2026 Legislative Recap

A Complete Review of the Wyoming Legislative Process & What Happending During the 2026 Budget Session

 

Wyoming’s Legislative Process: Structure, Sessions, and Budget Authority

The Wyoming Legislature operates as a citizen legislature, meaning it meets part-time for a limited number of days each year. It functions on a biennial cycle, with a total of 60 legislative days allocated over two years.

The General Session, held in odd-numbered years (such as 2025), is the longer session, with 40 days allotted. During this session, lawmakers may introduce and consider a broad range of legislation, and bills require only a simple majority vote to pass.

In contrast, the Budget Session, held in even-numbered years (such as 2026), is shorter, typically lasting 20 days. The primary responsibility during this session is to develop and pass the state’s biennial budget. Because of time constraints, non-budget bills face a higher threshold. They must receive a two-thirds majority vote to be introduced and again to pass. Any unused days from the General Session may be carried over and used during the Budget Session if necessary.

During a General Session, the Legislature may also pass a supplemental budget. This allows adjustments to the existing budget, including addressing funding gaps, responding to cost changes, or accounting for inflation. While supplemental budgets have become common practice since their adoption in the 1970s, the Legislature notably did not pass one in 2025. This marked a rare departure from past practice and reflected a level of fiscal restraint, even though individual bills with financial impacts were still enacted during that session.

From Passage to Law: The Governor’s Role and the Veto Process

Once a bill passes both the Senate and the House during either session, it becomes an enrolled act. At that point, the Governor has several options: sign the bill into law, allow it to become law without a signature, veto the bill, or apply a line-item veto to portions of a budget bill.

If the Legislature is still in session, the Governor has three days (excluding Sundays) to act on a bill after it reaches his desk. If the Legislature has adjourned, the Governor has fifteen days to make a decision.

To override a veto, the Majority Floor Leader in the chamber where the bill originated must bring a motion to the floor. Each chamber has its own Majority Floor Leader, elected by its members and responsible for managing floor proceedings. Once the motion is made, the chamber may debate the veto.  A two-thirds majority vote is required in the originating chamber to proceed with the override.

If that vote succeeds, the process repeats in the other chamber. A motion is made, debate may occur, and another two-thirds majority vote is required. If both chambers reach that threshold, the veto is overridden and the bill becomes law.

If the Legislature is not in session at the time of the veto, a special session must be called to attempt an override. Under Article 3, Section 7 of the Wyoming Constitution, legislators may initiate a special session by circulating a written petition. If two-thirds of both chambers sign the petition (42 House members and 21 Senators), the Legislature may convene to consider the veto.

While this outlines how a bill becomes law, the process begins much earlier. Understanding how legislation is created provides necessary context for how it ultimately moves through the system. 

Bill Creation: Drafting, Sponsors, and Interim Committees

Wyoming’s legislative process operates through two connected systems: how bills are created and how they move through committees. While bills originate in different ways, all follow a structured drafting process.

Many bills begin as joint interim committee bills. These are developed during the interim, the period between legislative sessions, by committees made up of members from both the House and Senate. These committees meet across the state to study issues, gather public input, and develop proposals for the next session.

Committee membership is appointed by chamber leadership, typically the presiding officer, and is generally based on the majority party. The Wyoming Legislative Management Council, composed of House and Senate leadership, assigns topics and priorities for interim study.

Once the legislative session begins, these joint committees separate back into standing committees within their respective chambers. Each standing committee then works independently on legislation assigned to it.

After the session concludes, most standing committees merge again into joint interim committees. The Management Council continues to guide their work, overseeing the Legislative Service Office (LSO), monitoring committee activity, setting the budget session calendar, and managing administrative functions of the Legislature.

Many of the bills introduced in a session originate from this interim committee process. These committees maintain the same general structure and subject areas both during the interim and during session.

Other bills are introduced by individual lawmakers, either Representatives or Senators, who serve as sponsors. Sponsors are responsible for introducing the bill and guiding it through the legislative process. Additional lawmakers may join as co-sponsors to demonstrate support and help build momentum.

These proposals often stem from constituent concerns, state agencies, interest groups, policy objectives, court decisions, legal issues, or campaign priorities.

From initial development to final consideration, all bills move through the committee system. Interim committees shape proposals before session, while standing committees handle them once the session begins, often with largely the same members serving in both roles.

Standing and Interim Committees: How They Function

These committees form the backbone of Wyoming’s legislative work, each focusing on specific policy areas and the Legislature maintains consistent committee structures across both interim and session work, including:

Once a bill is drafted and introduced, it enters the formal legislative process, where it moves through committees, floor debate, and multiple stages of consideration.

The Legislative Process: How a Bill Moves Through the Legislature

Once drafted, the bill begins its formal journey through the legislative process. Every proposed bill is drafted and reviewed by the Legislative Service Office (LSO), which ensures the proposal is legally sound before assigning it an official bill number. House bills begin with “HB,” and Senate bills begin with “SF,” indicating their chamber of origin. The LSO also assists sponsors with language and structure.

Although there is no strict drafting deadline during the interim, legislators typically aim to pre-file bills in early December. Once the session begins, a firm cutoff is established, usually about one-quarter of the way through the session. This deadline marks the last opportunity for bills to be introduced and assigned a number.

After a bill is drafted, it must first be considered for introduction. This is the first major hurdle. During budget sessions, where time is limited, many bills do not pass this stage. If a bill fails introduction, it is immediately dead.

If introduced, the bill is assigned to a standing committee for detailed review. Committees may take testimony, debate the bill, and adopt amendments. A majority vote is required to move the bill out of committee. If it fails, it dies at that stage.

Once reported out of committee, the Floor Majority Leader places the bill on the General File, which determines the order in which bills are debated by the full chamber.

The bill then proceeds through three readings:

If a bill fails at any stage, a member may move to suspend the rules and request reconsideration. A majority vote is required to proceed. If approved, the bill returns to the stage where it previously failed. If the motion fails, the bill remains dead.

Once a bill passes one chamber, it moves to the other chamber, where the entire process repeats: from Committee to General File then Three Readings and Three Votes

A key deadline in the second chamber requires bills to be reported out of committee by a specific date. If they are not, they die regardless of prior progress.

Throughout the process, amendments may be introduced at both the committee level and during floor debate. These changes can significantly alter the bill’s meaning or impact.

Where Bills Commonly Stall in the Process

Understanding where legislation fails is just as important as understanding how it passes. At each stage of the process, there are specific points where bills are most likely to stall or be eliminated.

The most common failure points include:

2026 Budget Session: Bill Outcomes and Legislative Activity

With an understanding of how bills move through the process, the outcomes of the 2026 Budget Session provide a clearer picture of how that process played out in practice.

A total of 335 bills were filed during Wyoming’s 68th Legislative Budget Session. Of those, 110 originated as committee bills developed by joint interim committees, while the remaining 235 were introduced by individual lawmakers.

Senate Activity

The Senate, composed of 31 members, introduced 135 bills at the start of the session, including 55 committee bills and 80 individually sponsored bills.

Outcomes in the Senate included:

Once Senate bills moved to the House:

House Activity

The House, with 62 representatives, introduced 200 bills, including 58 committee bills and 142 individually sponsored bills.

Outcomes in the House included:

Once House bills moved to the Senate:

What These Outcomes Indicate

These results show that the session was not defined solely by the bills that became law. A significant portion of legislative activity ended at the introduction stage, where the two-thirds threshold limited which proposals advanced to committee review.

As a result, many bills with majority support were never debated in committee or on the floor. The following section highlights several of those measures.

Bills That Failed to Advance at Introduction

The following bills did not receive the two-thirds vote required for introduction in their chamber of origin, preventing further debate:

While understanding where bills fail provides insight into the legislative process, the most significant responsibility of a budget session remains the passage of the state budget. This is where legislative priorities are ultimately reflected in funding decisions.  

State Budget Overview and Process 

While policy bills often receive the most attention, the primary responsibility of a budget session is to pass the state budget. This process reflects not only funding decisions, but also broader priorities and policy direction.

Wyoming’s budget is developed through two primary bills: HB1 and SF1. Although both are referred to as budget bills, they do not begin as identical measures. Each chamber’s Appropriations Committee starts with the Governor’s recommendation, then develops its own version based on its priorities and perspectives.

As the budget moves through each chamber, legislators debate, amend, and adjust funding across multiple areas. By the time each chamber reaches third reading, the two versions often differ significantly.

At that point, a conference committee is appointed by legislative leadership to reconcile the differences. This committee works to produce a single unified version, meeting as many times as necessary within session deadlines.

Once agreement is reached, the final version is sent back to both chambers for approval. If both pass the reconciled bill, it is then sent to the Governor.

Although budget bills are considered “must-pass,” they are still subject to the same legislative process and can fail. However, because Wyoming operates on a biennial budget, a failure does not immediately halt state operations. The existing budget remains in place, and lawmakers may address funding through separate legislation or a special session.

The scale of the budget process is significant. In 2026, more than 40 hours of debate occurred, with 247 amendments considered in the House and 72 in the Senate.

Budget Highlights and Key Allocations

The final budget reflects a combination of the Governor’s proposal and legislative adjustments:

Major Funding Sources

Key Allocations

Additional Appropriations

State Budget Overview and Process

While policy bills often receive the most attention, the primary responsibility of a budget session is to pass the state budget. This process reflects not only funding decisions, but also broader priorities and policy direction.

Wyoming’s budget is developed through two primary bills: HB1 and SF1. Although both are referred to as budget bills, they do not begin as identical measures. Each chamber’s Appropriations Committee starts with the Governor’s recommendation, then develops its own version based on its priorities and perspectives.

As the budget moves through each chamber, legislators debate, amend, and adjust funding across multiple areas. By the time each chamber reaches third reading, the two versions often differ significantly.

At that point, a conference committee is appointed by legislative leadership to reconcile the differences. This committee works to produce a single unified version, meeting as many times as necessary within session deadlines.

Once agreement is reached, the final version is sent back to both chambers for approval. If both pass the reconciled bill, it is then sent to the Governor.

Although budget bills are considered “must-pass,” they are still subject to the same legislative process and can fail. However, because Wyoming operates on a biennial budget, a failure does not immediately halt state operations. The existing budget remains in place, and lawmakers may address funding through separate legislation or a special session.

The scale of the budget process is significant. In 2026, more than 40 hours of debate occurred, with 247 amendments considered in the House and 72 in the Senate.

Budget Highlights and Key Allocations

The final budget reflects a combination of the Governor’s proposal and legislative adjustments:

Major Funding Sources

Key Allocations

Additional Appropriations

 

Legislative Budget Operations

In addition to the general state budget, SF0002 funds the legislative branch itself, including the Legislative Service Office and operational costs of the Legislature.

Often referred to as the “feed bill,” this measure covers legislator compensation, staff salaries, travel expenses, and administrative operations. It also provides flexibility for leadership, through the Management Council, to address unexpected costs such as special sessions or legal challenges.

Unlike other bills with fiscal impact, SF0002 is not incorporated into the final overall budget total.

Recent funding levels show steady growth:

The largest increases between 2024 and 2026 were in travel expenses, organizational dues, and staffing.

