Proposed 'Care Act' to shield pregnancy centers draws divided testimony at committee hearing
Loading...
Summary
A LSO draft to protect pregnancy centers from local regulation and civil liability prompted sharply divided public testimony on Oct. 16. Supporters said the measure would preserve conscience and free-speech protections for centers; opponents said the draft would shield unregulated providers and impede consumer protections and medical oversight.
Lawmakers heard extensive public comment Oct. 16 on a Legislative Service Office draft titled the Wyoming Pregnancy Center Autonomy and Rights of Expression Act (26LSO136). The draft would, as written in the LSO summary, create statutory protections preventing state or local entities from requiring pregnancy centers to provide, refer for or counsel in favor of abortion, contraception or abortion-inducing drugs; it would also provide a civil remedy for centers that claim adverse action.
What the bill would do (LSO summary)
LSO’s summary presented a multi-section draft that declares legislative findings and creates new statute language protecting pregnancy centers’ staffing, speech and service choices. The draft also includes a civil damages provision. The committee did not consider the bill for a vote on Oct. 16; instead the committee took public testimony and closed comment before lunch.
Public testimony: two distinct themes
- Opposition: Multiple speakers warned the committee the draft would insulate unregulated organizations that present themselves as medical providers but are not licensed clinics. Critics said such centers can provide misleading or incomplete medical information and that the bill would reduce the public’s ability to require clear disclosures and consumer protections. One witness said pregnancy centers "are not licensed health care providers" and called for requirements that centers clearly disclose their nonmedical status and HIPAA limits. Other opponents emphasized that abortion remains legal in Wyoming and said the measure would sideline licensed clinicians.
- Support: Proponents — including a lawyer representing Alliance Defending Freedom who introduced the bill text virtually — said the legislation would prevent governments from singling out centers for censorship and would protect the centers’ ability to offer pregnancy-related resources and free speech. Supporters described recent national trends in which some local governments have adopted ordinances that they said targeted pregnancy centers.
Examples and claims in testimony
- A representative of a local pregnancy center said the facility has a medical director, certified nurses, and that ultrasound services and referral partnerships with UW Family Practice and local midwives are part of its work. - Testimony from other speakers described confrontation outside an abortion clinic in Casper, alleged harassment of patients and disputed claims about a so-called "abortion pill reversal" treatment. One witness urged legislators not to "waste a cent of taxpayers’ money" propping up unregulated clinics and said the centers required oversight.
Committee handling
LSO presented the draft and then opened public comment; the committee closed public comment at about midday and moved on to other agenda items. No committee vote on 26LSO136 was recorded during the Oct. 16 meeting.
Ending
The bill drew sharply divergent testimony and is likely to return as committee members consider whether state statute should provide specific protections for pregnancy centers or whether existing law and licensing rules are sufficient. Committee staff and members heard requests for additional factual information and for careful drafting to balance constitutional speech protection with consumer and medical safeguards.
