed, the whole close embrace to religion the press claims is going on is really a close embrace to the American Civil Religion.  It's certainly not a close embrace of Apostolic Christianity.  At least Catholicism holds that artificial insemination of human's is morally wrong in the first instance, and this provides just one of the reasons why.  It's completely contra natural.

But here's the added deal. When people claim they're advancing values, how deep have they looked at their arguments and how far are they prepared to go, and are they willing to apply them, to themselves?

Are those on the right in favor of traditional values, really in favor of them. Are those on the left who claim to be in favor of nature, willing to really live with it?

Related Thread:

We like everything to be all natural. . . . except for us.

Legislatures. Back to the future and other diversions?

A scene from the early 1970s Wyoming legislatures at the Hitching Post?  See below.

Former Wyoming Legislator Tom Lubnau, who was truly one of the great ones in the old school Wyoming way, has taken up writing columns for The Cowboy State Daily. That's to the CSD's credit and shows its effort to become a real electronic journal, something that's impressive considering it was set up as a right wing organ.  Lubnau is a conservative Wyoming Republican, but a conservative Wyoming Republican, something that's becoming increasingly rare.  

Or maybe not.

He's not afraid of poking at the wolverine.

He recently wrote this interesting item:

Tom Lubnau: Legislating Private Parts Is Popular This Legislative Session

This op ed is written from the point of view that virtually defined Wyoming Republicans for my whole adult life, up until the Obama/Trump Era, when things began to get really radical in the legislature.

His article is illuminating and I'm linking it in for several reasons.

One of those is that Lubnau give a really nice discussion of the law as it used to be, on some of the same topics that I addressed here:

Until Death Do Us Part. Divorce and Related Domestic Law. Late 19th/Early 20th Century, Mid 20th Century, Late 20th/Early 21st Century. An example of the old law, and the old customs, being infinately superior to the current ones and a call to return to them.

I note this, in particular, from his article:

During the formation of the state, Wyoming statues on morality were very strict.  The 1910 Wyoming Statutes took a very strict view of what happened between adults in the bedroom.   Let me share an example, but if you are easily offended, quit reading. 

Quit reading now.  But, if you are still reading, remember this is the actual text of Wyoming law from §7206 of the 1910 code:

Whoever commits the abominable and detestable crime against nature, by having carnal knowledge of a man or beast: or who being a male, carnally knows any man or woman through the anus, or in any other manner contrary to nature; and whoever entices, allures, instigates or aids any person under the age of twenty-one years to commit masturbation or self-pollution, is guilty of sodomy, and shall be imprisoned in the penitentiary not more than five years or may be imprisoned in the county jail for not more than twelve months.

This statute was repealed and replaced in the  disco era when the State of Wyoming determined that whatever happened in people’s bedrooms was no one’s business. 

I guess in thinking about it, I came of age in the Disco Era and that's the law I'm familiar with.  Lubnau is right, the GOP in this state, from the 70s on, really didn't care what you were doing, with whom, behind closed doors, as long as you kept your business to yourself, and it also didn't really care if your marriages broke up, etc., as a result of it, or anything else.  I'd assumed it had long been that way, but as Lubnau's quote from the Wyoming Compiled Statutes, 1910, shows, that's not the case.

I looked it up in the actual 1910 Code, and Lubnau was a little off.  He must have been reading the 1970s vintage codification, or miscited it.  The provison, and those otherwise cited in this thread, were still there in 1957, the last version of the by then much expanded Wyoming statutes I had handy, and they were almost certainly there up until the early 1970s.  In 1910, it was a different statutory section that the cited number (and the number was different in 1957), but here, right from the 1910 book, is what it states.

This is in a section of the statutes on offenses to public morality, and in looking at it, I found that something else I had thought to be illegal, but couldn't later fine, was in fact illegal, that being cohabitation without being married.

So, in my earlier statement that I had thought it was illegal, was in fact correct.  It was illegal.

Seduction of minors, keeping in mind that the age of majority, was a crime, but not quite in the fashion modern statutes provide for it, which would now be a species of rape. At the time, seduction of underage women, at least "older" ones, was a misdemeanor, although this raises interesting questions given that women could clearly marry at 18, or younger, at the time. This relates back to the earlier discussion we had, in the threat noted above, regarding Seduction at law.

At the same time, however, Section 5803 of the 1910 Code provide that rape, conventionally defined, was a felony, as well as having carnal knowledge of a female under age 18.  The dual age of majority, long a feature of Wyoming's law, was apparently already there.  Particularly notable, however, is that the law didn't distinguish between rape and statutory rape, they were the same.

It did distinguish between male and female.  A man could not be a victim of rape under the statute, although that would have constituted assault in any event.

Lubnau goes on in his article to comment:

It seems, now, there is a trend to sponsor legislation to invite the State of Wyoming back into the bedroom.

One has to wonder if regulating bedroom conduct is the pressing issue of the day, or if there is some other motive such as creating a campaign issue for the election season, that is driving the legislation.  In other words, how many people do you meet every day whose biggest concern is lack of regulation of private parts? 

Following that, he takes a look at HB 50 (What is a Woman Act) HB 68 repealing the obscenity exception for school, college, university, museum or public library activities or in the course of employment of such an organization, HB 88 making it illegal to “publicly communicate” obscene material, Democratic HB 76, making it illegal to interfere with a woman’s right to an abortion if the fetus is not viable*, or in cases of rape, incest or threat to the life of the mother., HB 137 requiring a pregnant mother to receive an ultrasound prior to receiving a chemical abortion “in order to provide the pregnant woman the opportunity to view the active ultrasound of the unborn child and hear the heartbeat of the unborn child if the heartbeat is audible.”

And that's probably not all of these.

They all did fail, fwiw, most failing to secure introduction.  The reasons vary, including procedural, but it might actually show that more of the old style, post mid 1970s Republicans remain in the legislature than might be supposed.  For that matter, however, it might also show that a lot of the populist legislators everywhere, at the state and Federal level, aren't hugely familiar with the legislative process.  In Wyoming trying to advance a bunch of these bills in a budget session, after declaring that you had the strength to advance them, was likely a mistake.

The obscenity one is interesting, as the 1910 Code had a section on that, providing:

The failed proposed statues state:

HOUSE BILL NO. HB0068

Obscenity-impartial conformance.

Sponsored by: Representative(s) Hornok, Angelos, Bear, Neiman, Ottman, Pendergraft, Penn, Rodriguez-Williams, Strock, Trujillo and Ward and Senator(s) Ide

A BILL

for

AN ACT relating to crimes and offenses; repealing an exception to the crime of promoting obscenity regarding possessing obscene materials for specified bona fide educational purposes; and providing for an effective date.

Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Wyoming:

Section 1.  W.S. 6-4-302(c)(ii) is repealed.

Section 2.  This act is effective July 1, 2025.

And:

HOUSE BILL NO. HB0088

Public display of obscene material.

Sponsored by: Representative(s) Ottman, Davis, Hornok, Penn and Strock

A BILL

for

AN ACT relating to crimes and offenses; prohibiting public communication of obscene material; providing a definition; and providing for an effective date.

Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Wyoming:

Section 1.  W.S. 6‑4‑301(a) by creating a new paragraph (vi) and 6‑4‑302(a)(iii) are amended to read:

6‑4‑301.  Definitions.

(a)  As used in this article:

(vi)  "Publicly communicate" means to display, post, exhibit, give away or vocalize material in such a way that the material may be readily and distinctly perceived by the public at large by normal unaided vision or hearing.

6‑4‑302.  Promoting obscenity; penalties.

(a)  A person commits the crime of promoting obscenity if he:

(iii)  Knowingly disseminates or publicly communicates obscene material.

Section 2.  This act is effective July 1, 2024.

The abortion bills, of which we have now had a variety, are interesting too, as I ran across the original 1910 statutes on that, which may well have been modified before 1973 (I don't know). Abortion was still illegal in 1973, I just don't know if the exact same text remained until then. In 1910, the law provided:

§ 5808. Attempted miscarriage. 

Whoever prescribes or administers to any pregnant woman, or to any woman whom he supposes to be preg- nant , any drug , medicine , or substance whatever, with intent thereby to procure a miscarriage of such woman ; or with like intent uses any instrument or means whatever, unless such miscarriage is necessary to preserve her life, shall if the woman miscarries or dies in consequence thereof , be imprisoned in the penitentiary not more than fourteen years .

§ 5809. Woman soliciting miscarriage . Every woman who shall so- licit of any person any medicine , drug or substance or thing whatever , and shall take the same , or shall submit to any operation or other means whatever , with intent thereby to procure a miscarriage (except when necessary for the purpose of saving the life of the mother or child), shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars and imprisoned in the county jail not more than six months ; and any person who , in any manner whatever, unlawfully aids or assists any such woman to a violation of this section , shall be liable to the same penalty.

I'm not going to comment on any of these, but I'm only noting that this provides a really interesting example of the evolution of the Legislature, and for that matter a Western legislature that's been Republican controlled the entire time. Republicans of the 70s and 80s would have a hard time recognizing the party today if they hadn't been there for the evolution.  I suppose that's true of the Democrats then and now as well.