Legislative Spending Breakdown

Legislative spending is divided into several primary categories, with compensation and operations making up the largest share:

Additional appropriations include smaller but targeted expenses such as telecommunications ($50,000), statutory publications ($405,000), and system support services.

Below-the-line items provide flexible authority for things like litigation costs, special sessions, and training reimbursements, without fixed dollar amounts in some cases.

Additional Appropriation Bills

Beyond the primary budget bills, the Legislature approved additional measures with direct fiscal impact. These bills contribute to the overall budget total of approximately $10.1 billion.

Key examples include:

 

Additional appropriations included task force funding ($50,000) and large-scale project funding through SF52 ($5.0 million).

While the budget reflects how the state allocates resources, it also raises a related question: how those resources are generated. This brings into focus tax policy, particularly property taxes, which became a central issue during the session.

Property Tax Policy and Relief Efforts

Property tax relief was one of the most debated issues during the session, as lawmakers responded to rising costs for Wyoming residents. While many proposals aimed to reduce tax burdens, they differed significantly in structure, scope, and long-term impact.

Some bills targeted specific groups, while others attempted broader system-wide changes. This raised an important policy question: when tax relief is directed toward one group without corresponding spending reforms, the fiscal impact does not disappear. Instead, it must be shifted elsewhere, either to taxpayers or into the broader state budget.

This debate also highlighted constitutional considerations, including equal treatment under the law and whether policy should differentiate between groups of residents when distributing tax relief.

More broadly, the discussion raised a fundamental issue: if state spending continues to grow, is tax relief alone a sufficient solution? Many proposals reflected the need to evaluate not only immediate relief, but also long-term structural reform.

Bills That Passed

Bills That Failed or Did Not Advance

A wide range of proposals did not move forward, despite some receiving majority support:

These outcomes highlight the difficulty of advancing tax reform, particularly when balancing immediate relief with long-term fiscal stability.

Tax policy focused on financial pressures facing residents, another major area of concern during the session centered on the integrity and administration of Wyoming’s election system.

Election Policy and Integrity

Election-related legislation reflected ongoing efforts to maintain confidence in Wyoming’s electoral process through transparency, efficiency, and accountability.

Lawmakers considered proposals addressing system security, voter identification, audit procedures, and administrative clarity. While these efforts aimed to strengthen trust in the electoral system, the results revealed a clear divide, particularly in the House, where many bills received majority support but failed to meet the two-thirds threshold required for introduction.

Bills That Passed

Bills That Failed or Did Not Advance

A number of proposals aimed at expanding election oversight did not pass:

These bills would have required all elections in Wyoming to be conducted using hand-counted paper ballots and prohibited the use of voting machines for casting or tabulating votes. It also established statewide standards for ballot handling, reconciliation, and audits. The bill failed House introduction (32–30).  (Failed House introduction)

Additional measures related to recount procedures, audit requirements, and enforcement provisions also failed to advance in the Senate. These outcomes highlight a recurring theme: while there is strong interest in election reform, consensus on how to implement those changes remains limited.

Beyond election policy, lawmakers also prioritized legislation addressing public safety and the protection of vulnerable populations, particularly children.

Public Safety and Protection of Children

A significant portion of legislation focused on protecting children, particularly in response to concerns about exploitation, safety, and emerging technological threats.

These measures addressed both prevention and enforcement, strengthening existing laws while adapting to new risks.

Bills That Passed

Bills That Did Not Pass

While not all proposed measures advanced, the volume and scope of legislation in this area reflect continued concern for protecting children and addressing evolving risks. These discussions often extend beyond a single policy area, connecting to broader questions about the role of government, enforcement, and public accountability. The following section examines another area where these principles were debated during the session.

Government Transparency

Government transparency is essential to a functioning system of self-government. When information about policies, budgets, and decision-making processes is accessible, citizens are better equipped to evaluate leadership, participate meaningfully in civic life, and make informed decisions. Transparency also reduces the risk of waste, mismanagement, and abuse of power by bringing public actions into the open.

Ultimately, transparency strengthens public trust and reinforces the principle that government exists to serve the people, not operate independently of them. Without clear access to information and accountability mechanisms, that relationship begins to erode.

During this legislative session, multiple bills were introduced to expand transparency and improve access to public information. However, progress was limited, with many proposals failing to advance due to divisions within the legislature.

Bills that did not pass introduction

HB0088 – Public funds lobbying
 This bill would have prohibited the use of taxpayer funds to influence legislative action. It failed House introduction (vote total: 27–34–1).

HB0093 – Judicial transparency
 This bill required courts to provide free public access to records and livestream proceedings, with limited exceptions for sensitive cases. It also directed the judicial branch to develop a statewide access system. Failed House introduction (vote total: 34–28).

HB00134 – Legislator email transparency
 This bill addressed concerns about filtered constituent communications by requiring verification of email filtering and ensuring legitimate messages could reach legislators upon request. It created a transparency mechanism without removing cybersecurity protections. Failed House introduction (vote total: 32–27–3).

HB0135 – Public officials nondisclosure agreements
 This bill prohibited public officials from entering into nondisclosure agreements that restrict disclosure of information involving public funds or government operations. It also established penalties and allowed legal challenges. Failed House introduction (vote total: 36–25–1).

SF0049 – Public Records Act revisions
 This bill strengthened public records access by shortening response timelines, standardizing fees, and expanding enforcement through referrals and penalties. It also aimed to improve consistency in how records requests are handled. Failed Senate introduction (vote total: 15–16).

Bills that passed one chamber but did not become law

HB0022 – Recall of municipal officers
 This bill established a process allowing voters to recall local elected officials through petition and election procedures, including defined timelines and limitations. It passed the Senate but failed to advance further.

HB0083 – Legislative subpoena penalties
 This bill increased penalties for failing to comply with legislative subpoenas. It passed the House but failed in the Senate on third reading.

HB0141 – Fifth Amendment Protection Act
 This bill prohibited local governments from imposing certain housing-related fees tied to development, based on the principle that private property should not be burdened without just compensation. It passed the House but did not advance in the Senate.

Another Notable Proposal

HB0060 – Attorney General elected
 This bill proposed transitioning Wyoming’s Attorney General from an appointed to an elected position, establishing a four-year term and shifting accountability directly to voters. Supporters argued this would strengthen separation of powers and increase public oversight. The bill failed House introduction (vote total: 35–26–1).

While transparency focuses on how government operates and remains accountable to the public, other debates this session centered on what responsibilities government holds in protecting fundamental rights. Among the most significant of these discussions were those surrounding the protection of life and how that principle is reflected in law.

Right to Life

The protection of life is a foundational principle reflected in both the United States and Wyoming Constitutions. Recent legal changes returning authority over abortion policy to the states have led to renewed legislative activity as states define how this responsibility is carried out.

During this session, Wyoming lawmakers considered several bills addressing the scope of protections for unborn life and the role of the state in regulating abortion.

Bills that passed

HB0003 – Wyoming Pregnancy Centers – Autonomy and Rights
 This bill prohibits state and local governments from requiring pregnancy centers to provide, refer for, or promote abortion-related services. It also allows legal action if these protections are violated.

HB0126 – Human Heartbeat Act
 This bill prohibits most abortions once a fetal heartbeat is detected, typically around six weeks of pregnancy, with limited exceptions. It reflects legislative intent to recognize a detectable heartbeat as an indicator of developing human life. The bill passed both chambers but is expected to face legal challenges under existing court interpretations.

Bill that did not pass

HB0186 – Baby Olivia Act
 This bill proposed requiring human development education in schools, including medically accurate instruction and visual materials. While the intent was to expand student understanding of fetal development, concerns were raised about statutory placement and potential impacts on local control over curriculum. The bill failed House introduction (vote total: 39–20–3).

In addition to debates surrounding the protection of life, lawmakers also considered legislation addressing other fundamental rights rooted in both the United States and Wyoming Constitutions. Among these were Second Amendment issues, where discussions focused on how the right to keep and bear arms is defined, protected, and applied in practice. 

Second Amendment

The right to keep and bear arms is recognized as a fundamental constitutional protection at both the federal and state levels. Legislative discussions this session focused on how that right is interpreted, applied, and protected in practice.

Lawmakers considered proposals addressing restoration of rights, regulatory limits, and the relationship between state and federal authority in firearm policy.

Bills that passed

HB0039 – Firearms rights restoration amendments
 Clarifies that Wyoming recognizes restoration of firearm rights granted in other states where a conviction occurred, though it does not extend to other civil rights.

HB0096 – Concealed carry age requirement
 Lowers the minimum age for a concealed carry permit from 21 to 18 while maintaining existing eligibility requirements and safeguards.

HB0098 – Prohibit red flag gun seizure act amendments
 Establishes penalties for knowingly violating Wyoming’s prohibition on red flag firearm seizures, reinforcing existing statutory protections.

Bills that did not pass

HB0095 – Concealed carry on college campuses
 Would have allowed concealed carry on public college and university campuses without a permit, with limited exceptions.

HB0130 – Second Amendment Protection Act amendments
 Expanded existing protections by restricting enforcement of certain federal firearm regulations and creating civil liability for violations. The bill had significant legislative support but failed in the Senate.

HB0097 – Second Amendment financial privacy amendments
 Would have prohibited firearm-specific merchant category codes used to track purchases and established penalties for violations. The bill advanced early but did not receive further consideration.

SF0101 – Second Amendment Protection Act amendments
 This bill passed the legislature but was ultimately vetoed. It proposed expanding Wyoming’s existing Second Amendment protections by adding a civil enforcement mechanism, allowing individuals to challenge the use of state and local resources in enforcing certain federal firearm regulations not reflected in Wyoming law.

Supporters argued the bill was a logical next step following Wyoming’s earlier Second Amendment Protection Act. While prior law established criminal penalties, proponents contended those provisions lacked practical enforcement. Adding a civil cause of action was seen as a way to give the policy real effect by allowing individuals to hold agencies accountable. They emphasized that the bill was narrowly tailored, applying only to actions “solely” related to federal firearm regulations and only to individuals legally permitted to possess firearms under Wyoming law.

Opponents, including the Governor and members of the law enforcement community, raised concerns about how the bill would function in practice. They argued the language could create ambiguity for officers operating in complex situations where federal and state authorities overlap. Concerns were also raised about increased legal exposure for agencies, the potential for costly litigation, and whether the bill could disrupt coordination between state and federal law enforcement efforts.

The debate surrounding SF0101 highlighted a broader divide over how Wyoming should balance the protection of constitutional rights with maintaining effective and coordinated law enforcement. While supporters viewed the bill as an affirmation of state sovereignty and individual liberty, opponents saw it as introducing uncertainty into an already complex enforcement landscape. With the veto, the issue remains unresolved and likely to return in future sessions.

Health Care / Medical Legislation 

Healthcare legislation this session focused on the complexity of access, cost, and oversight within Wyoming’s medical system. Lawmakers considered proposals addressing patient rights, provider regulations, and the role of state agencies in shaping how care is delivered.

At the center of these discussions were several key questions: What is the proper role of government in healthcare? What unintended consequences arise when that role expands or contracts? And how should the balance between access, quality, and cost be managed without placing unnecessary burdens on taxpayers?

