[{"_1":2,"_88":-5,"_89":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6668416,"mediaKeyId","2224921-481d90751040be7333e1de465e1d3e9b","parentId",2224921,"title","Committee hears hours of testimony on bill to define ‘person’ in state law","audioSeconds",1876,"startMs",1352000,"endMs",3228000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2224921-481d90751040be7333e1de465e1d3e9b&start=1352&end=3228","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2224921-481d90751040be7333e1de465e1d3e9b/thumbnail_1352000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6668416/Wyoming/Committee-hears-hours-of-testimony-on-bill-to-define-person-in-state-law","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6668416-bb8f40f385dab742bbdc3cb41e53dec4/orig.mp4?Expires=1773561778&Signature=IC72JM81NAHVmDGdFrMioQ-kBbNItyiEvFBv3S2jiu4sikWWQDswiQvUeUYIKIBt7W3MC0NyllLIsb59d-CjKUDFkTt69bL1JZk-SpIvNcEJtLjpF1ZLtvcWhODbfR7hB5L8QjQk-vztT3FHlPrapFL7mAM6LjmPqaJJwjNvwlDllyALjO5QIjTMgeNVmrIP-rk14a-CCbLsEwNnnsNuIAbw8q6eGkjgzMJ6WGertAhWv6qMyZjwGBhGYawmsIcfAaoBKN0hHZglH~4eoP86HeC4bqqLWApx07Io9qT1HWjEjbV0i-VlAObnLYZPVfSzrqhbLb5AMysjXBA5y~1low__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Wyoming Legislature","date","2025-02-05T16:02:54.687Z","article","House Bill 250, a proposal to specify rules of construction and definitions for the term “person” in Wyoming statutes, drew extended debate and public testimony at the Labor, Health & Social Services Committee hearing. The bill’s sponsor, identified in the transcript as Speaker (Mr. Speaker), framed the measure as an effort to define when human life qualifies for constitutional protection and to clarify legislative intent for courts.

The bill would change statutory interpretive language so that, “when applicable to the individual, ‘person’ is someone who possesses at least one of the following” listed biological functions including heart function, respiratory system function, central nervous system or brain function, skeletal or organ development, and others. The sponsor said the proposal is intended to create a statutory definition that shows legislative intent for the courts and to establish protections for unborn life subject to narrow exceptions for medical necessity.

The committee’s nut graf: supporters called the bill a clarification that would protect unborn life; opponents, including medical and advocacy witnesses, warned of broad unintended consequences for medical care, end‑of‑life decisions and criminal and family law.

During committee questioning Representative Yin said the bill “is essentially an attack on the judiciary” because it directs how courts should interpret the Constitution; the sponsor replied that judges had asked for legislative definitions to help determine legislative intent. Representative Bien asked why the Wyoming Health Care Decisions Act (end‑of‑life statutes) had been explicitly exempted in the draft; the sponsor said the focus of the bill was the beginning of life.

Public testimony spanned supportive and critical perspectives. Jeanette Ward testified in favor, saying “that second patient is a person worthy of protection.” The committee heard a physician‑in‑training, Dr. Marcus Coolidge, raise clinical concerns about how the bill’s prohibition on health care decisions that “cause harm to the function” could affect routine pediatric cancer treatments, vaccines or other therapies; he said the provision as written could “basically ban… any harm to an organ function” and asked for clarification.

Several witnesses warned of substantial unintended consequences. Witnesses said the measure could interact with existing abortion statutes, contraceptive access, management of miscarriage care, child endangerment laws, and routine medical treatment for children and pregnant patients. The American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network representative urged the committee to consider how “any essential cancer treatments, including chemotherapy, prescription drugs, or surgeries could fall outside the state's definition of healthcare” under current draft language.

Opponents framed the bill as a continuation of a larger political project: one public commenter said the measure “proves that the religious of the day… do not understand why the founders put the first [amendment] first,” while other faith‑based and pro‑life witnesses described the proposal as an effort to codify protections for the unborn.

Several witnesses urged technical fixes and medical review. Testimony repeatedly requested that statutory language be clarified to avoid unintended limits on accepted medical practice and to identify precisely who determines “no chance of meaningful recovery,” noting the draft places exception determinations with the Wyoming Board of Medicine.

Committee staff counted approximately six in‑person public speakers and about five online who had indicated they planned to testify. The committee did not take a vote on House Bill 250 during this session; members requested additional clarification and technical drafting before any committee action.