I'm also noting it as I earlier quixotically argued that the heart balm statutes and accompanying provisions ought to be restored.  Lubnau has gotten into the weeks and found one of the statutes of that era that I didn't address, §7206 of the 1910 code.

Going back to that code, a fair amount of it would be unconstitutional today, as the United States Supreme Court had found that the sodomy provisions are contrary to some vague unwritten stuff in the penumbra of the Constitution having to do with privacy.  "Privacy" doesn't actually appear in the text of the Constitution.  The last crime noted, and the one about animals, is probably still capable of being illegal, and actually the last one, which would have to do with adults in relation to minors is probably actually still illegal elsewhere.  To some degree, with this statute, you have to read between the lines, but to some extent you do not.  The law basically criminalized anything contrary to nature, and it was pretty clear that there was an accepted concept of what nature, in this context, meant.  Frankly there still really is, although now, save for minors and "beasts" we license it societally.

The provisions on rape and abortion could probably have just been left alone, keeping in mind that abortion was legalized under Roe, and then taken back to the state under Dodd's.  Had that been all left untouched, the law would arguably have been clearer now than it is.  Interestingly, the statute drafters of that era tended to use an economy of words which tended to make their intent quite clear.

What about the statutes pertaining to "heart balm" and, well, sex?

Today's legislature of the Freedom Caucus variety, all over the country, clearly looks backwards to restoring society to what they imagine it was. This actually shows what it was.  And not just that, but the statutes regarding divorce as well.

Let's look once more.

"Shacking up" was illegal.  Given the present state of Constitutional Law, I doubt it could be made illegal (I'm quite certain it couldn't be).  Would the social warriors be game for trying?

This concept, quite frankly, underpins everyone other one regarding marriage.  It was designed to prevent what the 1910 statues called "bastardy" and the burden it created on society, and it grasped what marriage really was.  For that reason, quite frankly, I'd be for its return (although as stated, I don't think it can be under the current interpretation of the Constitution.  Those populist right-wingers who would not go that far, probably ought to reconsider their positions on things

Those who would be horrified by such a proposal, and frankly that's probably most people now, ought to reconsider their support for populism, if they are populists.

And then there is this:

Would the legislature of today go that far?  Again, this is clearly unconstitutional under the current law, and it would in fact outlaw homosexual conduct, as well as a bunch of non-homosexual conduct.  Presumably no modern legislature would be comfortable with what the pre 1970s Wyoming legislature, and pre 1970s Wyoming society, was in this era.  Probably nobody ought to be, as this is really invasive.

What about divorce, the subject that the other thread was sort of on, and this one sort of is on as well, and which again gets to the heart of the topic.

Ealier in the state's history, the legislature barred remarriage within a year, which is signficant if we consider that cohabitation without being married was flat out illegal.  The 1910 statutes provide:

§ 3951. Remarriage prohibited within one year . 

During the period of one year from the granting of a decree of divorce , neither party thereto shall be permitted to remarry to any other person . Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a mis- demeanor , and shall be fined in any sum not less than twenty - five dollars nor more than one hundred dollars , or be imprisoned in the county jail not exceeding three months , in the discretion of the court.

Frankly, I'd think this a worthwhile provision and it likewise, like the staute on cohabitation, ought to be restored.

Going from there, I'd note that in 1910 the statutes on dissolving marriages started off iwth annullement, which is now an afterthough in the statutes.  It wasn't theen, and was relatively extenisvely addressed, indicaditng that hte drafteres thought that a more likely event, potentially, then divorce.

Divorce required cause, those being:

§ 3924. Causes for divorce . 

A divorce from the bonds of matrimony may be decreed by the district court of the county where the parties , or one of them reside , on the application of the aggrieved party by petition , in either of the following.cases : 

First - When adultery has been committed by any husband or wife . 

Second - When one of the parties was physically incompetent at the time of the marriage , and the same has continued to the time of the divorce . 

Third - When one of the parties has been convicted of a felony and sentenced to imprisonment therefor in any prison , and no pardon granted , after a divorce for that cause, shall restore such party to his or her conjugal rights . 

Fourth - When either party has wilfully deserted the other for the term of one year . 

Fifth - When the husband or wife shall have become an habitual drunkard . 

Sixth - When one of the parties has been guilty of extreme cruelty to the other . 

Seventh - When the husband for the period of one year , has negected to provide the common necessaries of life , when such neglect is not the result of poverty, on the part of the husband, which he could not avoid by ordinary industry . 

Eighth - When either party shall offer such indignities to the other , as shall render his or her condition intolerable . 

Ninth - When the husband shall be guilty of such conduct as to constitute him a vagrant within the meaning of the law respecting vag- rancy . 

Tenth - When prior to the contract of marriage or the solemnization thereof, either party shall have been convicted of a felony or infamous crime in any state , territory or county without knowledge on the part of the other party of such fact at the time of such marriage . Eleventh - When the intended wife at the time of contracting mariage, or at the time of the solemnization thereof shall have been pregnant by any other man than her intended husband and without his knowledge at the time of such solemnization . [ R. S. 1887 , § 1571 ; R. S. 1899 , § 2988. ] 

 Evidence was required:

§ 3947. Corroborating evidence required . 

No decree of divorce, and of the nullity of a marriage, shall be made solely on the declara- tions , confessions or admissions of the parties , but the court shall in all cases require other evidence in its nature corroborative of such declarations , concessions or admissions . [ R. S. 1887 , § 1597 ; R. S. 1899 , § 3011. ] 

§ 3948. Proof of adultery insufficient when . 

In any action brought for divorce on the ground of adultery , although the fact of adultery be established , the court may deny a divorce in the following cases: 

First - When the offense shall appear to have been committed by the procurement , or with the connivance of the plaintiff . 

Second - When the offense charged shall have been forgiven by the injured party and such forgiveness shall be proved by express proof , or by the voluntary cohabitation of the parties with the knowledge of the offense . 

Third - When there shall have been no express forgiveness and no voluntary cohabitation of the parties but the action shall not have been brought within three years after discovery by the plaintiff of the of fense charged . [ R. S. 1887 , § 1598 ; R. S. 1899 , § 3012. ] 

Provisions were provided for to restrain and examine the husband during divorce proceedings, but not the wives.

Again, the old law here would work, or at least it would with modification. Would anyone be bold enough to suggest it be restored.

I doubt it, and therein lies an element of built in hypocrisy of the modern populist social warrior.  To really get at the core of this, you have to get to the core of it.  But hardly anyone is willing to even contemplate what that means.

Lubnau has pointed out that, at one time, the laws were much more restrictive in conservative Wyoming.  In the 1970s, the Republican Party, not the Democrats, radically liberalized them.  But not only did the US become much more liberal, all society did as well, for good or ill (probably mostly for ill).  Many of those who carry the banner for a return to what they regard as having been great aren't prepared to go back to what that really meant, but like Dr. Zhivago states in the novel, an operation cutting out corruption, if that's what you are really doing, is a deep operation.  

Put another way, you can't really address these social issues unless you are prepared to go to the very core of them, and that would mean addressing male/female, male/male, female/female "adult" relationships at their core.  The only thing that the populist far right is really willing to do is to address homosexuality in its various expressions. But that's relatively rare, and if you aren't willing to go further, and say that those relationships outside of marriage are wrong, and that you marry once and for life, well then, you really are just pointing fingers.

  Two young couples.  Migrant farm workers in Louisiana and their children, 1939.

Our perfunctory favorite couples again.

Footnotes:

* This bill provides an example of  why the Wyoming Democrats go nowhere.  There's no reason for the Democratics here to be the party of death, like they insist on being elsewhere, and bills like this keep moderate Republicans who would cross over from doing so.  This is particularly the case as this bill stands less than 0 chance of being introduced.

Related Threads:

Until Death Do Us Part. Divorce and Related Domestic Law. Late 19th/Early 20th Century, Mid 20th Century, Late 20th/Early 21st Century. An example of the old law, and the old customs, being infinately superior to the current ones and a call to return to them.

Et Ux*: A legal and societal history of marriage

Shockingly young! Surprisingly old! Too young, too old! Well, nothing much actually changing at all. . . Marriage ages then. . . and now. . and what does it all mean?

Courting

Throwing out the puzzle and keeping only once piece.

Today In Wyoming's History: February 2: Common Law Marriages

July 29, 1968. Humanae Vitae

Two random items. Andy Griffith and Taylor Swift

Taylor Swift

On "X", fka "Twitter" a man who was the father to a large family of daughters (it was either 7 or 9), and who is very conservative, posted an item expressing relief for Taylor Swift.

His points were really good.

Populist right commentators are all up in arms about Swift right now, for reasons that are darned near impossible to discern.  It seems to stem from her expressing support for Democratic candidates in the past, including Joe Biden in 2016.  Well, guess what, she has a right to do that.  You have a right to ignore it. 

She also expressed support for abortion being legal.  I feel it should be illegal.  That doesn't mean she's part of a double secret left wing conspiracy.

But, and here's the thing, there are real reasons to admire her, or at least her presentation, and the father in question pointed it out.  He'd endured taking his daughters to Miley Cyrus, Ariana Grande, "Lady Gaga" etc., and found them disturbing.

Indeed, they are.