The government’s role is neither total control nor complete absence, but a limited framework that protects patient freedom, ensures safety, promotes transparency, and preserves competition. That balance, however, remains difficult to achieve. When policy overreaches through excessive regulation or market distortion, it risks driving up costs and limiting choice. When it falls short, it risks failing to protect patients.

Several bills introduced this session reflected these tensions. Some aimed to expand access, while others raised concerns about shifting authority away from elected representatives and toward regulatory bodies. A number of proposals ultimately failed to advance, underscoring the difficulty of reaching consensus in this area.

Bills that passed

SF0005 – Hospital bankruptcy proceedings This bill passed and significantly expanded the authority of trustees for county memorial hospitals and hospital districts to pursue Chapter 9 bankruptcy or dissolution. Under the enacted version, trustees may initiate these actions with approval from county commissioners for county hospitals, while hospital districts are no longer required to obtain voter approval. Public notice requirements were posting a bankruptcy plan seven days prior to consideration. While the bill provides struggling hospitals with a more streamlined path to address financial distress, it raises concerns about reduced community oversight and accountability, particularly in areas where these hospitals serve as the primary or sole source of care. Critics argue this could prioritize financial survival over accountability to financial responsibility on essential services.

SF0004 – Medicaid rate increase – EMS services This bill increases reimbursement rates for emergency medical services provided to Medicaid recipients, bringing the state’s contribution to 100% of the enhanced rate with a corresponding federal match and a $1.3 million general fund appropriation. It applies only to Medicaid patients and does not broadly address overall EMS challenges of responsibility in funding.

SF0057 – Transparency in hospital service pricing This bill, known as the Hospital Price Transparency Act, requires hospitals to maintain and provide searchable public lists of standard charges for services and items, with enforcement mechanisms and penalties for noncompliance. The goal is to empower patients and insurers with clearer cost information, potentially driving competition and reducing surprise billing. While it promotes consumer awareness in a complex health care market, implementation may impose administrative burdens on facilities already facing financial pressures.

SF0121 – Wyoming Pharmacy Act amendments This bill passed and expanded the statutory definition of the “practice of pharmacy” to include assessing patients, initiating care, and prescribing certain medications. Authority for the scope of these services is largely delegated to rulemaking by the Board of Pharmacy rather than fixed in statute. While the measure seeks to increase access to care, particularly in underserved rural communities where pharmacist availability exceeds that of physicians, it raises concerns about shifting clinical decision-making away from physicians toward a regulatory framework with less direct legislative oversight. By delegating broad authority to an unelected board under the executive branch, the bill reduces direct public accountability. Future expansions or restrictions would occur through rulemaking rather than open legislative debate, introducing uncertainty about long-term application.

HB0004 – Birthing centers – Medicaid coverage This bill authorizes Medicaid reimbursement for services provided by licensed birthing centers, aiming to expand maternal care options and improve access in rural areas where traditional hospital-based maternity services are limited or declining. It does expand the Medicaid program.

HB0003 – Wyoming pregnancy centers – autonomy and rights This bill provides legislative findings and prohibits state and local governmental entities from adopting laws or rules that unduly burden the operations of pregnancy centers, protecting their autonomy in providing counseling, pregnancy tests, and related services.

HB0122 – Wyoming rural health transformation program This bill establishes the Wyoming Rural Health Transformation Program to administer approximately $205 million in federal funds, creating an advisory committee, an expenditure account, and a perpetuity fund for sustainable investments.

Bills that Did Not Pass

HB0013 – Ivermectin without prescription This bill would have allowed ivermectin to be sold over the counter without a prescription by removing existing medical and pharmacy restrictions. It failed House introduction on a 38–23–1 vote.

HB0064 – Enhanced Medicaid reimbursement rate – maternal services This bill aimed to authorize enhanced Medicaid reimbursement rates for eligible maternal health providers in rural areas to help prevent “maternity deserts” and sustain obstetric services. It failed introduction in the House (27–34 vote), falling short of the two-thirds majority required in the budget session.

HB0063 – Medicaid reimbursement – nursing homes This bill sought adjustments to Medicaid reimbursement rates for nursing homes to support long-term care facilities facing operational challenges. It failed introduction in the House.

HB0161 – Wyoming health insurance market study This bill proposed a comprehensive study of Wyoming’s health insurance market, including legislative findings and a required report to identify challenges and potential reforms. It did not advance fully through the process.

HB0143 – Free speech for health care providers This bill, titled the Free Speech for Health Care Providers Act, sought to prohibit state agencies and boards from discriminating against providers based on their speech or expressions, while offering protections against adverse actions and certain contracting/licensing requirements. It advanced through committee but did not proceed to full consideration on the House floor.

Schools and Education

Education was a major focus this session, with lawmakers considering a wide range of bills affecting funding, governance, and the day-to-day operation of Wyoming schools. Both the state’s constitutional responsibility to provide a complete and uniform system and the practical challenges of delivering education were central to the discussion.

Debates often centered on how education funding is structured, how effectively schools are meeting expectations, and the increasing cost per student across the state. At the same time, broader questions emerged about the role of the state versus local communities in shaping education policy.

The challenges extend beyond funding. Lawmakers also addressed concerns related to curriculum, classroom policy, student behavior, and overall system accountability. Taxpayers continue to expect measurable outcomes alongside responsible spending, while families seek greater involvement in decisions affecting their children.

A consistent tension throughout these discussions was the balance between local control and state-level direction. While the state is responsible for ensuring standards are met, many policy decisions—particularly those affecting daily school operations—raise questions about whether authority should remain closer to parents and local communities.

Bills that passed

SF0018 – Attendance of students in K-12 schools
 Ensures that public schools are “equally free and accessible” to part-time students, allowing greater flexibility for families to enroll children in specific classes or programs without requiring full-time attendance.

HB0023 – Participation in school activities
 Expands access to extracurricular and cocurricular activities beginning in the 2026–2027 school year. School districts are required to allow resident school-age children, including homeschool, private school, and alternative education students, to participate in district activities, provided they meet eligibility requirements.

The bill removes enrollment-based barriers and supports broader participation in school programs while maintaining standards for involvement.

SF0035 – School district cell phone and smart watch policies
 Requires school districts to adopt policies governing student use of cell phones and smart watches. While presented as a classroom management tool addressing distractions and student behavior, the bill raises broader questions about who should set policies for students during the school day. By establishing a state-level framework, it shifts authority away from parents and local districts toward a more centralized approach. This is particularly relevant in Wyoming, where families often rely on devices for practical needs such as communication across long distances, transportation coordination, and safety. The bill does not require meaningful parental input or guarantee flexibility for varying local circumstances. As a result, it highlights an ongoing tension not over whether policies are needed, but over who determines them and whether parents are treated as partners or sidelined in decisions affecting their children.

While these bills addressed specific aspects of school operations and policy, a much larger portion of the education debate this session centered on how the entire system is funded. At the core of that discussion was the required recalibration of Wyoming’s school finance model, a process that carries significant implications for both funding levels and the structure of public education moving forward.

School Finance & Recalibration

SF0081 – K-12 Public School Finance Recalibration

Referred to as the recalibration bill, SF0081 was a central focus of the session. Recalibration is not optional; it is a required statutory process intended to update Wyoming’s school funding model to reflect current costs and conditions. The purpose is to adjust and maintain the existing framework, not to redefine the scope of public education.

This year’s updates included adding approximately 260 staff positions statewide, increasing average teacher salaries from roughly $67,000 to $75,000, restructuring teacher compensation calculations, accelerating transportation funding, modifying special education timelines, increasing substitute pay, and adjusting enrollment calculations.

The bill also exists within the context of ongoing litigation over school funding. In 2022, the Wyoming Education Association filed suit arguing that the state was underfunding public education and failing to meet its constitutional obligations. A district court ruling found the current model constitutionally insufficient, citing failure to maintain the system as a cost-based model and to adjust for inflation and evolving educational needs. The state has appealed that decision to the Wyoming Supreme Court, and as of April 2026, the case remains unresolved.

This has reignited a long-standing debate over what Wyoming’s Constitution requires when it mandates a “complete and uniform” and “thorough and efficient” system of education. At the center of that debate is a fundamental question: where does the state’s obligation end, and where does legislative discretion begin?

Supporters of recalibration argue that SF0081 represents a good-faith effort to maintain the funding model in line with fiscal realities. However, others contend that without more structural reform, periodic adjustments alone may not be sufficient to address the deficiencies identified by the court.

The issue extends beyond funding levels to what is included in the constitutionally required “basket of goods” that defines education. As costs and expectations continue to grow—covering areas such as mental health services, school resource officers, and technology—the question becomes how far that obligation should expand.

Funding cannot be separated from outcomes. If the state is required to invest significant resources into education, there must also be meaningful accountability for performance. A constitutionally compliant system is not only one that is adequately funded, but one that demonstrates those resources are effectively supporting student achievement.

When performance falls short, the system must include clear mechanisms for correction. This remains a gap in the current structure. Without defined consequences tied to outcomes, increased investment alone does not guarantee improved results.

Bills That Did Not Advance Late in Session

On March 3, 2026, the final day for bills to be considered by the Committee of the Whole, a series of procedural decisions effectively halted progress on multiple pieces of legislation. A recess was called shortly after session began, and when the Senate returned, limited time remained before adjournment. As a result, several bills on General File were not heard and failed to advance.

While the Legislature fulfilled its primary responsibility of passing a budget, and did so with measurable restraint, many policy areas revealed clear divides in approach and philosophy. Bills focused on protecting children had strong success, reflecting a shared willingness to act where there is broad agreement around safety and well-being. Areas such as election integrity, government transparency, and property taxes  saw a high number of proposals fail early in the process, often at the introduction stage where the two-thirds threshold limited further debate. In many cases, these were not issues lacking support, but issues where consensus on approach was not reached.

Education policy highlighted a different kind of tension,  surrounding funding, accountability, and the scope of the system remain unresolved, particularly as the state navigates constitutional requirements and ongoing legal challenges. Healthcare and regulatory bills reflected an ongoing debate over the role of government itself specifically, whether authority should remain with elected representatives or be delegated to agencies and boards.

Across multiple categories, a consistent theme emerged:  not just a disagreement over policy goals, but over who should decide and how those decisions should be implemented and enforced. The differing views around the function of government, balancing the protection of rights, the management of public resources and dollars, and the structure through which decisions are made. In some cases, legislation advanced that reinforced existing systems, while in others, proposals that would have shifted authority or increased transparency were unable to move forward.

This session was not defined solely by what passed, but by what was not allowed to advance. The outcome reflects both the constraints of a budget session and a broader divergence in how legislators interpret the role of government. While progress was made in several areas, many of the most debated issues in Wyoming remain unresolved.

Education Oversight Collapse: Megan Degenfelder and the Department of Education Destroy Trust with Wyoming Families

In Wyoming, parents are repeatedly assured that public schools have a clear, orderly process for addressing parental concerns. Start with the teacher, then escalate to the principal, district administration, the superintendent, and finally the locally elected school board. If every local step fails, the system promises one last safeguard: the state itself.