The record shows the committee will continue to accept public comment and will reconvene after adjournment to complete testimony. No committee decision or vote on final passage was recorded during the session.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Labor, Health & Social Services Committee, February 5, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","House Bill 250, a proposal to specify rules of construction and definitions for the term “person” in Wyoming statutes, drew extended debate and public testimony at the Labor, Health & Social Services Committee hearing.","taxTitle","Labor, Health & Social Services Committee, House of Representative, Committees, Legislative, Wyoming","taxId",61353,"location","Wyoming","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6668422,"House committee advances bill barring HOAs from banning election signs",1164,187000,1351000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2224921-481d90751040be7333e1de465e1d3e9b&start=187&end=1351","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2224921-481d90751040be7333e1de465e1d3e9b/thumbnail_187000.jpg","/articles/6668422/Wyoming/House-committee-advances-bill-barring-HOAs-from-banning-election-signs","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6668422-6a717e66d91a74eb4e5197cefa05bdb0/orig.mp4?Expires=1773561778&Signature=AYbXQ6JOgD1MgW0nE27Mvlpt2Q8-0YLngMZg8bh~hRyMj6l4zZLKh6IsrgJjD2ECY8SCwK~EZX2vOxBt9Kny-pHEU0RvWgwKhwsZh7vFVtjtN8OcQ~mhLNizb1YxAAODr8LHAas8OIJ9aXdzcrTgIoi-KxvdgP45X4uhUhuq0PK3NONhwOZkUOiFtcd6meEyMamVTaMqpyFKkkqaSYHdnlC~D8-fqooIcpy5w2VYWk2iuSXD0fsDu38-gFbK9OsRJF6EhZVaoaWD~BNuIbVjH~a6fghsr~vE8~7xAAkh1p62KhSBxOAWqouhC-~jLpue0GZAQBKXjsUcC2-xeJ5Q8A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","House Bill 339, a measure to prohibit homeowners associations (HOAs) and condominium associations from stopping residents from placing election signs on private property during election periods, passed the House Labor, Health & Social Services Committee on a roll call vote after members adopted an amendment removing a criminal penalty.

The bill’s sponsor, Representative Weber, told the committee the bill would “prevent homeowners associations and condominium associations from prohibiting their members from placing election signs on their own private property during election season.” Weber said the bill would place time, place and manner limits on signs and bar associations from enforcing blanket bans that could subject homeowners to fines or litigation.

The measure’s nut graf: supporters said the bill protects political free speech on private property while opponents and some committee members pressed for clearer enforcement language and for removal of misdemeanor sanctions that could criminalize residents or association actors for violations.

In committee debate Representative McCann pressed the sponsor on who would be subject to the misdemeanor language in the bill, asking, “Is the HOA? Does that go against the HOA, or is there a person involved in that?” Representative Bien moved—and later explained the rationale for—an amendment to strike the bill’s Section 2, which contained the criminal penalties, saying he did not “want to make them a criminal” over enforcement missteps. Representative Yen explained the effect of that amendment: it would preserve a private civil cause of action allowing a homeowner to sue an HOA without creating a crime.

Committee members also raised practical enforcement concerns. Representative Guggenmoss asked how sign care would work in developments that contract out lawn maintenance, noting that contracted crews might be expected to mow around or remove signs. Representative Weber said most signs are easily removed or can be mowed around unless they are larger, posted signs.

Members discussed aligning the bill’s sign display window with county election schedules rather than setting a single fixed timeframe in statute. Representative Weber said he would work with the Legislative Service Office and county clerks on language to coordinate display dates \"because we have 23 counties and there could literally be 23 different dates\" for filing and post‑election removal.

On a roll call vote, the committee recorded the bill as passed and the sponsor was directed to present House Bill 339 to the floor. Committee staff announced the tally as eight in favor and one excused. The committee record shows the motion to move the bill was made by Representative Gugamos and seconded by Representative Yen; the April‑style amendment to remove criminal penalties was moved from the floor and adopted before final passage.

The committee accepted public testimony but no government agencies or registered lobbyists testified in favor or opposition during the committee session. Representative Weber indicated he would continue to work with staff and county clerks on technical language.

The committee’s passage as amended removes criminal penalties and leaves enforcement to civil remedies and private suits, while the sponsor aims to craft timing language that mirrors each county’s election calendar.

Votes at a glance: House Bill 339 (as amended) — Passed committee (tally announced as 8 yes, 1 excused). The sponsor will carry the bill to the House floor.","The House Labor, Health & Social Services Committee passed House Bill 339 as amended, preventing homeowners and condominium associations from banning political signs on private property during specified election periods. The committee removed criminal penalties from the bill and debated timing, enforcement and lawn‑care concerns.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee hears hours of testimony on bill to define ‘person’ in state law

House committee advances bill barring HOAs from banning election signs