Miley Cyrus went from a child actress to being a freakish figure posed nude on a ball, looking like she was a meth addict who was working in a strip club.  Ariana Grande has at least one song that's out right graphic about illicit sex.  Lady Gaga has made a career out of being freakish, until she couldn't any longer, and like Madonna is another woman who was the product of Catholic Schools who took to songs that are abhorrent in terms of Christian, let alone Catholic, morals.

Swift, in contrast, can only be criticized a bit for dressing semi provocatively on stage, but only somewhat so. Off-stage, she's always very modestly dressed.  Indeed, she's a throwback, with her ruby red lipstick and classic nearly 1940s appearance.

And in terms of relationships, it's noted that she's dating a football player.

Now, we don't know what their private lives are like, but they're admirably keeping them private.  It's hard to know what Swift's views are on most issues.  And we really don't need to.  But in their visible relationship, made visible to us only because of media fascination, they're quite proper.  As the poster noted, the football star is "courting" her.

It's not that there's nothing to see here.  There's nothing to see here which any conservative in their right mind wouldn't have an absolute freak out about.  They're behaving exactly the way in public that supposedly Christian conservatives want dating couples to do.  No piercings, no weird tattoos, no scanty clothing.

Which would all suggest all the angst is about something else, and what that is probably about is the secret knowledge that huge numbers of real conservatives can't stand Donald Trump and won't vote for him.

The Andy Griffith Show

I was at lunch two days ago at a local Chinese restaurant, and across the way an all adult family was discussing the plot of the prior night's Andy Griffith Show rerun.  It struck me that that may not have happened since the 1960s.

It's interesting. 

The Andy Griffith Show went off the air before the Great Rural Purge in Television, but not my much.  It ran from 1960 to 1968.  It was consistently focused on the rural South, and it felt like it depicted the 1950s, which it never did, save for the fact that what we think of as the 60s really started in about 1955 and ran to about 1964.  Indeed, while the show was in tune with the times in 1960, it really wasn't in 1968.

But that in tune with the times is what strikes me here.  The family was speaking of it as if it was a currently running show, not like it was something from 60 years ago.  That suggests that in some ways people have groped their way back in the dark to idealizing the world as it was depicted then, rural, lower middle class, devoid of an obsession with sex (although it does show up subtly in the show from time to time), and divorce a rarity.

Now, the world wasn't prefect in 1960 by any means.  But the show didn't pretend to depict a perfect world, only one that was sort of a mirror on the world view of its watchers.  To some degree, that world view had returned.

Epilog

The Taylor Swift story also appears on the most recent entries for City Father and Uncle Mike's Musings, both of which are linked in on this site.

The moment the fatal wounds were afflicted.

How did we end up with two ancient, disliked men being advanced by their parties?

Well, we ended up here as the Democrats quit believing in democracy, favoring rule by the courts, until the courts decided they believed in democracy, and because both parties lied to their rank and file, working class, constituents for a period of fifty years.

We've dealt with this before.

However, it can nearly be determined with precision.

The date of the wounds were:

• January 22, 1973

That's the date the United States Supreme Court issued the Roe v. Wade decision, replacing its judgment for that of state legislatures. As the dissent noted:

I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant women and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally disentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the woman, on the other hand. As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.

And Democrats concluded they didn't really need to persuade voters anymore, the Courts would impose a new liberal regime on the besotted and benighted public without their participation.

And:

• July 17, 1980.

That's the date that the GOP nominated Ronald Reagan for President. Reagan would go on to use the Southern Strategy to draw in Southern (and Rust Belt) Democrats who had lied to as the post World War Two economic prosperity collapsed. Thing is, the GOP didn't really listen to their concerns, just as the Democrats had quit doing. 

Seven years in which we went from two functioning political parties and put them on the path to being pure machines, breaking what they claimed to serve.

Choosing to lose.

Al Smith, the 1928 Democratic candidate for President.  He was honest, and Catholic, which made him unelectable.

Kamala Harris says when she talks to parents on the campaign trail, one of their top concerns is that their daughters won't have access to abortion in college

Charlie Spiering, summarizing a recent Kamal Harris interview.

I come from a sufficiently well-educated family such that my grandmother, Agnes, on my mother's side, had attended and graduated from university.

If you consider that she was born in 1891, that's quite the feat.

Now, I'll admit that my father was the first one to attend university on his side of the family, but his father, and his grandfather, and his great-grandfather, had all been successful businessmen at a time at which you didn't need a college education to be one, or even a high school education for that matter.  My father's father, who I never met, was universally regarded by those who knew him as extremely smart.

Indeed, I once was stopped on the sidewalk by an elderly lawyer who knew my father and his father, who asked about the family.  My son must have been in high school at the time, and the odd question "is he extremely smart. . . " like all of the members of the family.

I often, frankly, feel that I'm on the bottom end of the family intelligence pool compared to my own father and my kids.

No real college parents anywhere have, as one of their top concerns, that their daughters won't be able to commit infanticide, unless they've drunk so deeply of the left wing Kool-Aid they're perusing brochures from The Young Pioneers.

Democratic campaigns for the Oval Office, or Democratic campaigns in general, are not smart.  

They're about as dumb as can be.

From 1914 until 1980 the Democrats were masters at coalition building.  The party kept hardhat workers, urban Irish Catholics, Hispanics, and the entire South together, which was frankly quite a feat.  It supported unions and working class families, and generally was pretty pro farmer.  It had a left wing, but it also had a conservative one as well.  Starting in 1968, when it embraced American battlefield defeat to a degree, and then in 1973, when it took the bloody abortionist hand, it took a turn toward the left, and as it did that, it dumped democracy like a hot rock in favor of an imagined Platonic body of robed elders who would tell the people what to do, and they'd like it.

Absolutely everything about the current Democratic message is wrong, including some things that shouldn't be regarded as wrong, but which are in the current political atmosphere.  One thing that's definitely wrong is the concept that infanticide is a winning ticket.  It isn't. The Democrats have read single issue matters on ballots here incorrectly.  Maybe in that'st the only thing on a ballot, you get the voters only concerned about that to come out.  Otherwise, people aren't going to vote that way.

Moreover, if Harris is really being told this by the parents of college women, it's because she's talking to the most liberal parents imaginable, and they're going to say crap like that no matter what.  Moreover, the college educated are largely voting for Biden already.  Biden/Harris need to get votes that they don't already have.  The college educated have largely already left the GOP.

What's left of the electorate that is in the GOP is made up of the working class, small business owners (some college educated), and residents of rural regions (including quite a few well-educated ones in those areas).  They don't believe "diversity is strength", they aren't interested in tolerating non "Judeo-Christian" religions, or gender mutilation, and they feel that their lives and livelihoods are threatened by out of control illegal immigration.  They love their regions, but they're largely incapable of believing in climate change in spite of the evidence.  They quit listening to scientist and social scientist of all types because they were lied to about some things, and therefore don't believe any of it.  They listen to Evangelical pastors who tell them what they want to hear, and who make their massive departures from Christian doctrine irrelevant by not mentioning them (ever hear any of them criticize Trump for living in an adulterous relationship, which by conventional Christianity he is?  Or of an Evangelical Church refusing to marry two people who have been married before?)

When I first started practicing law, a firm partner, a true Christian gentleman, told me about litigation that "this isn't a nice game".  It isn't.  Politics is even less so, and you have to be smart about it.

There's 0 reason that the Biden/Harris ticket needs to mention abortion at all.  Where that's been an issue, they had no role in it. And they're driving Democrats away right now who are Catholic, which includes the Hispanic voters they imagine they'll be gaining.  And their absolute incompetence on the border is in fact a good reason to vote against them.  A competent ticket would shut up on abortion and would make a very serious effort on the border.  

Obama, it might be noted, had a very controlled border.  And while he was President before Dobbs, he didn't say much about abortion either.

He won twice.

Pointing out that more IRS agents punishes the wealthy, not the middle class, would help too.  Pointing out that Trump has been a personally immoral man, might as well.  Pointing out that he was the one who surrendered to the Taliban would as well. 

And parking Harris somewhere would be a good idea, if not dumping her entirely.

And that's where you have to say thing that re uncomfortable.

Al Smith was the Democratic nominee for President in 1928.  He would have won, but he was Catholic.  Yes, that meant a lot of the electorate was bigoted, but it also meant that the Democrats weren't smart in running him.

They would be now, but Smith wouldn't be a Democrat any longer.  He'd likely be an independent.  He wasn't willing to compromise on his Catholicism, like Joe Biden has, and he wasn't a liar of any kind either.

Kamala Harris is like Al Smith in one fashion.  She reminds bigoted voters who they hate.  She's a lawyer (regular people hate lawyers), she's the child of two immigrants (MAGA people don't like immigrants), one of whom was Indian and the other Jamaican, making her a "person of color" (a lot of MAGA people really don't like people of color, let alone immigrant people of color), she's married to an entertainment lawyer (oh, oh) who is Jewish (again, MAGA people like Israel, but Jews. . . ) and the children of the couple are from his first marriage, meaning she has low parent street cred.

Are any of those items a reason not to vote for Harris?  Absolutely not.  Her policies are a reason not to vote for Harris.  But will some MAGA people vote for Trump for these reasons? You bet they will, and in a race this close, in a handful of states that matter, that's a problem.