That final responsibility rests squarely with the Superintendent of Public Instruction and the Wyoming Department of Education. Wyoming Statute 21-2-202 grants the Superintendent “general supervision” of the public schools.  In fact, the Wyoming Constitution demands a “complete and uniform system of public instruction.” These are not suggestions—they are the legal foundation meant to protect every child and every family.

Yet in Sweetwater County School District No. 1, that foundation cracked and then crumbled.  Parents in Sweetwater County followed the process exactly as designed. They raised documented concerns at the school level. They escalated through every required channel. When local remedies failed, they did what the system told them to do: they took their complaints to the state. 

The Wyoming Department of Education acknowledged receipt of formal complaints, however, families received a response that has now become disturbingly familiar from Superintendent Megan Degenfelder: “My hands are tied. There is nothing I can do. You will need to seek legal counsel.”

This was only the beginning of the problem. When parents filed the complaints with the state, they were assured that certain personal information would remain confidential to protect their families from potential public harassment or retribution from school administrators. 

And yet in a total breach of fiduciary responsibility, the Department of Education released these families’ confidential information in responding to a FOIA request.  Breaking their word and greatly damaging the department’s already tattered reputation.

Superintendent Degenfelder’s response?  Brushing it off as a staff member error, saying they are fixing the problem. Basically a “ nothing to see here”  attitude.  She then told parents she would be talking with the Attorney General to find out what to redact, after they had already released the original documents and confidential information.  A shocking admission of malfeasance. Obviously this was not some type of clerical error, but a breakdown of leadership and legal protocols.  Blaming staff errors does not resolve the underlying issue, it highlights a failure to supervise, train, and enforce the most fundamental responsibilities of the agency. If leadership cannot ensure that its own employees follow clear legal and procedural safeguards, it is difficult to see how it can be trusted to manage the broader obligations of the office. Trust is not only broken through words, but through patterns of mismanagement that show a lack of control over the very institution entrusted to her care.  

Did the problem get corrected? Nope. In fact, the official response was to ask folks that had received the original unredacted documents to disregard the confidential information while the Wyoming Department of Education prepared a second redacted FOIA document.  But in what can only be described as extreme incompetence, the second FOIA document set that was sent out still didn’t have the proper redactions.

Federal law (FERPA) and the Wyoming Public Records Act both impose strict duties to review, redact, and protect sensitive student information before any release. Those duties exist precisely to prevent the kind of harm that occurred here. The Department failed at every level of that responsibility. No one at the top appears to have reviewed the documents before they went out. Parents were left to deal with the consequences after the fact.

The pattern of selective inaction is even more revealing. According to families involved, meaningful state action only materialized when the issues clearly triggered the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). 

Superintendent Degenfelder holds an executive-branch office. That role carries more than the power to acknowledge problems—it carries the duty to fix them. It includes directing agency practices, ensuring compliance systems actually work, and intervening when failures become known. 

Complaints were received. Violations were merely acknowledged. Opportunities to act were presented at every turn. Those opportunities were not taken.  When the state refuses to resolve issues inside its own system, the entire burden shifts to private litigation. Only families with the financial resources to hire lawyers can hope for accountability. Everyone else is left with unresolved problems and a system that has openly told them it will not help. 

These instances continue to erode public confidence as the constitutional promise of a uniform system of public instruction becomes a hollow slogan.This is not a policy disagreement but a failure of basic governmental function.   The complaint process in Sweetwater County—and in other districts where similar stories are now emerging—worked exactly as designed right up until it reached the one person and one agency with clear statutory power to act. At that final step, the process and Superintendent Degenfelder’s department failed.  

A prime example of where the Wyoming Constitution created clear protections for the people, complaints were known and there was clear authority for government agents to address and correct the problems. And yet Superintendent Degenfelder and her staff presided over a serious systemic failure on their watch. 

 

Outrageous: Wyoming School Wants $5,000–$8,000 to Let a Mom See the Sex Ed Curriculum Pushing Pronouns and Sexual Role Play on Kids

CLICK HERE TO SIGN THE PETITION

In August 2025, the Federal Department of Health and Human Services sent a letter to the Wyoming Department of Health regarding school curriculum developed with federal funding, raising concerns about sexually explicit content intended for use in Wyoming’s 7th–12th grade sex education courses.

This publicly funded material encourages students to share their pronouns — including made-up ones like “zir” and “hir” — and pushes heavy DEI ideology. Even worse, it contemplates asking kids to participate in “sexual pressure role play,” forcing them to act out sexual pressure scenarios in class.

This is not education. It is inappropriate, potentially harmful, and has no business being taught to middle and high school students using taxpayer money.

Any parents would be rightly furious to learn this has infiltrated Wyoming schools.

A concerned Wyoming mother did what any responsible parent should do: she requested to review the curriculum being used with her own children. She sent a public records request to Sweetwater County School District No. 1 Assistant Superintendent Nicole Bolton.

The district’s response? They quoted her a fee of $5,000 to $8,000 just to access the materials.

Let that sink in.

A mom — a taxpayer funding these schools — simply wants to know what her children are being taught about sex, pronouns, and “sexual pressure role play,” and the school district hits her with a fee that could cost in excess of $5,000. Just to see the materials. 

This fee is not only ridiculous — it’s anti-parent and anti-transparency.

Public schools are funded by the public. Parents have a fundamental right to see the curriculum their kids are exposed to without being charged an exorbitant fee that feels designed to discourage or punish them for asking questions. Charging $5,000–$8,000 to view publicly funded educational content isn’t transparency — it’s a barrier meant to hide what’s really going on in the classroom.

Even more infuriating: during the 2026 legislative session, Wyoming lawmakers had a clear chance to address these barriers with SF49 — a bill revising the Wyoming Public Records Act as a whole. The bill would have standardized fees for public records requests, shortened response times, strengthened enforcement mechanisms, increased penalties for violations, and given the ombudsman more tools to ensure agencies actually provide access without abusive costs or delays.

Instead, they voted to not even allow debate or discussion on the bill, killing it in its tracks.

The lawmakers who voted “nay” on giving SF49 a chance were:

Anderson, Barlow, Brennan, Cooper, Crago, Crum, Driskill, Gierau, Hicks, Jones, Landen, Love, Nethercott, Olsen, Pappas, Schuler.

These legislators had the opportunity to make meaningful improvements to public records transparency that would have helped parents in exactly this kind of situation — and they chose to do nothing.

It’s time to act. Sign the petition here.

Sign the petition today demanding that Wyoming lawmakers fix the Public Records Act once and for all. We need real reform: standardized and reasonable fees, faster responses, stronger enforcement, and real accountability so no parent is ever hit with a multi-thousand-dollar bill just to see what their children are being taught in public schools.

No more barriers. No more excuses. No more treating the taxpayers like outsiders who must pay thousands of dollars for basic transparency.

SIGN THE PETITION

The League of Extraordinarily Progressive Voters

Wyoming is one of the most conservative states in the country, and the people who call it home live accordingly—building businesses, helping their neighbors, serving in their churches, and instilling those same values of faith, family, freedom, and heritage in their children. But Wyoming’s conservative culture is increasingly under pressure from out-of-state progressive organizations that worm their way into our communities under unassuming names. 

The League of Women Voters of Wyoming is one such organization.

This might come as a surprise to some readers. The League of Women Voters of Wyoming describes itself as “a nonpartisan organization with expertise in voting and elections,” and the group’s parent organization, the widely known League of Women Voters (LWV), says it is “a nonpartisan, grassroots nonprofit dedicated to empowering everyone to fully participate in our democracy.” Since its founding in 1920, LWV has claimed to help register voters and host forums where candidates explain their stances. Sounds commendable, right? 

The earnest, civic-sounding language, however, masks the group’s opposition to election integrity and support for radical progressive causes that extend far beyond the voting booth. The LWV and its fundraising and education arm, the League of Women Voters Education Fund, have received millions of dollars from powerful leftwing nonprofits like the Carnegie Corporation of New York, NEO Philanthropy, and others. In other words, what you see with LWV and its state chapters like the League of Women Voters of Wyoming is not what you get. 

The League of Women Voters and its affiliates present themselves as friendly, nonpartisan advocates for democracy — think neighborly volunteers helping communities register to vote and stay informed. The image they project is one of wholesome, salt-of-the-earth patriots, the kind of people you might find involved in the local Lions Club or VFW.

But beneath that folksy exterior lies an organization whose real priorities are undermining election integrity and advancing a progressive agenda, even in conservative states like Wyoming.

The League of Women Voters of Wyoming made news again during the 2026  legislative session when it took aim at a series of commonsense election integrity bills. The bills sought to restore confidence in Wyoming’s election system at a time when Americans, having witnessed election officials across the county alter and suspend voting rules during the COVID-19 pandemic, are increasingly skeptical that their votes will be counted accurately. 

Further, The ACLU of Wyoming joined with the League of Women Voters of Wyoming to oppose and misrepresent bills like SF 30. What did SF 30 seek to do? It clarified a small aspect of existing election law related to residency requirements. That’s it. The bill established zero barriers to voting, but that didn’t stop progressive advocacy organizations from claiming otherwise. Another bill, HB 48, would have required paper ballots for all in-person voting—a fair, tamper-resistant method of voting that would have reinforced Wyoming’s reputation for principled governance. For those groups, any effort to strengthen the security and integrity of our voting systems is suspect and immediately parroted as suppressing voter’s rights. Hint: that’s not what they do.

ACLU OF WY PROPAGANDA

 

For those who know about the League of Women Voters of Wyoming’s actual record of lobbying, as opposed to its deceptive rhetoric, none of this is surprising. For decades, LWV and its state and local affiliates have sided with Democrats against even the most basic election reforms championed by conservatives. Time and time again, LWV, which portrays itself as a kind of impartial, nonideological expert on voting and elections, has gone into a meltdown whenever someone even whispers the word “voter ID.” When lawmakers introduce voter ID bills, or they become law, LWV mobilizes its state and local chapters, petitions its deep-pocketed progressive donors, applies pressure to lawmakers, and lets loose its attorneys. The League of Women Voters of Wyoming was among the fiercest critics of a voter ID requirement that was signed into law in Wyoming in 2021, for example.

LWV’s position here is utterly disqualifying. Voter ID requirements are the bare minimum when it comes to election integrity. Most countries around the world compel voters to identify themselves before they cast a ballot (a no-brainer!), and supermajorities of Americans, including Democratic Party voters, say they support voter ID laws. The only reason an organization, especially one whose mission is related to voting and elections, gets something as simple as voter ID this wrong is because it has embraced a progressive ideology that is fundamentally detached from reality .

In practice, what LWV is pushing for is an election system that allows anyone and everyone to vote, whether or not they’re qualified to do so. Of course, LWV wouldn’t put it like that; its members and leadership would tell you that federal and state laws already prohibit illegal immigrants from casting ballots so voter ID requirements are unnecessary. But if they really cared about keeping illegal immigrants from voting, they wouldn’t actively fight every measure that enables state and federal election officials to enforce those existing statutes. 

To quote Maya Angelou, one of the left’s favorite writers, “When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.” 

But it gets so much worse. 

