Earlier this month, the Supreme Court of Wyomingdelivered a ruling that should command the attention of every pro-life voter in West Virginia.
In State of Wyoming v. Johnson, 2026 WY 1, the court struck down two of Wyoming’s three major abortion bans, holding that abortion is constitutionally protected as a form of “health care” under the Wyoming Constitution and subjecting legislative restrictions to strict scrutiny.
State v Johnson
This decision did not come out of California or New York. It came out of Wyoming—one of the most conservative, Republican-dominated states in the country.
And that is exactly why it matters here.
A Conservative Legislature Overruled by the Courts
Wyoming’s abortion laws were enacted by a Republican legislature, signed by a Republican governor, and supported by a conservative electorate. Yet none of that mattered once the issue reached the judiciary.
The Wyoming Supreme Court held that:
- Abortion constitutes “health care” under the state constitution;
- A woman’s decision to terminate a pregnancy is a fundamental right;
- Laws protecting unborn life must survive strict scrutiny, the most demanding constitutional standard; and
- The legislature failed to meet that burden—even while asserting an interest in protecting prenatal life.
The result? Judicial invalidation of pro-life laws passed by elected representatives.
Why West Virginia Is Not Immune
West Virginia often assumes it is safely pro-life. After Dobbs, our Legislature enacted strong abortion restrictions, and many believe the issue is settled.
Wyoming proves that belief can be dangerously mistaken.
Like Wyoming, West Virginia has:
- A conservative electorate
- Republican legislative supermajorities
- A culture that values the sanctity of life
And like Wyoming, West Virginia has judicial elections.
The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia is the final authority on how our state constitution is interpreted. If a future majority of that court adopts reasoning similar to State v. Johnson—expanding constitutional language into an implied abortion right—then West Virginia’s pro-life laws could be struck down regardless of what voters or legislators want.
This Is About Judicial Philosophy, Not Just Party
The Wyoming decision underscores a hard truth: judges matter as much as legislators.
Courts that:
- Treat abortion as a fundamental right,
- Apply strict scrutiny aggressively, and
- Substitute judicial policy preferences for legislative judgment
can nullify decades of pro-life advocacy in a single opinion.
By contrast, courts that respect:
- Separation of powers,
- The role of the legislature in moral and social policymaking, and
- Judicial restraint
are essential to preserving laws enacted by the people’s representatives.
The Stakes of the Upcoming Supreme Court Election
Judicial races are often overlooked. They should not be.
This upcoming election for the Supreme Court of Appeals is not about personalities or campaign slogans. It is about whether West Virginia’s courts will uphold the will of the people—or override it.
Wyoming voters likely believed their abortion laws were secure. They were wrong.
West Virginians still have time to learn from that mistake.
If we care about protecting unborn life, we must care deeply about who interprets our Constitution. The ballot box does not stop at the Legislature—it extends to the bench.
Wyoming is the warning.
West Virginia’s response will be decided at the polls.
