Fourth Annual WPN Conference

Tuesday, November 13, 2018

10:00 am Dr. William C. Weinrich, Gnosticism--Ancient and Modern: an overview of the Gnostic worldview and gnostic writings concluding with a summary of how this heresy is appearing in modern discourse.

11:25 am Rev. Jonathan G. Lange, WPN, the Pastor in the Public Square: tells the history of the Wyoming Pastor's Network and breaks down the reason for the name. He concludes with some reflections on the pastor in the public square.

1:30 pm Dr. Maureen L. Condic, Embryology 101: presents an overview of the first week of embryonic development, centering on the unanimous scientific conclusion that a new and unique human life begins at the moment of egg-sperm fusion.

2:45 pm Dr. Weinrich, Transhumanism: introduces us to the fascinating and troubling movement which aims to evolve the human species past all bodily limitations.

4:00 pm Dr. Gregory G. Marino, Palliative Care as Pro-Life Strategy: gives an overview on the challenges of palliative care and demonstrates how it is best used to enhance not only the quality, but the length of life.

Wednesday, November 14, 2018

9:15 am Dr. Maureen L. Condic, Embryonic Ethics: Explains the details of hormonal contraceptives, cloning, three-parent embryos and gene editing, helping us discern between useful science and unethical human experimentation.

10:50 am Dr. William C. Weinrich, Theology of the Body: gives an overview of the Theology of the Body and its importance for human thriving. He concludes the conference with several points that they Church should be emphasizing today.

• Note: Files are linked on Dropbox. The opening screen invites you to sign up for an account, but this is not necessary to downloading the files. Simply decline and move to the file.

PRESENTERS

William C. Weinrich, D. Theol. 
is professor of early church and patristic studies at Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, Ind., where he has taught since 1975. During his tenure at the seminary, he has served as supervisor of the STM program (1986–1989), dean of the graduate school (1989–1995), and academic dean (1995–2006). He also served the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Latvia as rector of its theological school, the Luther Academy, in Riga, Latvia (2007–2010). He served The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod as third vice-president (1998–2001) and as fifth vice-president (2001–2004). He retired at the rank of lieutenant colonel from the Indiana Air National Guard after serving as chaplain (1978–2004).
 
Dr. Weinrich received a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Oklahoma (1967; Phi Beta Kappa) and his Master of Divinity degree from Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, Mo. (1972). He studied under Bo Reicke and Oscar Cullmann at the University of Basel, Switzerland, receiving the degree of Doctor of Theology in 1977. He edited the volume on Revelation for the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture series and translated two ancient Greek commentaries (Oecumenius, Andrew of Caesarea) and four Latin commentaries (Victorinus, Apringius, Caesarius of Arles, Bede) on Revelation for the Ancient Christian Texts series. Dr. Weinrich has published many articles and has lectured frequently for pastors and laity.

Maureen L. Condic, PhD
is an Associate Professor of Neurobiology and Anatomy at the University of Utah, School of Medicine, with an adjunct appointment in the Department of Pediatrics. She received her undergraduate degree from the University of Chicago, her doctorate from the University of California at Berkeley, and postdoctoral training at the University of Minnesota.

Since her appointment at the University of Utah in 1997, Dr. Condic's primary research focus has been the development and regeneration of the nervous system. In 1999, she was awarded the Basil O'Connor Young Investigator Award for her studies of peripheral nervous system development. In 2002, she was named a McKnight Neuroscience of Brain Disorders Investigator, in recognition of her research in the field of spinal cord repair and regeneration. Her current research involves the control of human stem cell potency and differentiation.

In addition to her scientific research, Dr. Condic teaches both graduate and medical students. Her teaching focuses primarily on embryonic development, and she is Director for Human embryology in the University of Utah, School of Medicine’s curriculum. Dr. Condic has a strong commitment to public education and science literacy. She has published and presented seminars nationally and internationally on science policy and bioethics, with recent presentations at Boston University (LaBrecque Lecture in Medical Ethics), The Social Trends Institute, Barcelona, Spain, Princeton University, The Center for Bioethics & Human Dignity, Notre Dame University, Belmont Abbey College (Cuthbert Allen lecturer), Vanderbilt University, Human Life International, Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia, and the Council of the European Union, Kaunas, Lithuania. Dr. Condic currently resides in Salt Lake City with her husband and four children.