I don't know who would be a better VP candidate.  Amy Klobuchar strikes me as one who would be better in every fashion.  If you could find an American Christian Levantine politician (and there definitely are some) they'd be absolutely perfect, particularly if the choice was a woman.  But what I am saying is that in a race with democracy itself on the ticket, choosing to go with a candidate this old for President, and a VP who is so disliked, is just dumb.  And emphasizing the aspects of your campaign that the populist right hates, even if they do so wrongly on some of them, and the nervous middle aren't comfortable with, isn't very smart either.  Having the disliked person, even if the dislike is immoral, who people fear might end up President isn't very smart, either.

This isn't a nice game.  Sometimes choices have to be made in the candidates and the strategy that aren't very palatable.  A lot of Republicans will do what Cynthia Lummis admitted to doing in 2016 as to Trump, and "hold her nose and vote".  The Democrats should hold their noses and make some smart choices.

But they will not.

Watching the Democrats choosing to lose the 2024 election.

This is a major blunder:

Lex Anteinternet: The 2024 Election, Part XII. The March To Moscow:   January 23, 2024

The Democrats, being the party that doesn't lose elections, but throws them away, are doing that right now by putting Vice President Harris on a "Reproductive Freedom", i.e. Infanticide, Tour.

Everything about this strategy is wrong.

First of all, the Democrats do not need to campaign as the party of infanticide, everyone knows they have blood on their hands and wish to continue odd making them wet.  Those supporting infanticide have nowhere else to go, and are going to vote Democratic no matter what.

Secondly, the numerous center right voters who would normally vote Republican but who are rational about Donald Trump and what he stands for have been working their way around to vote for Biden/Harris, but being reminded of this, particularly if they are devout or at least adherent  Catholics/Orthodox/Muslims will drive them away as it'll make the election about abortion and they can't go there.  This section of the electorate is big enough to determine the election.

Finally, Kamala Harris is one of the most dis-likeable candidates imaginable.  Joe Biden won the election in spite of her lat time, not because of her.  Nobody needs to be reminded that if in the high likelihood Joe Biden dies or becomes disabled in his second term, she becomes the far left successor President.

So, it was at this point, the Democrats lost the 2024 election.  The question is, who will win it?

In the 2020 election, there was a raging debate in the Catholic blogosphere about whether a person could morally vote for Joe Biden. Some Catholic pundits said you could, because Donald Trump was otherwise such a danger to the nation.  Others said you could not, and you had to vote for Trump no matter how much you despised him, as the Democrats detest life to such an extent.

The one thing that the Democrats did not do, however, is to put infanticide front and center in the election.

They are now.

A good devout highly educated Catholic friend of mine is lamenting that Trump will win, as now, he stated "I'll have to vote for him". 

And I myself am a good example.   I won't vote for Trump, but I won't vote for Biden either.  There were times I could contemplate voting for Biden, but now that a center of the campaign is opting for murder, I truly can't.

Why did the Democrats do this?

The reason is that Democrats like to lose elections.

Well, they don't, but they make stupid decisions, and their decisions, strategically, are even dumber than those of the Republicans.

As radical as the GOP MAGA populists are, and they are, they do tap into some legitimate concerns. Democrats, however, have ceded their position to the radical left wing where it does them no good whatsoever.

This is a good example.

In Wyoming, the Democrats have introduced a pro infanticide bill into the budget session.  It'll go nowhere, they know that, why do it?

To make a showing of how far left delusional they are. This keeps numerous well-educated, professional and thoughtful Catholics and Mormons from voting for them.

Good move Democrats.

Likewise, nationally, this will cost the Democrats votes, for no reason whatsoever. Where were pro death Democrats going to go?  Into the GOP?

Likewise, having Kamala Harris front anything is absurd.  I don't know hat audience she sells in, but it's a very narrow one.  Otherwise, her presence on the campaign trail suggests that 1) Biden is too feeble to get out there, and 2) she's going to take over when he passes.  Neither of those are a very attractive thought for voters.

Related Thread: 

Witnessing a decline in mental status. Donald Trump on the campaign trail.

Oral Arguments

The Wyoming Supreme Court held arguments this week on an appeal of Judge Owens' ruling in Teton County that Secretary of State Chuck Gray, Rep. Rachel Rodriguez-Williams, R-Cody, Rep. Chip Neiman, R-Hulett, and Right to Life of Wyoming would not be allowed to intervene in the ongoing abortion lawsuit.

The doomed appeal was by  Rodriguez-Williams, Neiman and Right to Life. 

While they can't be blamed for trying, intervention is discretionary and Owens said no. That's where that will stay.

Friday, July 30, 1943. Stolen secrets and the Atomic Bomb.

France renounced its Chinese concessions in Shanghai.  It had held them since 1849.

Igor Kurchalov, Soviet physicist, informed Molotov that stolen secrets from the US had much advanced the Soviet nuclear weapons program.

The Luftwaffe carried out the first flight of the Arado Ar 234, the first jet engined bomber.  Only small numbers would be produced, and reconnaissance proved to be its primary role.

Marie-Louise Giraud, age 38, became the last person woman executed by the guillotine.  Her sentence was carried out by the German occupation government and was for performing abortions.

Discovery, in more than one fashion.

Reading about a lawsuit and actually knowing what is going on in it are two different things.  For that reason, you have to be really careful about any press reports you read about litigation. They're often pretty far off the mark and often filtered through the reporter's perceptions, which almost always are ignorant as to the law and what's going on in litigation.

This odd headline from the Cowboy State Daily brings this up.

Abortion Advocates Say Wyoming Can’t Defend Its Ban Because Of Rape, Incest Exemptions

Reading between the lines, what seems to be the case is that the plaintiffs served discovery on the State seeking to show that the statute in question wasn't rationally related to a legitimate state purpose. From reading it, it's a pretty desperate effort which would demonstrate that 1) they think they're going to lose, or 2) its throw away discovery.  I'd guess No. 1. They're now fearful that the state is going to be able to prove that the statutes are rationally related to a legitimate state purpose. So, the effort now is to show that laws which leave out those conceived due to rape and incest are inconsistent with the purpose of valuing all human life (they are), and that some of the legislators were motivated by their religious beliefs (they probably were).

Things are, in this context, that doesn't matter.

It might be, and I'd argue, is inconsistent.  But lots of laws are, and the inconsistencies here don't matter from a legal prospective.  Moreover, if they do, it'll bring about a stricter law in short order.  The Plaintiffs hope that they can defeat that on the basis that murder isn't healthcare, and of course, they're defending murder.

That would argue for repeal of the Wyoming constitutional provision that was in fact a really stupid addition to the state's constitution, but it would also perhaps pave the way forward.  The argument would be, yep, this isn't about health care, it's about murder, and therefore the unfortunate paranoid addition to the state's constitution doesn't apply.

The fact that we're now at this stage I think shows that the judge was in error in not just certifying this entire thing to the Wyoming Supreme Court.  I thought she should have.  Of course, she's now taking in evidence which may make it difficult for her ultimate ruling to be appealed, in which case the wisdom of her approach will be proven.

Regarding wisdom or lack of it, I continue to be amazed, to a degree, by the extent to which supporters of abortion use language that fails to really get to the core of things.  Some of it is just because they don't wish to admit it to themselves, and some of it is because they haven't thought it out. At the end of the day, however, what suits like this are based on, or the spouting of liberals like Robert Reich are based on, is the thesis that we're the centers of the universe.  Nothing is more significant than us, therefore we can murder.  That's pretty much it.  We can define what lives are worthy of life, and which are not, simply because we're what counts and all that counts.

One of the irony of arguments like that is that some of those making them are people who fit into categories which, less than 100 years ago, were deemed in some quarters not to count, and therefore were killed.

Being dim on the laws of other countries.

Among the comments I've seen about the riots in France is one wondering if this would be happening if the French were allowed to own firearms.

The French are allowed to own firearms.

There's a really weird, and dim, assumption that Americans are the only people on earth who are allowed to own firearms.  It's completely in error.  Most countries around the globe allow their citizens to own firearms. Even Japan, which is often cited as an example of complete firearms' prohibition, allows some firearms' ownership.

Lots of countries have considerably more restrictions than the US on firearms' ownership, but not all do.  Perhaps that's what confuses Americans, as we don't pay much attention; 1) beyond our own borders or 2) to anyone who doesn't speak English as their native language.  The UK has very strict firearms laws, as do Canada and Australia.  The latter two are far stricter than they should be, in my view.

But not every European country is anywhere near as strict as Americans seem to believe.  Yes, stricter than the US, but not as strict as apparently Americans commonly believe.

Interestingly, the opposite is true on abortion and surgical/chemical gender related mutilation of minors.

By and large, most European countries, maybe all European countries, are stricter than most of the US on abortion.  The US, thanks to the scientific illiteracy of Roe v. Wade, is far more bloody and liberal than Europe, by and large. FWIW, at least one large European country provides that abortion in general is illegal, but oddly allows it, on a much more restrictive basis than the US, on some odd legal reasoning basis that I don't really follow.

And on transgenderism and minors, Europe is very much beginning to ban  afflicting minors with surgery and pharmaceuticals, taking the approach, correctly, that its completely unsupported by the science.

Owens signalling intent?