Although LWV portrays itself as an organization devoted to voting rights, it advocates and lobbies for just about every progressive hobby horse under the sun. The group supports amnesty for illegal immigrants, abortion, expanding the definition of sex in federal law to include “gender identity,” and gun control. LWV even dedicates resources to combating school choice, because nothing says “empowering voters” like fighting to keep low-income families in failing public schools.

Earlier this year, LWV filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in Little v. Hecox, a case about laws prohibiting men and boys who identify as transgender from playing in the same sports leagues as women and girls. To be clear, the case has nothing to do with voting or elections. Can you guess on which side of the case LWV came down? If you guessed LWV argued for pitting women and girls against male athletes, you would be correct. Like its stance on voter ID laws, LWV’s defense of men in women’s sports put it in a minority of Americans—even among Democrats!

The League of Women Voters of Wyoming is generally quieter than its parent organization in D.C. about its many progressive commitments, but it has nevertheless strayed far from the topic of elections and voting on multiple occasions, even as it devotes much of its time each legislative session to lobbying against election integrity bills.

One egregious example in particular serves to illustrate why the group’s claim of nonpartisanship is so insincere. In January 2021, the League of Women Voters of Wyoming endorsed and broadcast a message from its national leaders accusing President Trump of instigating the January 6 breach of the U.S. Capitol and calling for him to be “immediately removed as President of the United States of America and banned from running for federal office ever again.” At the same time, LWV urged Congress to certify Joe Biden’s victory, calling Republican concerns about the process “political theater,” even though the country was in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic and many states had changed their voting systems at the last minute under the guise of an emergency. 

LWV’s demand that Congress waste no time certifying the election results in favor of Biden contrasts sharply with how the group treated U.S. Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation hearings. In Fall 2020, shortly after President Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court, Susan M. Simpson, the then-president of the League of Women Voters of Wyoming, cautioned Wyoming’s U.S. Senate delegation against “rushing the Supreme Court nomination process.” 

In theory, Simpson’s advice sounds unobjectionable, prudent even. The problem is that there was no evidence at the time, and there is no evidence now, the U.S. Senate “rushed” Barrett’s confirmation (she sat through over 20 hours of questioning over two days). Most importantly, slow-walking the hearings was part of a concerted Democratic Party strategy to ensure Barrett’s nomination was not put up to a vote until after the November 2020 election. Leftwing strategists believed Democrats would be on firmer ground if Biden won the presidency to try to deny Trump his right to select a new U.S. Supreme Court justice. Democratic Party officials and countless progressive organizations, such as Planned Parenthood, all complained the process was rushed, even though it wasn’t, and like Simpson pressured Congress to delay, delay, delay. 

Or take a more recent example of the group’s hypocrisy. On January 31, 2026, the League of Women Voters of Wyoming said Wyoming Secretary of State Chuck Gray’s recent decision to share voter registration lists with the U.S. Department of Justice “undermines public confidence in our election process,” suggesting there’s something untoward about states working with the federal government on election integrity. But notably, the League of Women Voters of Wyoming had nothing to say about H.R. 1, the “For the People Act,” which Democrats in Congress failed to enact in 2021. H.R. 1 would have centralized control of election administration in the federal government, violating the U.S. Constitution. Although the League of Women Voters of Wyoming released no statement on H.R. 1, the national organization supported the bill and pushed for its enactment. 

The pattern is clear—and partisan. When a Republican like Gray complies with a lawful request from the U.S. Department of Justice to share voter roll data, groups like the League of Women Voters of Wyoming cry foul, complaining of federal overreach. But when Democrats propose to expand federal control of elections, the League of Women Voters of Wyoming is silent. 

All of this reveals an organization fundamentally at odds with Wyoming’s conservative values — and it’s not even close. The League of Women Voters of Wyoming is not a moderate or centrist group that has simply drifted left over time. On the contrary, many of its positions — such as its support for men in women’s sports — place it well to the left of most Democrats.

Like its parent organization in Washington, D.C., the Wyoming chapter hides behind a respectable, nonpartisan facade while actively lobbying for policies that undermine election integrity and advance a progressive agenda. It presents itself as a grassroots, homegrown organization, but it is neither. It functions as an extension of D.C.-based progressive networks and their major donors.

Whenever someone challenges LWV’s nonpartisan reputation by pointing to its long history of progressive advocacy, its leaders will say that “nonpartisan” means only that it doesn’t endorse candidates. But this is misleading. The group, in spite of its many progressive commitments, does not advertise itself as a left-leaning organization. When people hear the term “nonpartisan,” they do not typically think of advocacy and lobbying groups. For LWV, the term “nonpartisan” is a smoke screen. 

It’s no crime, of course, for an organization to advocate for bad ideas like progressivism, but it should be clear about what it stands for—and to whom it is beholden. Through LWV and its state chapters, the web of progressive foundations that hold so much influence in the Democratic Party are able to push their agendas—transgender ideology, noncitizen voting, abortion, opposition to parental rights—in conservative states like Wyoming. 

The League of Women Voters of Wyoming is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. It joins many other organizations in Wyoming whose respectable names also mask their radical ideas and ties to D.C, and we’ve helped expose many of them. The Wyoming chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics (WY-AAP), for example, fights to undermine parental rights and supports transgender healthcare for minors on behalf of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). The Wyoming Library Association (WLA) lobbies on behalf of the American Library Association (ALA) against reasonable restrictions on age-inappropriate books in local libraries, making it harder for families to protect their children from subversive ideas about gender and explicit sexual content (are you noticing a pattern?). In each case, the organizations are beholden not to Wyomingites but rather to their out-of-state parent organizations and the powerful groups that fund them. 

The only way to defend Wyoming’s conservative heritage is to be clear-eyed about the groups undermining it—and not let them take us for fools.  

 

It’s Time To Turn The Page on the Wyoming Library Association

In 2022, the Campbell County Public Library board voted to withdraw from the American Library Association (ALA) and its affiliate, the Wyoming Library Association (WLA).

It’s time for the rest of Wyoming’s libraries to do the same. In Wyoming, a state where registered Republicans outnumber Democrats nearly 10-1, the WLA serves as the ALA’s local propagandist. They explicitly promote DEI, critical race theory, anti-police progressive activism, and opposition to capitalism. All things that go against the clear preference for conservatism in Wyoming.

The Wyoming Library Association does not develop these priorities on its own. It follows the direction set by the ALA, which was founded in 1876 with the commendable mission of promoting libraries and librarians.Over time, however, the ALA’s focus has shifted and it has been overtaken by ideological activism. Rather than focusing on the core mission of libraries—education, intellectual development, and the preservation of cultural heritage—the ALA increasingly devotes its energy to political advocacy. In practice, that has meant prioritizing the defense of explicit LGBTQ-themed materials for minors over the legitimate concerns of parents and communities, reinforcing the very agenda Wyoming voters have consistently rejected.

Libraries have long played an important role serving Wyoming communities, but like so many once-revered institutions, they now champion values at odds with the communities in which they reside and serve.

The WLA rallies against commonsense laws 

Here in Wyoming, lawmakers are debating a bill that would allow community members to sue libraries that allow sexually explicit material in sections of the library open to kids.

The WLA has come out swinging against the bill, apparently convinced that it is, in fact, the duty of libraries to make porn and other inappropriate content easily accessible to kids. WLA president Cristine Braddy argues that restricting minors’ access to inappropriate material constitutes a “ban,” as if banning children from inappropriate material is a bad thing.

You might wonder how we got to the point at which Wyoming’s association of librarians would fight a bill that seeks to protect children’s innocence.

The answer lies in the WLA’s close association with the ALA.

The ALA isn’t hiding the ball 

At the October 2022 Campbell County Public Library board meeting when residents debated staying affiliated with the ALA and the WLA, one resident declared that the ALA exists to “to promote reading, libraries, library professionalism. They’re not a political entity.” 

State and community libraries in Alabama, Florida, Montana, Missouri, Texas, and elsewhere would beg to differ. These states cut ties with the ALA starting in 2022 over its explicit support for age-inappropriate books for kids, DEI, and other progressive values. In 2023, the Florida Department of State, which manages the state’s public libraries, prohibited libraries from accepting grants from the ALA. In other words, a growing number of states have concluded that the ALA’s activities extend well beyond promoting libraries and reading.

The ALA has not attempted to conceal its ideological orientation, a fact illustrated by its recent leadership. In June 2022, shortly after being elected ALA president, Emily Drabinski tweeted, “I just cannot believe that a Marxist lesbian who believes that collective power is possible to build and can be wielded for a better world is the president-elect of @ALALibrary.”

It is difficult to imagine the organization extending the same enthusiasm to a president who publicly identified as a conservative Christian in support of capitalism. The contrast highlights the narrow range of viewpoints that appear acceptable within the ALA’s leadership culture.

Drabinski led the organization until July 2024. Her public framing of the role reflects an understanding of the ALA presidency as a vehicle for advancing a particular political worldview, rather than as a neutral professional position.

 The ALA’s current president is Sam Helmick, a “nonbinary, aromantic, asexual” who uses “they/them” pronouns. As with prior leadership, these self-descriptions are accompanied by a public embrace of contemporary progressive identity frameworks that increasingly shape the organization’s culture and priorities.

The WLA’s woke values

The name “Wyoming Library Association” suggests a neutral, professional organization that represents staunchly conservative WY. Yet a review of its public record and website shows that it consistently promotes progressive ideological positions more commonly associated with national advocacy groups than with a statewide library association

Would an organization that sought to reflect Wyoming’s conservative values and love of country adopt an “Equity, Diversity, & Inclusion” statement that trashes America as a fundamentally racist nation, finds nothing redeeming in its history, and pushes critical race theory as a solution?

The statement is worth quoting at length:

“The Wyoming Library Association acknowledges that systemic racism and discrimination has harmed people in our communities, across our state, our country, and internationally…With this knowledge, we will dismantle these structures and build equitable, diverse, and inclusive systems…The nation’s history of settler colonialism and slavery, along with its capitalistic structures and beliefs in rugged individualism imposed on the land, serve as the foundations to Wyoming’s vast and textured human landscapes.”

The WLA’s “EDI” (which is just DEI with the letters re-arranged) committee page includes resources on “microaggressions”, “critical race theory,” links to writings by arch-race hustler Ibrim Kendi (who spoke at the ALA’s 2023 annual conference), an endorsement of the 1619 Project, which places slavery at the center of the American founding, and resources for those wishing to “confront race, policing, and mass incarceration.”

If ideological activism is truly waning, as some have claimed, the WLA hasn’t gotten the memo.

Whatever claims are being made about the decline of ideological activism in public institutions, the WLA’s own materials make clear that it remains fully committed to it.

In search of banned books

The WLA’s opposition to the bill that would force libraries to keep inappropriate material far from children makes sense in the context of the ALA’s favorite cause—”banned” books.

Each year, the ALA releases reports claiming that books are being banned across the country, prompting widespread media coverage. Portraying these disputes as censorship has become a powerful tool for generating attention and influence.