Dr. Gregory Marino, DO
Dr. Gregory Marino joined the Welch Cancer Center in Sheridan, WY as its hematology oncology specialist in August 2012. He moved here from Anchorage, Alaska where he had been directing a successful hematology oncology program exclusively for the native populations for the past 11 years. He worked with 229 native Alaskan villages in the 600,000 square miles throughout the state.

Dr. Marino completed medical school in Chicago and his internal medicine residency and hematology/oncology fellowship in San Diego. He is board certified in internal medicine, hematology and medical oncology and he has appointments with eight medical schools. He is passionate about his patients and has special interests in palliative care and medical education.

The Management Council can improve the atmosphere at the capital

Wyoming State Capital Building

Congratulations, Wyoming! You just elected 90 honorable men and women to represent you at the capital. There they will join in a grand scrum of ideas for the next several years. That’s the republican form of government.

Having a representative republic means that instead of every law or policy being voted on directly by the entire populace, the people elect representatives to do the actual voting, arguing, compromising and persuading.

We do this because it would be impractical to have all 563,000 of Wyoming’s citizens participate in every vote, but not only so. It is also because populism doesn’t allow for thoughtful and respectful discussion.

That means our elected representatives are more than just votes, they are voices. We want them to listen to us, but we also want them to speak for us. With no way of knowing what laws and spending proposals will come up in the next few years, we want them to be able to process information, think things through, ferret out the truth and persuade one another of the best course of action.

With such a mandate, it is extremely important that they be able to speak freely—especially that they be able to articulate the truth on the most important topics of our day. Any encumbrances on their free speech, inhibits them from doing the job that you have asked them to do.

That’s why Management Council Policy 02-02 needs to be fixed. It was originally adopted 16 years ago to address sexual harassment in the Legislative Services Office (LSO). It is not even a state law, but an in-house employment policy. That’s why you have probably never heard of it. But it has metastasized beyond its original intent.

Now, it gives a subgroup of legislators the power to control what your elected representative can say. It asserts the authority to receive allegations, to investigate them and to punish them merely for speaking the wrong thing—however that might be defined. That clearly infringes not only on your legislator’s right to free speech, but also on your constitutional right to have a duly elected representative in the capital.

Mind you, Wyoming’s legislature already has a Permanent Joint Rule (22-1) that holds all elected officials accountable to the law and to the agreed-upon rules of ethics. Besides this rule, all legislators are already subject to the same state laws—including sexual harassment and discrimination—that govern all Wyoming citizens.

Management Council Policy 02-02 sets up a different set of rules, and a different way to investigate and punish them. While Joint Rule 22-1 has procedures that honor the electoral process and treat members of the Legislature differently from their hired help, Policy 02-02 lists your elected representatives right along-side LSO staff, interns and pages.

Not only this, but if an allegation is made against your elected representative, Policy 02-02(V.A.1-2) allows the accuser to choose whether he or she wants to follow the Permanent Joint Rule, or the Management Council Policy. The accused member of the legislature gets no say in the matter.

So why does the policy treat elected representatives as employees of the Management Council? Joel Funk, a reporter for the Wyoming Tribune Eagle, published an article last December answering that question. He explained that LSO Director, Matt Obrecht, doesn’t think Joint Rule 22-1 is adequate to address every form of sexual harassment.

According to the Joint Rule “sexual harassment means unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature.” This would cover “sexual assault or a pattern of behavior.”

But Obrecht thinks the joint rule is not able to deal with an “inappropriate comment.” He told Funk, “I don’t think that one comment should trigger a 22-1 investigation.” Instead, Obrecht apparently thinks that one comment should trigger an investigation under Management Council Policy 02-02.

What kind of comments are we talking about, here? What could merit “written reprimand, mandatory increased anti-discrimination or sexual harassment training, reassignment of duties, loss of legislative responsibilities or assignments, censure, expulsion or other corrective action”?

Are we talking about blasphemies against God or disgusting, profanity-laced outbursts? No, the comments proscribed by Policy 02-02 could include comments like the following:

• “Children have a right to be raised by their natural mother and father.”
• “We should not change Wyoming law to allow rental of women’s wombs for surrogacy, or the buying and selling of human eggs.”
• “Every child born should have the right to have his or her natural mother and father listed on the birth certificate.”
• “Sex is a fact that is objectively discoverable by biological science.”
• “We should not allow biological males to compete in women’s sports.”
• “I’m sorry, we cannot permit you, a male, go into the women’s restroom.”