Ninth Judicial District Judge Melissa Owens expanded her series of injunctions to preclude prohibitions on abortion pills, indicating that there's a strong chance that the Plaintiffs may win in this case on the basis, she says, that abortion can be regarded as health care.

While its difficult for me to see how infanticide is health care, this is another reason to point out what we already did in this thread:

Lawsuit filed over Wyoming's abortion restriction law. . . and a cautionary tale.

As we then noted:

Back during the Obama Administration, in a fit of right wing upsettedness and paranoia, Wyoming amended its constitution as follows.

Artice 1, Section 38.

Right of health care access  

(a) Each competent adult shall have the right to make his or her own health care decisions. The parent, guardian or legal representative of any other natural person shall have the right to make health care decisions for that person.  

(b) Any person may pay, and a health care provider may accept, direct payment for health care without imposition of penalties or fines for doing so.  

(c) The legislature may determine reasonable and necessary restrictions on the rights granted under this section to protect the health and general welfare of the people or to accomplish the other purposes set forth in the Wyoming Constitution.  

(d) The state of Wyoming shall act to preserve these rights from undue governmental infringement.

You'll recall, of course, when "Obamacare" was new, and before Americans had acclimated themselves so much to it that it could not be repealed, the Republican Party was full of stories about how government panels were going to make your health care decisions for you, like it or not. This inspired early Tea Party type movements to address this, this being one of them.

Of course, the amendment goes largely unused and in spite of quite a bit of debate on masks and quarantines during the height of the pandemic, the amendment has sat dormant until now, when it was predictably noticed.  

So now this is on a trip to the Wyoming Supreme Court. Some judge is going to be asked to stay the new law until the Supreme Court can rule on it, a nightmare for whomever is tasked with this, and this isn't going to be pleasant for the Wyoming Supreme Court either.  As a hot button issue in really polarized times, no matter what they do will make somebody really angry.

In my view, abortion isn't "health care" per se, and so this amendment ought not to apply.  That will really upset people who place it in the health care category, but it really isn't.  I hold the same view, fwiw, of cosmetic surgery for "beauty" purposes.  Not to compare the two, but by example getting bigger boobs isn't a health care decision.  Abortion for avoidance of a natural biologic process isn't either, at least until you get into the topic of the physical life of the mother.

I can't help but note, however, how this right wing constitutional amendment has now swung around as a leftward one.  So now the article is being used by the left against the right. And there are other ways the same article could be.  If a legislature, for example, determines to address transgender surgery or treatment with pharmaceuticals, which I'd guess some legislators would like to do, can they?

We noted in another thread how the prime mover on this amendment noted that he'd feel awful if his amendment was interpreted in the fashion it now risks being, that person being a strong opponent of abortion.  While I admire his stance in that regard, he should feel awful.  His paranoia on a non problem has helped create a real one.

The 2023 Wyoming Legislative Session. Strays. (Vol 8).

 

May 23, 2023

Chuck Gray and two legislators are again attempting to intervene in the abortion suit pending in the 9th Judicial District.  Gray's earlier effort was opposed by the State of Wyoming, and rejected by the judge assigned the case.   Gray is again trying to intervene in his official capacity.

June 2, 2023

And the Court said no, again.

Last prior edition:

The 2023 Wyoming Legislative Session. The Last Roundup. (Vol 7).

Misplaced Priorities

 

Vox: We Need to Consider the Suffering of the Unborn (Chickens)

But not that human fetuses feel pain?

"Grandstanding for the public does not sway judges or win court cases — strong legal arguments do."

Lex Anteinternet: Lex Anteinternet: Chuk Gray again attempts to int...: the Attorney General and Governor tell him to go back to his office and do his job. Our last entry on the far fight wing populist who clearl...

And today an open debate has spilled on to the pages of the Tribune, as Secretary of State Gray, who normally likes to accuse the media of having a radical leftist agenda, texted the Trib with his supposed rationale as to why he should be admitted to the suit, which include distrusting Attorney General Hill to fully represent the wishes of the residents of the State against "the radical left".  He also uses the thin excuse that he has taken an oath to the Constitution and its laws, which of course every state official has.  That oath provides, pursuant to Wyoming's constitution:

Senators and representatives and all judicial, state and county officers shall, before entering on the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation:  “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, obey and defend the constitution of the United States, and the constitution of the state of Wyoming;  that I have not knowingly violated any law related to my election or appointment, or caused it to be done by others;  and that I will discharge the duties of my office with fidelity."

Governor Gordon's point is that intervening as the Secretary of State in an action in which the Governor is a named defendant is not part of Gray's duty to "discharge the duties of [his] office.", which of course it absolutely is not.

Gray maintained his distrust against Hill stems from the failed suit against Washington over coal ports, something we noted was a doomed effort at the time.

Governor Gordon accused Gray of grandstanding and stated what was quoted above; "Grandstanding for the public does not sway judges or win court cases — strong legal arguments do". Gordon also defended Hill and said the blame, for the coal port suit, was if anything the fault of a "Trump appointed" solicitor.  I'd place the blame on the effort clearly not being supported by the law, which is also the case for Gray's attempted intervention in this suit failing.

Gray's effort here is, at best, misguided, and at worst, an effort at political grandstanding as Gordon suggests.  That Gray, who probably has no interest in the real work of the Secretary of State's office and every interest in remaining in the spotlight to advance himself, would clash with Gordon was inevitable, as Gray clearly intends to be the far right, populist Governor of a state that he moved into just slightly before starting to seek office.  If a Democrat used this office this way, people in Gray's camp would scream that he should be impeached.

Lex Anteinternet: Chuck Gray again attempts to intervene in abortion lawsuit, and . . .

the Attorney General and Governor tell him to go back to his office and do his job.

Our last entry on the far fight wing populist who clearly wants to use his clerical office as a springboard to something else:

Lex Anteinternet: Chuck Gray again attempts to intervene in abortion...: along with some legislators. The legislators make sense, as they were backers of the bill under consideration. Chuck does not, as he left th...

The AG and the Governor have filed a brief opposing his attempt to be an intervenor in the abortion suit, which states, amongst other things:

In his official capacity, Secretary of State Gray cannot intervene in this case unless a Wyoming statute authorizes him to do so.

Gray actually hired a nephew of Congressman Hageman, also a lawyer, to work in his office, after dissing his primary opponent for being a lawyer. Some lawyerly review might be well received now, including what the duties of his elective office actually are.

It might be considered here by those supporting the law that Gray's intervention, while probably helping to keep Gray in the spotlight, likely don't do much to help  the cause of the bill.

Chuck Gray again attempts to intervene in abortion suit. . .

along with some legislators.

The legislators make sense, as they were backers of the bill under consideration. Chuck does not, as he left the legislature to become Secretary of State.

If he's bored with the job, he should leave it to somebody more qualified and more interested in it.  The position exist for a reason, and he seems to have forgotten that.  

He's likely, FWIW, damaging the attempts of the would be intervenors to get in, as there's no reason he should be let in.

So, will Robert Reich, or Bernie Saunders, or the other "Progressives". . .

 who see infanticide on demand as a right now give the pharmaceutical industry, which before they saw as greedy, the thumbs up?

Drug Company Leaders Condemn Ruling Invalidating F.D.A.’s Approval of Abortion Pill

If not, why not?  To do otherwise would be at least a little hypocritical.

Of course, no more than being a member of an ethnicity for which mass extermination was advocated, while advocating mass extermination.

Or for advocating for democracy, while opposing it.

Hard words, I know.

But advocating for life, no matter how inconvenient, involves that.

I was wondering.

In the abortion debate in Wyoming, one of the plaintiffs has asserted that Judaism mandates abortion in some circumstances.

That struck me as flat out absurd, and a local Jewish figure did publish an article flatly rejecting that.  It keeps coming up, however.

Judaism has lacked, since the destruction of the Temple in AD 70, a central religious body, so perhaps more than any other major religion, it relies extremely heavily on conveyed tradition.  Islam, FWIW, tends to as well.  Interestingly, the body that split away from Judaism around AD30, but which remained mixed within it at the time, Catholicism, retains a highly central organization the way that Judaism did at the time of its founding.  

Anyhow, it's interesting to see what actual orthodox (small o) Jews think of this effort.  An article in Newsweek let's us know.  It's entitled:

Judaism's Stance on Gender Is Clear, Despite Attempts To Rewrite Torah | Opinion

Well worth reading.

The takeaway?  Judaism doesn't sanction abortion.  People who claim otherwise, really, are trying to co opt the religion. 

Health care, abortion and the Law of Unintended Consequences. How becoming obsessed with a political fantasy sabotaged, maybe, the effort to ban abortion in Wyoming

A headline on Vox:

Thanks, Obama! The hilarious reason why a judge just blocked Wyoming’s abortion ban.

Republicans just got a painful reminder that political stunts can backfire.

The article concludes:

For the moment, however, the Obama-era amendments writing anti-Obamacare talking points into two state constitutions have proved to be a thorn in the side of Republicans who hope to ban abortions. Let that be a lesson that a state constitution is a foolish thing to change for the sake of a political stunt.