The ALA presents itself as a defender of public access to books, warning that efforts to limit certain materials are part of a broader push to restrict what Americans can read. If widespread government censorship truly existed, opposing it would be a cause most Americans could agree on. Governments should not be in the business of suppressing books, and efforts to ban ideas outright would raise serious First Amendment concerns.

But that is not what is happening.

One concern is how the ALA defines the term “ban.” When someone files a complaint against a book, the ALA counts that in its statistics, even if the challenge is unsuccessful and the book stays on shelves. In the event that the library does remove a book from circulation in response to a complaint, it’s still not clear that “ban” is the most apt word. If the book is widely available in brick-and-mortar bookstores, online sellers like Amazon, and other library systems, is it accurate to say the book is banned?

Historically, banned books were truly inaccessible. When a book was banned in the Soviet Union, you risked imprisonment—or worse—if you tried to get your hands on it.That is not the situation in the United States today.

A bigger problem with the ALA’s methodology is that, as its own data indicates, the majority of the so-called censorship efforts involve books marketed to children or teens. Several of the ALA’s top 10 “most challenged books of 2024” are, for example, young adult books thick with LGBTQ themes. Gender Queer  the second most challenged book of the year, is a graphic novel that includes explicit sexual imagery, references to sex acts, and detailed discussions of masturbation and other adult topics.

The ALA wants to make the debate over books like Gender Queer about censorship, but it’s really about whether kids should have access to sexually explicit material. The answer is obviously no, and libraries have a duty to protect kids from inappropriate material.

By opposing even basic restrictions on sexually explicit content in youth sections, the Wyoming Library Association aligns itself with national advocacy positions blatantly opposing the values of many Wyoming families. Libraries should be safe, welcoming spaces for children and should prioritize education and literacy over ideological messaging.

Our librarians are experts at reading books—now they need to read the room and close the chapter on the WLA and ALA.

The Wyoming Hospital Association’s War Against Patients

This past legislative session, Wyoming Hospital Association (WHA) President Eric Boley marshaled his organization’s resources to sink a sensible bill that would have required hospitals to be up front about the prices they charge patients. Boley, who runs one of Wyoming’s most powerful lobbying groups, had a creative explanation for why Wyoming families pay exorbitant healthcare costs:

“The consumers aren’t working with their insurance companies,” he grumbled. “They’re not finding out what their payments are.” 

In other words, you are the problem. It’s not that the Wyoming healthcare system is a tangled bureaucratic mess of overlapping providers, pharmacies, public and private insurance plans, and government agencies. It’s not that many Wyoming hospitals have been found to be out of compliance with federal price transparency requirements.

No, the problem is supposedly Wyoming citizens who fail to devote enough unpaid time and expertise to navigating a system so convoluted that even the institutions running it cannot fully explain how their own prices are set.

The WHA works hard to keep it that way. A ubiquitous presence in Cheyenne each legislative session,the WHA consistently aligns its advocacy with the policy priorities of the American Hospital Association (AHA), one of the nation’s most powerful healthcare lobbyists. This alignment has the effect of preserving high prices, limiting competition, and reducing price transparency for Wyoming families.

Here’s what you should know about these insidious organizations and their influence in Wyoming politics. 

What is the AHA?

The American Hospital Association describes itself as “national organization that represents and serves all types of hospitals, health care networks, and their patients and communities.” It regularly spends millions each year to oppose federal legislation that it sees as threatening to hospitals’ bottom line. Founded in 1898, it has been a consistent force in American politics. Consistent, that is, at working for laws that enrich its members and make the healthcare system more confusing and less affordable for everyone else. 

As the state affiliate of the ALA, the WLA closely follows the direction of the national organization. The ALA advances its priorities at the federal level, while state affiliates carry those same priorities into state and local policy debates. This structure allows the ALA to function as a centralized advocacy organization, with affiliates like the WLA promoting its goals within Wyoming.

The AHA says it serves “all types of hospitals, health care networks, and their patients and communities,” but its advocacy has resulted in few wins for patients.  To understand the WHA’s approach in Wyoming, it helps to examine the national policy priorities of its parent organization. The AHA was one of the driving forces behind Obamacare. This objective was self-serving, as described by National Review’s Kevin Glass: “What the AHA wanted most was to preserve the flow of government money to its member hospitals, especially through Medicare and Medicaid. In exchange, the AHA agreed to the $155 billion in payment cuts, spent incredible sums of money on lobbying, and steered most of its campaign donations toward Democrats.”

And how has that worked out? Since 2010, when President Barack Obama (D) signed Obamacare into law, total U.S. healthcare spending has increased roughly 40%.

This year, in line with its previous support for Democratic Party healthcare priorities, the AHA opposed President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBB). The AHA cunningly framed its opposition as a concern for patients it claimed would lose insurance coverage due to the legislation, but reading between the lines shows its real worry was that hospitals would receive less government funding. 

As a lobbying organization that represents large, often profitable hospitals, the AHA’s support for Democrat healthcare policies is unsurprising. Those policies tend to emphasize expanded public spending through programs like Medicare and Medicaid, which reimburse hospitals for services provided. Increased funding reliably benefits hospital systems financially.

What this approach does not necessarily emphasize is whether higher spending has led to better outcomes for patients. Despite rising healthcare costs, many Americans continue to experience longer wait times, higher out-of-pocket expenses, provider shortages, and uneven quality of care. The incentive structure rewards hospitals for volume and reimbursement, not for improving results. In that context, the AHA’s focus appears less centered on system performance and more on protecting the financial interests of its members.

The AHA and the WHA work together to quash competition

Capitalism benefits consumers by lowering prices and increasing quality, and it does this through market competition. If businesses have to compete against each other, they’re more likely to make choices with consumers in mind. The alternative, of course, is to go out of business.

The AHA opposes competition. Instead, the AHA lobbies for laws that protect its members from the competitive pressures that most other businesses face.

It has been highly successful at that goal. 

Over the last few decades, the hospital sector has become more consolidated and less competitive, leading predictably to higher prices and lower quality of care. Multiple studies suggest that as hospitals merge, becoming larger but more impersonal, patient mortality actually increases! 

Who is behind the decline in competition between hospitals? You guessed it—the AHA. In 2010, for example, the AHA successfully lobbied Congress to include in Obamacare a provision effectively banning the creation of new physician-owned hospitals. Before 2010, the number of physician-owned hospitals had been increasing to meet our aging country’s growing demand for healthcare services. Established hospitals, rather than compete with these smaller and more community-oriented providers, demanded to the tune of millions of dollars that the government protect them from competition—and lawmakers obeyed. The AHA now spends millions of dollars each year to keep the ban in place.

Another way the AHA protects its members from competition is through Certificate of need (CON) laws, which require state officials—such as a health planning agency—to approve new healthcare facilities or expansions. The AHA began lobbying for states to adopt CON laws in the 1960s and 1970s. At best, CON laws are unnecessary—competition, not bureaucrats, should decide if a given market can support a new or expanded hospital. At their worst, CON laws encourage the largest and most powerful hospitals in the state to curry favor with the bureaucrats charged with authorizing new certificates. Unsurprisingly, the big players, those with the most money, tend to have their way, commonly resulting in the denial of certifications.  

At the start of 2025, Wyoming was one of 36 states with a CON law. In Wyoming’s case, the CON law applied to nursing homes. Some  lawmakers have tried to repeal the law in 2024but the WHA has, like a fox guarding the henhouse, nipped those efforts in the bud. It was not until 2025 that lawmakers successfully passed HB 289, allowing for proper competition in nursing homes. 

Less transparency, fewer beds, higher profits

Although the federal government has required hospitals to post their prices (prompting the AHA to unsuccessfully sue), most have dragged their feet or made only half-hearted attempts to comply. 

More states are moving to pass their own price transparency laws, including Wyoming. Unfortunately, those efforts have not always been successful due to lobbying by groups like the AHA and WHA. 

Wyoming’s HB 121, sponsored in 2025, would have required hospitals to maintain and make public a list of standard charges for items and services. HB 121 passed the House but failed narrowly in the Senate. Another unfortunate victory for WHA’s lobbying. 

Wyoming families pay some of the highest healthcare costs in the region. Boley could use the AHA’s considerable resources to pressure hospitals into being more transparent about the prices they charge insurance companies and individuals, but he’d rather blame patients.

Incredibly, the number of hospital beds in Wyoming has decreased over time as the state’s population has grown, from 3.8 beds per 1,000 people in 1999 to 3.25 in 2023. In aggregate, Wyomingites are not only spending an increasing portion of their income on healthcare—they’re getting less in return over time. This should be a five-alarm fire, a turning point moment for organizations like the WHA that purport to take the Hippocratic Oath. 

And what do we hear from the WHA about all of this? Crickets.  

Wyoming or D.C.? 

In its 2023 legislative recap, the WHA wrote: “Too often during the session we heard a narrative characterizing hospital [sic] as ‘big business’ or money hungry or as an arm of the federal government.  This sentiment is a real challenge, which cannot be ignored and requires a concerted response.” 

In other words, the WHA admits it has a PR problem. And why is that? If you’ve made it this far, you know it’s because the WHA’s lobbying history and its close relationship to the AHA paint a clear picture of an organization working in lockstep with outside interests to protect hospitals at the expense of Wyoming families. It’s that simple.  

Like the Wyoming chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the Wyoming Medical Society (WMS), the WHA’s allegiance is to D.C. and the large corporations who fund these organizations. Not the people of Wyoming, and certainly not to our state’s conservative values. When well-heeled outside interests use the levers of government to benefit the few at the expense of the many, it’s obvious the system isn’t working as it should.

That’s where we come in. Join us as we build a movement dedicated to restoring integrity and transparency in Wyoming politics—starting with exposing the interlopers pushing D.C.’s soulless values on us. 

How National Medical Lobbyists & Their Wyoming Operatives Tried To Steer The Pediatric Transgender Debate

Even though Wyoming is a deeply conservative state, full of sensible people who know the difference between boys and girls, transgender ideology has nevertheless reached our borders and become a divisive issue in our politics. Who is to blame for forcing these manufactured narratives on us?

Although there are many culprits, one of the most visible is the network of medical groups with Wyoming-sounding names. They present themselves as neutral, patient-centered providers, but in reality act as lobbyists for national progressive organizations.

The Wyoming chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics (WY-AAP) is a textbook example of how national agendas are funneled through local groups to stifle local dissent.  

 Pediatrics or Politics? The AAP’s Troubling Priorities

The WY-AAP is the state affiliate of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the nation’s largest professional association of pediatricians. Despite its respectable-sounding name, the AAP is led by progressives who oppose parental rights and promote so-called ‘transgender healthcare,’ a practice many view as quack medicine.

In July 2025, the AAP announced its support for eliminating all non-medical childhood vaccine exemptions, effectively telling families that the abstract notion of ‘public health,’ the same banner used to justify a host of coercive pandemic policies, outweighs parents’ right to make medical decisions for their children.

The AAP’s  hostility to parental rights might seem puzzling at first, but it all becomes clear when you look at the money. The AAP is funded by the largest pharmaceutical corporations in the world, including Pfizer and Moderna. In other words, the AAP’s stance on vaccine exemptions and its implacable support for giving babies as young as six months old the mRNA vaccines is less about medicine and more about business for its members and sponsors.

