Committee passes bill to shield pregnancy centers from government action after hours of testimony

The Labor, Health & Social Services Committee passed House Bill 3 on a 6–3 roll-call vote, approving legislation that would limit state and local government actions against pregnancy centers and protect those centers’ counseling and staffing choices if enacted.

The bill’s sponsor and the committee framed the measure as protecting pregnancy centers from discriminatory government action. Opponents, including medical providers and reproductive-rights advocates, urged narrower drafting and said the measure as written could create special legal privileges for one category of nonprofits.

Dr. Renee Henkel, an OB‑GYN in Cheyenne, testified she is “pro choice, pro reproductive health care” and said she questioned the need for a bill that appears to treat pregnancy centers differently from other medical providers. “If they’re going to be performing medical care, they may have to be regulated in certain ways,” Henkel told the committee, expressly warning that claims about abortion‑pill reversal lack scientific evidence.

Bridal Borrell, executive director of WIO United, said she does not oppose the centers’ existence but urged the committee to remove provisions that she said would give “special protections” to these nonprofits. Borrell criticized advertising and practices at some centers and called for enforceable privacy protections and limits on unproven treatments.

Valerie Berry, executive director of Life Choice Pregnancy Care Center, and other center directors told the committee their organizations provide free ultrasounds, testing and educational services and that the bill is a preemptive defense against government targeting. Denise Burke, senior counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom, argued the bill addresses governmental mandates and cited U.S. Supreme Court precedent on compelled speech as part of the legal rationale.

Members debated amendments that would have removed sections the critics described as broad immunity or that would have allowed legislative intervention in litigation; the amendments failed on committee votes. Representative Clauston moved to strike the bill’s special‑protections section but the motion failed.

On final passage the committee recorded six ayes and three noes; the chair invited members to contact her if they wished to carry the bill to the floor. The committee’s action was procedural: if the bill advances, floor consideration and any further amendments would determine final statutory language and scope.

Opponents recommended specific fixes: narrower drafting, removal of treble‑damages language and explicit requirements that entities providing medical services meet existing medical licensure and privacy standards. Supporters said the measure is narrowly targeted at protecting centers from government actions that single them out for their beliefs.

The bill text lists an effective date of July 1, 2026, if enacted.