Vox is more or less correct in its thesis as to how we got here, even if it's absurdly optimistic about anyone "learning a lesson".  Where it isn't fully correct is in the assumption it was a stunt.  Fired up by conspiracy theories and propaganda, a fair number of those voting for the amendment and the bill that took it to the electorate believed that they were operating against almost certain Obamacare "Death Panels".  One Natrona County former legislator has stated:

I’ll be very grieved if they actually use that as an instrument of death,  That wasn’t our intent at all.

Of course that wasn't the intent, but did you read the constitutional amendment?  There were concerns at the time.

The Equality State Policy Center, for one, was worried about the bill, with its lobbyist, Dan Neal, stating:

I’ll bet that even the original supporters of this amendment can’t tell you exactly what it will do, given the vague language and all the changes made to it during the Legislature’s deliberations in 2011.

Yup.

And as for grieved?  Bereaved would be a better term.  By yielding to paranoid propaganda, those who sponsored this, and then voted for it, have blood on their hands.

And there's a lesson in there.  

In the rules that govern logical thinking, Chesterton's Fence, which should be the first rule of Conservatism, holds:

There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”

 A corollary to that might be called Yeoman's Gate, which holds:

Before you go through a gate to get to the other side of a fence, completely figure out. to the extent you can, where the path goes.

Which brings up the topic of the Gatekeeper:

If somebody is holding a fence open, urging you to go through, or keeping it closed, trying to bar you from doing so, ask what interest he has in either action.

None of these principles were applied.  If they had been, it should have been clear that a certain sector of the Obamacare fearmongers were people who were using it for their own political self-interest, not out of any real concern. Those people were among the gatekeepers.  "Run through", they yelled, "the big scary blood Marxist bear of Obama is right behind you!. . .And by the way, vote for me next election, here's my flyer full of BS . . ."

And the pathway lead right to here.

A person should likely ask the same questions about the more radical bills that floated in the last legislature, and most particularly about the Crossover Voting bill that just passed.

Why did we allow crossover voting?  Nobody really asked, did they?

Where does the path lead, now that we've crossed it?

And why was the gatekeeper so eager to for us to go through?

The 2023 Wyoming Legislative Session. The Last Roundup. (Vol 7).

March 4, 2023

Well, the session is over, but the bills will still be heading towards Governor Gordon's desk for a few days, at least if the normal procedure holds.

We'll cover those as they are acted upon, and give our postmortem in this post as well.  Indeed late yesterday, he issued his announcement about a couple of such bills.

Governor Gordon Signs Signature Piece of Legislation Supporting Mothers and Children and Another to Advance Property Tax Reform to Close Session

 

CHEYENNE, Wyo. –  Fulfilling a priority outlined in his State of the State address, Governor Mark Gordon signed a bill to extend medical assistance to low-income mothers and children for 12 months after birth, and a joint resolution that allows Wyomingites to vote on a Constitutional amendment that is a first step in delivering residential property tax reform for Wyoming residents. This came on the final day of the Legislature’s 2023 General Session.  

In an emotional public signing ceremony attended by legislators from both chambers and advocates for the bill, Governor Gordon described House Bill 4 - Medicaid twelve-month postpartum coverage as a “signature piece of pro-life legislation”. The bill extends postpartum Medicaid coverage from 90 days to 12 months and is expected to help between 1,000 and 2,000 low-income Wyoming mothers. 

“We heard in the mental health summit we hosted last fall about the importance of getting mothers and children off to a good start. Taking care of both in that critical first year of development pays dividends down the road,” Governor Gordon said. “I couldn’t be more pleased sign a bill that does just that at the close of the session.” 

Governor Gordon also signed Senate Joint Resolution 3 - Property tax residential property class. The joint resolution will place an amendment before Wyoming voters that would create a separate class for residential real property, allowing for the Legislature to reduce residential property tax assessments. The Governor described it as an opportunity to put the state on a path for long-term property tax relief for families.  

In his closing remarks to both the Senate and House chambers, the Governor thanked the members for their service and for their work on a budget that puts more than $1 billion into savings. He also urged the members of the Legislature to continue seeking “Wyoming solutions to Wyoming problems,” in the interim instead of bringing forward legislation developed in Washington, DC by think tanks and lobbyists.  

The Governor signed the following bills into law today:

Enrolled Act #  Bill# Bill Title

HEA0084 HB0004 Medicaid twelve-month postpartum coverage.

SJ0003 SJ0003 Property tax residential property class.

You'll note those final remarks.  Pretty telling.  That was a shot at the "Freedom Caucus", which came into the past two legislative sessions to address, in many instances, made up or even mythical problems, full of conviction, and often stuffed with belief in lies.  They saw success in the 2022 General Election, with one of their acolytes, Chuck Gray, making it all the way to the Secretary of State's Office.

And then they fell flat in this legislature.

Gordon's remarks promoted a reaction from the leadership of the Freedom Caucus, Gillette's John Bear.  Bear replied to the Cowboy State Daily:

It’s pretty arrogant to think that all bills made out of a state would be a bad fit for Wyoming 

and  

It’s his way of excusing more conservative bills not passing.

Excusing?

Well, Gordon probably didn't support them, so he doesn't need to excuse them.  The one piece of notable legislation that came out of that quarter so far he let pass into law without his signature. That bill, banning "cross over" voting, will ironically lock recently crossed over Democrats into the GOP into the GOP, as most won't get around to switching back until the next primary season.  Gray may be remembered as the man who created a left wing in the GOP.

Oops.

Otherwise, almost all of the real radical populist bills simply bit the dust at some point in the legislature.  Interestingly, some of them bit the dust in the opposite house in both cases, with some populist bills dying in the Senate after passing the House, and vice versa.  That might reflect committee assignments.  Indeed, parliamentary moves clearly doomed some of them.

That became a late legislature flap when the Speaker of the House but a collection of them in his bottom drawer, only bringing them back out late in the session. This provoked a comment from Harriet Hageman, who in turn was told to shut and mind her own work by some notable state Republicans.  By and large, the Speaker gained popularity for his moves and being open about them.

Already there are comments that the bloom has finally gone off of the "red" rose of the FC.

Lots of people are hoping so.

It may be too early for that, but it does seem something is up.  The newly elected populists saw their legislative agenda simply fall flat.  The legislature didn't pass education bills they sponsored.  It didn't even pass the prohibitions on juvenile transgender mutilation, which would seem to have had widespread support.  It didn't pass the gun 'em down trespass law.  It didn't vote to castrate the National Guard.

Moreover, it did pass bills that the far right populist opposed.  Jeanette Ward may have proclaimed that her Christian beliefs provided that we were not our brother's keepers, but the legislature felt that we were, being more in tune with the actual Christian Gospel.  The GOP Central Committee came out in favor of allowing child marriages to remain a feature of Wyoming's law, but the legislature banned them anyway.

Other than the bill banning cross over voting, the bills that the far right supported that crossed the bar are those addressing abortion.  But they had very broad conservative support, and at least in one case, were substantially amended.  The far right can't really take credit for their passing, although they might be able to for getting them rolling.  Be that as it may, there is now a long history in the legislature of action in this quarter.

In the meantime, nationally, hard right populist took hits.  Fox News' commentators turned out to never believe the election lie but chose to keep telling it anyhow.  Tucker Carlson keeps screaming about our support of Ukraine, with more and more people wondering why.  Marjorie Taylor Green called for dissolving the union, with most people wondering what on earth is up with her.

Radical movements tend to peak and fade.  Something seems to be going on, although its a safe bet that we haven't heard the last of the populist far right in the state.  Indeed, it might turn out to be the case that they're most heard outside the legislature, rather than in it, even thought that doesn't seem to make them effective within it.

March 7, 2023

Oklahomans go to the polls today on a single ballot initiative, that being whether to make Americans even more dull witted than they already are, or in other words, whether to allow them to depress their intellects further by legalizing marijuana.

March 8, 2023

Governor Gordon to Hold Public Bill Signing Today, Thursday March 9

 

CHEYENNE, Wyo. – Governor Mark Gordon will hold a formal bill signing ceremony Thursday, March 9 beginning at 10 am in the Governor's Ceremonial Conference Room in the State Capitol Building. The ceremony is open to the public. 

The Governor will sign the following bills: 

Enrolled Act #  Bill# Bill Title

HEA0081HB0074 Wyoming outdoor recreation and tourism trust fund.

SEA0089 SF0094  Federal Indian Child Welfare Act codification.

March 9, 2023

Voters in Oklahoma rejected a chance to make residents of their state stupider through doping them up through legalized marijuana.

March 9, cont.

Game and Fish begins implementation of 2023 legislative changes

 

3/9/2023 9:38:46 PM

CHEYENNE - The 2023 Wyoming Legislature passed several bills that will make changes to Wyoming Game and Fish Department laws and regulations. The following is a summary of the notable Game and Fish-related bills that passed, how they will impact the public and the next steps for implementation. Game and Fish will continue to provide updates as these changes move through the regulation process. 

Hunting of predatory animals–amendments (HB0104)

Hunters will be allowed to hunt predatory animals on public or state land at night with the use of artificial light, including thermal and infrared imaging. The Wyoming Game and Fish Commission has been granted the authority to establish rules and regulations regarding the creation of zones, areas, seasons and methods for the taking of predatory animals with the use of artificial light on public or state land. Game and Fish will provide updates as these changes move through the regulation process. 