“It should come as no surprise, then, that the AAP is also one of the most vocal and influential defenders of “gender-affirming care” for what they call “transgender and gender-diverse children and adolescents.” The AAP promotes the use of drugs to stop otherwise healthy kids from going through puberty and pumping them full of hormones from the opposite sex, even as the countries in Europe that pioneered so-called transgender care have begun to take a more cautious approach. 

Incredibly, the AAP published an article in 2023 that even sought to portray the withholding of transgender care as a form of child maltreatment. This designation could trigger child protection investigations in some states.    

This, from the nation’s largest association of pediatricians—67,000 members whose mission is supposed to be safeguarding children’s well-being.

The WY-AAP Marches In Lockstep With Its National Headquarters

If anyone believes the AAP’s state chapters reflect local values, the conduct of the WY AAP during debate over SF 99 should put that notion to rest. SF 99, known as Chloe’s Law, prohibits doctors from administering puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, or performing surgeries for the purposes of facilitating gender transitions. SF 99 was signed into law in March 2024. 

Wyoming’s woke medical groups, including the Wyoming Medical Society (WMS) and the WY-AAP, rallied to defend transgender procedures. They lobbied, they testified, and they raised a loud outcry against the bill, fighting to preserve chemical and surgical mutilation of children.

Dr. Mike Sanderson, the Sheridan-based pediatrician and president of the WY-AAP, sat before lawmakers during testimony and lambasted supporters of the bill,accusing them of interfering in the doctor-patient relationship. Sanderson should know that if doctors are harming children in direct violation of the principle of beneficence (otherwise known as the Hippocratic Oath), then it is the responsibility of lawmakers to stop them. 

Emails show WY-AAP Leadership Dismissing Opposing Views

Emails from WY AAP president, Sheridan pediatrician Dr. Mike Sanderson, reveal how doctors tied to national progressive organizations use their credentials to dismiss and marginalize conservative perspectives. The clearest example came in early 2024, during the heated debate over SF 99, in an exchange with Dr. Eric Cubin that Honor Wyoming obtained.

Cubin, a radiologist who supported the bill and served on the Wyoming Board of Medicine at the time, reached out to WMS leadership to question whether its public opposition to SF 99 truly reflected the views of its members. In his emails, Cubin diplomatically suggested the organization should refrain from taking a position on hot-button topics like transgender medicine or, at the very least, poll members to see where they stand. 

Cubin goes on to point out that a different national pediatric group, the American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds), opposes the use of puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and surgeries because there is no long-term evidence to support those interventions. 

How did Sanderson respond to a group challenging his progressive worldview? Predictably, “[I]t is widely apparent to nearly everyone in the field of Pediatrics that the American College of Pediatricians is the politically motivated organization,” Sanderson sneers. He goes on to write, “They are not taken seriously amongst the vast majority of pediatricians.”

Well, there you have it. Sanderson’s appeal to the “vast majority of pediatricians” echoes the same rhetorical playbook progressives employed during the pandemic, when they routinely claimed that most scientists supported masking, mRNA vaccines, school and church closures, and exempting left-wing protesters from lockdown restrictions. 

But this cheap appeal to consensus is not the slam dunk Sanderson thinks it is. After all, many scientists were wrong about pandemic-era public health policies and the origins of the virus. Furthermore, scientists, doctors, and public health officials actively suppressed and censored dissenting experts, making it appear as though a consensus existed when it did not. 

Cubin’s Defense of Wyoming’s Children Came At A Professional Cost.

During the debate over SF 99, Cubin emailed members of the Wyoming House of Representatives, warning that WMS leadership had “been essentially hijacked by the far left” and that their opposition to SF 99 did not reflect how many WMS members feel. For this courageous act, Gov. Gordon removed Cubin from the Wyoming Board of Medicine, punishing him for expressing his personal opinions. Meanwhile, Wyoming’s most powerful medical groups remain led by people like Sanderson, who cloak themselves in the authority of ‘science’ to silence dissent while pushing an ideology that denies biological reality and runs contrary to Wyoming values.

Pay Attention to the Fruit

The fight over Chloe’s Law made one thing painfully clear: groups like the WY-AAP are not independent Wyoming voices, but conduits for national lobbying interests. Their leaders dismissed dissent, lobbied against parents, and aligned themselves with outside organizations that were more interested in advancing their ideology than protecting children.

When Wyoming parents and lawmakers raised concerns, they weren’t met with honest debate. Instead, they were waved off with appeals to authority and consensus, the same tactics that masked so many failures during the pandemic. Meanwhile, those willing to challenge the system, like Dr. Eric Cubin, paid the price for speaking out.

This pattern should remind us to look beyond the branding and rhetoric. A local-sounding name does not guarantee local values. The real test is the fruit. And when we look at the fruit of the WY-AAP (the lobbying, the dismissal of parental rights, the allegiance to pharmaceutical dollars and progressive ideology….)it’s plain enough: what they’re offering Wyoming families is rotten.

Wyoming Medical Society Chooses Woke Medicine Over Wyoming Families

One of Wyoming’s oldest and largest healthcare lobbyists opposes conservative values and represents the interests of the largest healthcare companies in the world. 

And who is that? Allow us to introduce you to the Wyoming Medical Society (WMS).  

Founded in 1903, the WMS states that it “serves our membership, and their patients, and works to improve the health of Wyoming’s citizens.”  In practice, however, the WMS often functions less as a champion of patients and physicians in Wyoming and more as a vehicle for advancing left-leaning healthcare policies while boosting the profits of large, out-of-state pharmaceutical companies, insurers, and other players in the medical-industrial complex.

The WMS maintains a constant presence in Cheyenne during each legislative session, working aggressively behind the scenes to influence lawmakers and shape the fate of key bills.  As we inch closer to 2026, when Wyoming’s lawmakers will return to Cheyenne for a new term,  it is critical to make clear—loudly and widely—that the WMS is not acting in the best interests of Wyoming residents.

Birds of a feather

Although the WMS claims to be an independent organization, in reality it is closely aligned with the American Medical Association (AMA), the largest healthcare lobbyist in the country.The WMS sends delegates to participate in the annual meeting of the AMA’s House of Delegates, where members adopt official policies. The WMS and the AMA have a long history of collaborating on initiatives. Recently, WMS President Sheila Bush shared the stage with the AMA’s senior legislative attorney at a gathering in Maryland. These close connections make it clear that the WMS and AMA truly are birds of a feather.

Let’s be clear about the AMA. The AMA has been a—perhaps the—leading national torchbearer for youth transgender medicine and abortion rights for years. Former AMA President Jack Resneck Jr. said it was “disinformation” to claim hospitals are performing sex change surgeries on teens, while urging them to continue providing broader “gender-affirming care.” Yet according to Do No Harm, an organization that tracks pediatric sex change treatments, doctors performed nearly 6,000 sex change operations on minors between 2019 and 2023. So who, exactlywas spreading disinformation?

Resneck also proclaimed that “AMA policy supports patients’ access to the full spectrum of reproductive healthcare options, including abortion and contraception, as a right.”

The AMA’s noxious influence can be seen in the Spring 2023 issue of WMS’ magazine, “Wyoming Medicine,” which featured—and promoted on the cover—an article defending transgender healthcare for children. That article was one reason why radiologist and WMS member Dr. Eric Cubin publicly said, “the Wyoming Medical Society has been essentially hijacked by the far left.” Shortly after those candid remarks, Gov. Mark Gordon (R) removed Cubin from the Wyoming Board of Medicine. 

The ties go even deeper. WMS President Sheila Bush also serves as executive director of the Wyoming chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)—an organization that champions youth transgender medicine and actively opposes parental rights. (Read more about the WY-AAP and its parent organization here.)

It should go without saying that the AMA’s advocacy of so many progressive policies is fundamentally at odds with our values. Wyoming is a conservative state, full of people who believe in protecting the sanctity of life and the innocence of children. This raises the question of why the WMS works so closely with an organization so obviously determined to undermine our State’s values and ways of life. 

Pulling strings 

The WMS spends a considerable amount of time in Cheyenne each legislative session lobbying for and against healthcare-related bills. Much of its time and energy is spent opposing bills that advance Wyoming’s conservative values.

Here are a few from the most recent legislative session:

And let’s not forget that, in 2024, the WMS spearheaded the campaign to defeat SF 99, which prohibits doctors from administering puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, or performing surgeries for the purposes of facilitating gender transitions on minors. Thankfully, its campaign failed and SF 99 became law. 

Who benefits?

Why does the Wyoming Medical Society stand in such fierce opposition to freedom and the conservative values that make this state great?

The WMS’ website supplies a ready answer to that question. Under “Friends of Wyoming Medical Society,” visitors are treated to a who’s who of the powerful medical-industrial complex—Cigna, UnitedHealthcare, UCHealth, Banner Health, Blue Cross Blue Shield, and so on. These conglomerates are at the center of our convoluted, inaccessible medical system, the web of insurers, hospitals, and for-profit pharmacies that use their influence to establish the rules of the game and profit from it. 

These corporations, many of them operating around the globe and completely disconnected from the lives of ordinary people in this country, are also evangelists for wokeness. Staffed by Ivy League and medical school social justice warriors, the medical-industrial complex has aggressively pushed DEI, Critical Race Theory, anti-racism, abortion, transgender ideology, and other progressive beliefs, both in its corporate board rooms and hospitals. 

The Wyoming Medical Society clearly represents the interests of its massively profitable “friends” over the people of Wyoming.

Indoctrination Inc., brought to you by the Wyoming Education Association

Public education in Wyoming is at a crossroads. Funding is up, test scores are plummeting, and classrooms are increasingly breeding grounds for progressive social advocacy and indoctrination. For many parents today, public schools seem to bear little resemblance to the ones they attended as children.

There are good reasons for thinking schools no longer reflect or foster Wyoming values. 

The truth is that out-of-state influences like the Wyoming Education Association (WEA) have long shaped how our schools operate and what gets taught in them. In spite of its homegrown-sounding name, the WEA’s true allegiance is to its parent organization, the D.C.-based National Education Association (NEA). The NEA is one of the most notorious progressive lobbying organizations in the country, with a sordid history of bankrolling Democratic Party candidates, fighting for school closures and mask mandates, undermining parental rights, and promoting transgender ideology. 

If Wyoming’s public schools feel unfamiliar, it’s because the NEA, through the WEA, has been driving education policy in the state for decades—driving it, that is, right off a cliff. 

Here’s what to know about the WEA and NEA. 

What is the WEA?

The WEA is one of the most powerful lobbyists in Wyoming. It is a left-wing advocacy group that claims to represent Wyoming school teachers and staff but is in reality beholden to the NEA, the D.C.-based teachers union and progressive advocacy organization. 

What is the connection between the WEA and the NEA?

The WEA is the state affiliate of the NEA, and WEA members gain simultaneous membership in both. WEA members also pay dues to the NEA and select delegates to attend the NEA’s Representative Assembly. 

The NEA is the largest teachers union in the country, and the only one in the country with a federal charter. Congress has granted charters to a small number of widely known nonprofits over the years, including the American Legion and the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts. The designation of a federal charter brings with it a degree of prestige. Congress granted the NEA a charter in 1905 to “elevate the character and advance the interests of the profession of teaching” and “promote the cause of education in the United States.” 