Mountain lion pursuit seasons (SF0178) 

Wyoming residents may be allowed to participate in a pursuit-only season for mountain lions with dogs in areas where mountain lion hunting is permitted. The take of mountain lions during a pursuit season is illegal and subject to misdemeanor charges and fines. Game and Fish will provide updates as these changes move through the regulation process. 

Nonresident hunting license-application fees (HB0200)

Forty percent of nonresident deer, elk and antelope licenses are placed in the pool for the special draw. This bill increases the fees for those who apply for the special draw.  

The special draw fee for elk, deer and antelope will increase to the following: 

• Nonresident elk special fee: $1,258 
• Nonresident deer special fee: $826
• Nonresident antelope special fee: $874

This bill also will increase the nonresident fees for some of Wyoming’s most coveted licenses to the following: 

• Nonresident bighorn sheep license: $3,000
• Nonresident mountain goat license: $2,750
• Nonresident moose license: $2,750
• Nonresident grizzly bear license: $7,500
• Nonresident wild bison license: $6,000

Nonresidents who wish to enter the special draw for antelope, deer and elk are responsible for paying the special draw fee in addition to the license and application fee. This bill has no effect on the allocation or number of resident licenses. This bill goes into effect on Jan. 1, 2024.

Shed antlers and horns conservation stamp requirement for nonresidents (HB0276)

This bill establishes shed antlers and horns on public land as property of the state and requires nonresidents to obtain a conservation stamp prior to the collection of shed antlers and horns on designated lands. A conservation stamp will not be required for residents of Wyoming or any person under 15 years of age. Nonresidents will not be required to obtain a conservation stamp this year. Game and Fish will provide updates as these changes move through the regulation process.

Collection of antlers or horns by residents and nonresidents (HB0123)

Wyoming residents will have the opportunity to collect shed antlers on designated lands seven days before the start of the nonresident season. Currently, the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission regulation prohibits anyone from collecting shed antlers or horns from public lands west of the Continental Divide, excluding the Great Divide Basin and some land west of Laramie, from Jan. 1 through 6 a.m on May 1. This bill goes into effect on July 1, 2023.

State shooting complex task force (SF0169)

This bill creates a 12-member task force that will oversee the creation of a state shooting, archery and education complex. Directors from the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, State Parks and Cultural Resources and the Department of Tourism or their designee will be members along with other representatives of the Wyoming Legislature, a conservation group, a shooting sports group and the firearms manufacturing industry. 

Defining aircraft for the purposes of hunting prohibitions (SF0033)

This bill provides a clear definition of aircraft in W.S. 23-3-306 which states the use of aircraft, automobiles, motorized and snow vehicles and artificial light for hunting or fishing purposes are  not allowed. The definition of aircraft has been updated to include any machine or device capable of atmospheric flight including but not limited to an airplane, helicopter, glider, dirigible or unmanned aerial vehicle. This bill goes into effect July 1.

Unlawful trespass signage-taking of wildlife (HB0147)

Prohibits anyone from knowingly and without authorization to place signs that restrict access to public land. This bill goes into effect July 1. 

Prohibit travel across private land for hunting purposes (SF056)

This bill prohibits anyone from entering, traveling through or returning across private property to take wildlife, hunt, fish or collect antlers or horns without the permission of the owner or the person in charge of the property. This bill goes into effect July 1.

 — WGFD  — 

Governor Gordon Signs Bills Strengthening Outdoor Tourism Economy, Supporting Native American Culture

CHEYENNE, Wyo. –  Governor Mark Gordon signed a bill today creating the Wyoming Outdoor Recreation and Tourism Trust Fund, which will strengthen Wyoming’s outdoor recreation economy and help fund recreation infrastructure projects. The Governor also signed a bill codifying the federal Indian Child Welfare Act as state law, an important step in supporting tribal culture. 

The Outdoor Recreation and Tourism Trust Fund was funded with $6 million. Additional work will take place in the interim to develop the structure for the fund and how funding will be awarded for potential projects. The Wyoming Office of Outdoor Recreation currently facilitates seven outdoor recreation collaboratives around the state, each focused on defining grassroots opportunities for the growth and enhancement of outdoor recreation in their region. The collaboratives include community members, recreation stakeholders, businesses, conservation groups, federal and state agencies, and elected officials.

“We have seen a hunger for visitors to experience Wyoming’s mountains, rivers and trails. This trust fund has the potential to create new opportunities for small businesses, focus visitation towards appropriate locations and enhance the quality of life for all Wyoming residents,” Governor Gordon said. “I’d like to thank the Joint Travel, Recreation, Wildlife & Cultural Resources Committee for their work on this bill, and the Legislature for their support of this fund.”

The Governor also signed Senate File 94 - Federal Indian Child Welfare Act codification. The bill codifies the federal Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) as state law and specifies requirements and procedures for placing Native American children in shelter care or for adoption. Governor Gordon noted that both Wyoming Tribes have emphasized the importance of ICWA to tribal children and tribal culture. He is encouraged that Wyoming Tribes will have a seat at the table as the State continues to hone its ICWA law through the work of the newly created Indian Child Welfare Act Task Force. As ICWA has such a significant impact on tribal communities, the opportunity for participation by Wyoming Tribes in this process is essential to the success of this law moving forward. 

“This bill celebrates the partnership between the tribes and the State of Wyoming, and our willingness to work together on these important issues that affect all of us,” Governor Gordon said. 

The Governor signed the following bills today:

Enrolled Act   Bill# Bill Title 

HEA0078 HB0185 Local government distributions-revisions.

HEA0079 HB0209 Hathaway scholarship accounts-transfer timing.

HEA0080 HB0089 State investment returns-adequate reserve funding.

HEA0081 HB0074 Wyoming outdoor recreation and tourism trust fund.

HEA0082 HB0017 State lands-grazing of non-owned livestock.

HEA0083 HB0022 State land lease deficiencies-cure process.

HEA0087 HB0052 Revisor's bill.

HEA0089 HB0014 Civil case filing fees-amendments.

HEA0090 HB0144 Senior citizen district programs and services.

HEA0093 HB0076 Licensing boards amendments.

HEA0094 HB0033 School finance-career technical education grants.

HEA0095 HB0064 Legislative stabilization reserve account-obligations.

SEA0077 SF0083 K-12 school facility leasing.

SEA0079 SF0061 Legislator per diem.

SEA0081 SF0167 Domestic violence protection hearings-remote appearance.

SEA0082 SF0152 Occupational therapist criminal history.

SEA0083 SF0099 Witnessing of wills-remote methods.

SEA0086 SF0153 Election security.

SEA0087 SF0164 Public improvement contract requirements-amendments.

SEA0088 SF0147 Government contracts-labor organization.

SEA0089 SF0094 Federal Indian Child Welfare Act codification.

SEA0091 SF0137 Subdivisions-fencing requirements.

SEA0095 SF0076 Wyoming digital asset registration act.

SEA0096 SF0066 School capital construction funding.

SEA0098 SF0042 Taxation of cigars.

A list of bills the Governor has previously taken action on during the 2023 Legislative Session can be found on the Governor’s website.

March 13, 2023

In a really odd example of the depiction of a counter, imaginary, reality, Secretary of State Gray published an op ed in the Tribune praising the passage of the prohibition on changing registration three months prior to a primary as a major victory.

Indeed, in an example of the pre narrative driving the post history, there have been a lot of accounts in papers about how this session was a huge success for the far right in the legislature, when in fact the case is the polar opposite.  In this same issue that was noted by legislator Khale Lenhart who praised the legislature for coming to the middle.  In reality, almost none of the really far right legislation, save for two bills outside of this one, one heavily amended, passed.  Those were on the topic of abortion, which already had wide conservative support.

Indeed, missed here is that the "cross over" voting bill had support from a sort of street level horse sense point of view, even if the premise for it is flawed.  It likely passed as most people feel that the state funded and state supported party elections passed off as "primaries" ought to be limited to the parties.  In reality, if they were true primaries, they'd be party blind, and probably state supported elections should be that way, but people all over the country are acclimated to this system.

To read Mr. Gray, Wyoming's primaries were threatened by vast hordes of liberal Democrats who switched over to Republicans to wreck GOP primaries and vote into office faux Republicans, all while protected by the "liberal media".  If that were true, of course, Mr. Gray would have packed his bags in November and returned to his native California, having lost an election based on the fable that the 2020 election was stolen, Harriet Hageman would be just another practicing lawyer in Cheyenne, having lost in her bid to unseat Liz Cheney for questioning anything about Donald Trump, and Gray's op ed would have been published in. .. . well not published.

For some time I've questioned whether Gray believes the stuff he's been saying, and was willing to perhaps find that he had self deluded himself to that point. But this "op ed" reads like something written to the already fully convinced.  There are lots of Wyoming Democrats swinging elections. The media was part of a cover up of that.

Not so much.

FWIW, the new cross over law is probably unconstitutional, and my prediction is it will be struck down prior to the next primary season.  It interferes with political rights of the electorate in a state funded election.  There is really nothing that precludes a person from being a hardcorse MAGA Trump supporting voter on one day, and waking up the next and deciding he's a Communist, or vice vera.  If parties really want to dicate who runs for them, they should demand this process be removed from the primaries so they can decide it in conventions.  As long as they want the state to host an election for them, it has to be open to all.

Indeed, quite truthfully, party elections on the state's dime raise some questions.  They're just not ones anyone has bothered to ask.

March 16, 2023

Utah's Governor signed into law a bill requiring all abortions to be performed in hospitals, outlawing clinics.

March 17, 2023

After Signing Several Bills to Strengthen Elections, Governor Vetoes Bill that Would Have Confused Voters

 

CHEYENNE, Wyo. – Governor Mark Gordon exercised his veto authority on Senate File 131- Prohibition on delivery of unsolicited ballot forms today. The Governor signed several bills this session to strengthen election integrity and security, but says that changes made to this bill during the legislative process muddled the bill’s language and intent. The Governor expressed concern that SF 131 as currently written would have resulted in unintended consequences that would compromise election confidence and integrity, and might provide a means to inappropriately suppress proper absentee voting. 

SF0131 was brought forward to address the distribution of certain campaign materials and forms to apply for absentee ballots. But, the Governor wrote, clarifying language was removed from the final bill.

“I want to be clear, at no time have I been presented with facts of fraud, mismanagement, or malfeasance in Wyoming’s election process. Even so, over the past month, I have signed those bills which strengthen election integrity and security, such as codifying existing election rules. SF0131, as delivered to my desk, is superfluous and potentially confusing. Consequently, I must veto SF0131,” Governor Gordon wrote. 

The Governor’s veto letter is attached and may be found here. 

Governor Gordon also allowed SF0127 - Wyoming Stable Token Act to go into law without his signature. The Governor’s letter addressing SF 0127 is also attached and may be found here. 

A list of bills the Governor has taken action on during the 2023 Legislative Session can be found on the Governor’s website.

-END-

• SF 131_Veto Letter_3_17_23.pdf
• SF 127 Letter_3_17_23.pdf

March 17, cont:

Governor Issues Directive to Provide Financial Relief to Independent Pharmacists While Signing Prescription Drug Transparency Act with Line-Item Vetoes

Governor Allows Trans Athlete Legislation to Pass Into Law, Expresses Concerns Over Impacts, Potential Litigation.

CHEYENNE, Wyo. – Governor Mark Gordon exercised his line item veto authority on select portions of  Senate File 151/SEA No. 90 - Wyoming prescription drug transparency act before signing it today. He noted it has important policy changes related to rural, independent pharmacists, a critical component of healthcare in Wyoming. He vetoed portions of the bill that could have significant impacts on prescription costs for Wyoming consumers. The Governor acknowledged the importance of rural independent pharmacies and the burdens placed on those small businesses, which are often left to manage operations with insufficient reimbursements and increasing compliance costs for accountability. 

To demonstrate his desire to provide financial relief to rural, independent pharmacies, Governor Gordon has signed a Governor’s Directive for the Wyoming Department of Administration and Information (“A&I”) to negotiate payment of an increased amount of dispensing fee claims of up to $10 per brand label claim and $12 per generic brand claim to independent pharmacists participating in the Wyoming State Employees’ and Officials’ Group Insurance program. 

“This issue is so important to Wyoming, our communities, and our future that I implore health insurance providers to follow in our footsteps,” Governor Gordon said. “Together, working in unison, we can make a difference in our communities and keep local businesses operational while ensuring quality access to vital healthcare services.”   

The Governor did line-item several provisions in the bill and wrote to legislators that the act as drafted “may do more harm than good, inadvertently shifting increased and burdensome pharmaceutical costs to consumers despite the good work done by all involved to provide local relief.”

The Governor allowed Senate File 133/SEA No. 92 - Student eligibility in interscholastic sports to pass into law without his signature. The Governor said that while he supports and agrees with the overall goal of fairness in competitive female sports, the ban included in the legislation “is overly draconian, is discriminatory without attention to individual circumstances or mitigating factors, and pays little attention to fundamental principles of equality.” The Governor does agree with the provision of the bill that moves decision-making to the state level to ensure consistency and fairness across school districts. 

“While I freely acknowledge the intent of this legislation is well-meaning as a way to protect the integrity and fairness of women’s sports in our state, by enacting an outright ban on transgender individuals participating in sports teams, I believe Wyoming sends a harmful message that these individuals and their families do not deserve the same opportunities as others,” the Governor wrote.

“Moreover the ban leaves little or no flexibility for families to support their children. As a parent, that saddens me,” the Governor added.

The Legislature set the effective date for the bill as July 1. That means no current student athletes are impacted during this season. The Governor committed to work with the State Superintendent of Public Instruction prior to the start of the next school year to ensure that there is clear guidance from the Wyoming High School Activities Association regarding the opportunities that will exist moving forward for transgender students to have some means to participate safely in interscholastic activities after this law goes into effect, recognizing sadly that may mean these young people may not be able to compete in athletics. 

A copy of the Governor’s letters and his line-items are attached and can be found on the Bills page of the Governor’s website. 

-END-

• SF 133_Letter_3_17_23.pdf 

• SF 151_Line Item Vetoes_3_17_23.pdf

Governor Gordon Emphasizes Pro-Life Position with New Laws

CHEYENNE, Wyo. – Governor Mark Gordon took further steps to implement a pro-life policy agenda when he signed a prohibition on chemical abortions today. At the same time, he allowed House Bill 152 - Life is a Human Right Act to go into law. But he expressed concern that this new law will only result in a new lawsuit, which will delay any resolution to the constitutionality of the abortion ban in Wyoming. Earlier today, the plaintiffs in the current lawsuit filed a legal challenge of this new law in the event the Act was not vetoed.

The Governor says that since the Legislature continues to make minor tweaks in the abortion law each year, it only leads to additional delays in obtaining  a final decision from the courts about Wyoming’s Constitution. Governor Gordon stressed that if the Legislature wants finality it should put a constitutional amendment before the people and let them decide if they want to add an abortion ban to the state's constitution. 

The Governor has a strong pro-life record, including signing Senate File 109 - Prohibiting Chemical Abortion, Senate File 79–Plan of safe care-newborns, and last year’s House Enrolled Act No. 57 Abortion prohibition-supreme court decision, as well as House Bill 4 - Medicaid twelve-month postpartum coverage, which extends postpartum Medicaid coverage from 90 days to 12 months and is expected to help between 1,000 and 2,000 low-income Wyoming mothers.

“I understand the Legislature’s effort to improve Wyoming’s pro-life legal framework and preemptively clarify some of these legal questions with HEA 0088’s various legislative findings,” the Governor wrote. “However, I believe this question needs to be decided as soon as possible so that the issue of abortion in Wyoming can be finally resolved, and that is best done with a vote of the people.”

While he understands the intent of the legislative findings included in Life is a Human Right Act, the Governor said he does not feel these are a, “substitute for an expression of the people when it comes to constitutional matters.”

“If the Legislature wants to expressly address how the Wyoming Constitution treats abortion and defines healthcare, then those issues should be vetted through the amendment process laid out in Article 20 of the Wyoming Constitution and voted on directly by the people,” the Governor wrote. 

The Governor’s letter is attached and may be viewed here. 

In his final actions on bills passed during the 2023 General Legislative session, Governor Gordon exercised his line-item veto authority on the following bills. The letters with line items, along with a list of all bills the Governor has taken action on during the 2023 Legislative Session, can be found on the Governor’s website.

HEA0091 HB0195 American rescue plan act appropriations-amendments.

SEA0084 SF0146 State funded capital construction.

SEA0097 SF0096 Omnibus water bill-planning and administration.

-END-

• HB 152_Letter_3_17_23.pdf

 Assuming the last line is correct, this is the end of legislative action for this session.

March 18, 2023

The predictable fallout and grousing has commenced over the last few items noted above.

Gov. Gordon felt that the the House's removal of an amendment of the unsolicited ballot mailings bill made it confusing, and potentially illegal.   Chuck Gray has complained about it.

March 21, 2023

Both the new abortion provisons and the trans athelete ban are clearly headed to court at this point.

Governor Gordon signed a pharmacy bill, but Gordon used his line item veto to heavily recraft the bill to the displeasure of many who supported it.

March 23, 2023

As was widely anticipated, the same 9th Judicial District judge that enjoined enforcement of the trigger law also enjoined enforcemetn of the state's new abortion ban.

The question may be why is it taking this matter so long to work through the 9th.  An earlier effort to send it straigth to the Wyoming Supreme Court, which is where it is headed anyway, failed and it remains at the trial court level.

The new bill had attempted to work around the poorly thought out amendment to the Wyoming Constitution that provided that the state couldn't interfere with an individual's health care decisions. The extremely conservator former legislature who crafted that amendment later stated he'd be horrified if he was to blame for the preservation of abortion and right now, he should be horrified. This was 100% predictable.

Nonetheless during the last legislative session backers of this bill claimed those who said it would be challenged in court were "fear mongering".  Those individuals turned out to be naive.  A couple of legislators, an anti abortion physicians group, and Secretary of State Chuch Gray, who apparently has a some amount of free time in his new job to do things other than the actual work of that position, attempted to intervene with amicus briefs but were deined.  While I don't know, the fact that the Secretary of State, who has no connection with this issue, would seem more likely to defeat such an attempt than to guarantee its success.

Last Prior Edition.

The 2023 Wyoming Legislative Session. Landing. (Vol 6).