Clearly, the NEA has strayed far from its original purpose, raising questions about why it continues to hold a federal charter. Today, the NEA cares much more about recruiting teachers to indoctrinate students into becoming social justice warriors than the cause of educational excellence.    

The NEA is unapologetic about its values, and a thorough review of the disastrous policies it has supported would fill an entire book. The NEA raised $27 million in 2024 to support Kamala Harris’s failed presidential campaign and help elect congressional, state, and local Democrats. The NEA was one of the loudest voices calling for closing schools during the COVID-19 pandemic—and keeping them closed (while shelling out over $500,000 a year to its president, Becky Pringle). Recent NEA training materials insist “Republicans in state legislatures have increasingly turned to anti-transgender rhetoric and legislation as a powerful complement to their arsenal of racist dog whistles used to whip up fear and consolidate power.” 

The WEA serves as a conduit for the NEA’s left-wing values, conveying them straight from D.C. into the schools in your community. The WEA’s Safe & Just Schools initiative (about which more below), for example, is based on the NEA’s Just & Equitable Schools campaign. There’s little daylight between the two organizations, which explains why the WEA is such a reliable voice for progressivism.

How does the WEA influence education policy in Wyoming?

The WEA attacks lawmakers who break with its radical legislative agenda to stand with Wyoming families. Using spin and deception about voting records, the WEA floods mailboxes with misleading ads during campaign season.

One tool the WEA relies on to influence politics is its legislative scorecard, which it uses to reward obedient lawmakers and penalize conservatives who support families and traditional values. 

Additionally, the WEA, through its PAC, intervenes in elections, endorsing and funding favored candidates and blasting conservatives who refuse to go along with its agenda. 

What does the WEA stand for?

The WEA says its mission is to “promote the cause of public education and improve the quality of teaching and learning,” but this bland mantra obscures the organization’s relentless opposition to parental rights, conservative values, and educational excellence. A more accurate and honest mission statement would be the following: “The WEA promotes public school bureaucrats and fashionable left-wing causes at the expense of families and students.” 

Here’s a partial list of the WEA’s stances:

Click here to read more about the WEA’s lawsuit against the ESA program.

The WEA is out of touch with what Wyoming parents expect of their schools

Honor Wyoming recently conducted a statewide poll of parents on public education, asking them to grade their public school experience on important criteria like curriculum quality, communication, student career readiness, and whether their values are respected in the classroom. Parents noted the following areas in which the education system has fallen short:

The WEA has done nothing to reverse these detrimental trends—indeed, it has worked to exacerbate them. 

Click here to read more about our education survey.

Read more about the Wyoming Education Association:
Which special interest group is using WY students as their political pawns?

The Wyoming Education Association sides against families, surprising no one

Cowboy State Daily…Your Bias Is Showing Again

Cowboy State Daily’s political bias was once again on full display as writer Clair McFarland tried to put together a hit piece to protect favored political allies. 

Ms McFarland was tasked with reporting on an issue with the Wyoming Legislative Service Office and their admitted quarantining of constituent emails to lawmakers, as detailed in this report.  However, as is too often the case with Cowboy State Daily reporting, rather than being the watchdog for the people, they play lapdog to the establishment class and special interests in Cheyenne.

Why side with the establishment?

That question naturally follows. Why target a conservative grassroots organization representing thousands of voters while ignoring entrenched, well-funded influence groups?? You don’t see Cowboy State Daily or senators like Bo Biteman and Tara Nethercott going after any of the DC Affiliate groups like the Wyoming Education Association, Wyoming Medical Society, Wyoming Hospital Association or all the other special interest groups that have had a stranglehold on Cheyenne for decades.   


More curious still is what McFarland failed to disclose. Wayne Hughes, the owner of Cowboy State Daily and a California billionaire who relocated to Wyoming in 2017, is now one of the state’s largest political spenders. His Wyoming Hope PAC was Tara Nethercott’s second-largest campaign donor. That connection went entirely unmentioned.

With facts like these omitted, it raises an unavoidable question: are Wyomingites’ best interests truly being served, or are we watching yet another political game play out behind the scenes?

An Age Old Game of Political Spin

The tricks of the spin trade were on full display starting in the first sentence, where McFarland claims that “the Legislature’s highest-ranking members rejected a controversial bill to keep a list of emails people send to legislators.”  When in reality it was a tie vote, with more high-ranking members voting for the bill than against it. Those in favor included the Speaker of the House, the Vice President of the Senate, the Majority Floor Leader, Chair of the House Appropriations Committee, and the Speaker Pro Tempore.  

Further, she opens the article with a blatant misunderstanding of the issue at hand, stating “a controversial piece of legislation that would require legislative staff to keep a rolling list of emails people send to legislators” Did she even read the bill? Because this is factually inaccurate: the bill was not requesting a rolling list of individual emails that are sent to lawmakers. It requested the following, all related to domain names and addresses and only those that were being quarantined:

  1.  The LSO publish a list of all domain names and addresses that are being quarantined or prevented from delivering email to legislators in any way.
  2. Any person whose email communications to legislators that had been quarantined would be able to contact the LSO to request that their emails be removed from quarantine and delivered to legislators. 
  3. The LSO would remove requested domain names or addresses from quarantine unless the release from quarantine or allowed delivery posed an actual security threat to the information technology systems of the state of Wyoming.

After this disingenuous introduction, CSD immediately placed the following image to influence reader opinions to their advantage.  On the left, a smiling image of Senator Bo Biteman, who voted down the legislation. On the right, Representative John Bear (who voted in favor) mid argument and seemingly unhappy.   Manipulation that is all too familiar in today’s biased mainstream media.

Of the quotes and statements McFarland chose to incorporate into her article nearly 70% were focused on making the case to support the lawmakers opposing the bill.  Continuing on this tilt, McFarland spoke with 3 of the 5 lawmakers that opposed the bill to get their opinions.  This included Senators Biteman, Gierau, and Nethercott. And yet it appears she talked with 0 of the lawmakers that voted for the bill.  She goes on to quote Biteman over 6 times in the article – giving him an outsized chance to support his manipulation of words while failing to ask him how to explain Director Obrecht’s email. 

She even added Biteman’s false statement that Honor Wyoming uses a bulk email service, and that the legislative system rightly classifies that output as spam.  This is not true and she did not even ask us if it is true during our interview (more on that below).  Saving that falsehood as another “misinformation” tool on her part.

As for Nethercott? She quotes the senator 12 times, allowing unfettered access to attack her opponents with zero push back on any of her claims.  Like “Wyoming being taken over by large political well funded organizations”.  But for Nethercott, this only applies to one class of organization, the ones that give a voice to the average conservative voter.  Anybody that doesn’t toe the establishment line. 

Sen. Nethercott also made this false statement, insinuating that Honor Wyoming is using a platform “that doesn’t allow them to reply back to you.”  This is utterly untrue and again, Ms McFarland did nothing to verify the truth of this as that would undermine her biased story and preferred outcome of supporting the establishment. 

The truth? Honor Wyoming uses one of the most popular and trusted civic advocacy software tools in the country, Quorum.  The same software system used by thousands of nonprofits to deliver emails to lawmakers in almost every capitol of every state in America.  Without censorship concerns.  The same platform other nonprofits in Wyoming use that were also being quarantined.  The system requires the voter to enter their name, personal email address and zip code.  Their email is then sent on behalf of the constituent to the lawmaker(s) using the personal information provided so when (or if) the lawmaker responds, the exchange is a private communication between the lawmaker and constituent’s private email.  

When Honor Wyoming was given the opportunity to answer questions, the story line was already baked

But it gets better.  McFarland admitted during one of our phone calls with her that she had been texting with Biteman during the session.  Conveniently it seems her storyline in favor of those opposing the bill was ready to go before doing any research or talking with any stakeholders and all before the hearing was even finished.  Let that sink in….the story line was apparently baked before any investigative journalist efforts might have been attempted (they weren’t).

McFarland reached out to Honor Wyoming, sending two separate emails that showed her cards a bit early. The questions she wanted to entertain during our call with her had nothing to do with the LSO’s letter showing that emails were in fact being quarantined.  They really had nothing to do with the issue at hand at all. 

-Nothing to do with the possibility of a need to protect the free speech of thousands of Wyoming voters.  

-Nothing about the 2,000 petitions that were signed by concerned citizens. 

Instead, she zeroed in on deflecting from the real issue by helping Biteman and Nethercott prop up their Biden-esque efforts to characterize anything they disagree with as disinformation.  

But we must give McFarland some credit.  She did a commendable job helping Nethercott and Biteman in their efforts to twist definitions and words to try and hoodwink the public into thinking nothing is amiss.  The simple reality is that the LSO was blocking certain constituent emails from reaching their lawmaker’s actual inbox. Yet both Senators feverishly made the claim that no emails have been blocked or censored and that any statements to the contrary are dangerous disinformation campaigns.  Here is LSO Director Albrecht’s email clearly stating emails were being quarantined.  Oops.

Did the storyline change when presented with LSO Director’s email admitting that they were in fact quarantining constituent emails? Sadly not. McFarland had access to this document and yet decided to support a false narrative by including quotes from Nethercott such as “the effort sprang from a falsehood that legislators aren’t receiving emails. That is factually wrong and they know it.”  

Or promoting statements like “We’ve established the fact that no emails have been blocked,” by Biteman with no push back.  A real disservice to the people of Wyoming to say the least. 

Instead of addressing the legitimate quarantine concern, Biteman and Nethercott wanted to play word games and demonize anyone that dared to opine that quarantining communications without someone’s knowledge is a form of censorship.  It was a failed attempt at trying to manipulate terminology to fit their political agendas.  Something the public has long lost patience for.  You know the drill, redefine what a woman is.  Change the definition of a vaccine. Coming to America illegally is not a crime if we say so.  It’s the same old game.  Now we can add that blocking communications is somehow not a type of censorship.  Even Zuckerberg would be proud.   

 

Simple Journalistic Research Would Have shown the truth

If McFarland had looked at the evidence and just done a quick search for the common definition of these simple terms, she would have found the following:

Quarantined emails are messages flagged by security filters as potential spam, phishing attempts, or malware, which are isolated in a secure, separate area rather than being delivered to the user’s inbox. 

Censorship is the suppression or removal of writing, artistic work, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.

What have we learned with even a few minutes of research? Censorship is the suppression of communications.  Quarantined emails are messages that are being suppressed.  Wait for it……quarantining emails is a form of censorship.  

An inconvenient truth for Biteman and Nethercott, but a truth all the same. 

With the evidence provided, thousands of petitions signed by concerned citizens, and support by “high-ranking” prominent lawmakers, McFarland still decided to try and help spin the issue as a conspiracy theory and disinformation campaign.  She does this on behalf of the establishment class, siding against the people’s interests.   

We’ve seen this play out time and time again across America since Covid.  But the good news is that independent media voices and grassroots organizations have turned the tide on establishment politicians and legacy media’s previous monopoly on news narratives.  And that’s what these folks are really upset about.