These are all reasonable and scientifically defensible statements which are both respectful and true. But since Policy 02-02 was revised last February, anybody who says such things in a legislative setting may, at the caprice of an offended party, be charged with harassment or discrimination just for speaking them.

You see, not only does the Management Council Policy assert authority over elected representatives, it also recently inserted the language of “sexual orientation and gender identity” (SOGI) as “protected characteristics.” Language like this gets inserted by special interests that want to restrict free speech. It is often rubber-stamped by people of good heart who have no desire to discriminate against anybody, but who have no idea that this language calls normal, everyday speech “discrimination.”

Baronelle Stutzman

Ruth Neely of Pinedale was one of those good-hearted people. She served on the committee that added SOGI language to Wyoming rules for judicial ethics. Three years later she learned the dire consequences of such language. Suddenly common-sense words that she had spoken openly all her life were labeled “discrimination” and she was removed from her circuit magistracy.

Her case is one of hundreds across the country. Once SOGI language is inserted into policy it becomes a ticking bomb that can be applied arbitrarily to prosecute new “crimes” at any time. Washington state enacted its own SOGI law in 2006. But the state never prosecuted itself for failing to recognize same-sex unions. Instead, it waited seven years before prosecuting a grandmotherly florist, Baronelle Stutzman, for this new “crime” that nobody knew existed.

Since 2011 the Wyoming Legislature has debated and voted down the insertion of SOGI language into state law. It has done so for good reason. Current laws prevent discrimination based on “race, religion, color, sex, national origin, age or disability.” These are all objectively known facts that can be enforced without delving into the anyone’s inner thoughts.

SOGI language, on the other hand, bases the difference between legality and criminality on factors that can only be known to the mind of one person. What was legal yesterday may be illegal today just because I changed my mind. The law becomes a moving target wherein the very same action or comment may be acceptable today and punishable tomorrow.

Jonah Bldg. Temporary Legislature

Nobody can live and work in such a toxic environment. Our Management Council should be interested in making the Wyoming legislature the place where a robust and honest searching for the truth is encouraged. It should not be a place where timeless truths can be suddenly punishable by reprimand, reindoctrination, and reassignment of duties.

Thankfully, Policy 02-02 is on the agenda for the Management Council’s Cheyenne meeting on December 4-5, 2018. Every duly elected legislator should want to right these wrongs. And all voters have a vested interest in making sure that it no longer stifles the voice of their representatives.

WTE: UW Student Health Plan exposes widespread lack of transparency

The College Fix recently reported that elective abortions are covered by the University of Wyoming student health plan. Since this is the default plan for foreign students, over 600 have been automatically enrolled in it this year.

In a state where the last Planned Parenthood clinic shuttered its operation in 2017, one might assume that abortion just isn’t an issue. After all, Wyoming’s department of health “has received fewer than five [abortion] reports over the last five years,” according to Mariah Storey, a vital services unit supervisor, quoted in Rewire News.

But this isn’t the whole story. The Guttmacher Institute, Planned Parenthood’s research arm, reported 380 abortions in the years 2011, 2013 and 2014, more than 75 times the reported number! Why is there such a huge disparity between the official tally and Planned Parenthood’s own data?

Wyoming’s two most prominent abortionists provide the answer. Dr. Brent Blue, who performs surgical abortions out of Emerg-A-Care in Jackson, told Rewire News, “I do not report to the state because it is none of their business.” While Blue refuses to report to the state of Wyoming, he does diligently report to the Guttmacher Institute.

Dr. Giovannina Anthony, who performs medical abortions about a block away from Blue, agrees. The same article quotes her as saying, “If you are looking for numbers, that [the Guttmacher Institute] is where you should focus your efforts. Their stats appropriately assess the need for reproductive services.”

This open flaunting of Wyoming law sounds eerily similar to Dr. Kermit Gosnell, who is currently spending the rest of his life in a Pennsylvania prison. That monster considered any and every health regulation to be an unnecessary annoyance that he was free to ignore in “service” of his patients. At least that’s how he justified his disease-ridden practice and murderous methods.

If Blue and Anthony openly ignore Wyoming’s reporting laws, I wonder what other Wyoming health laws they feel free to break? State law forbids abortion once the child is developed enough to survive outside the womb. Do they care about that one, or do they think it’s “none of our business”?

In 2017 Governor Mead signed into law a requirement that abortionists must offer an ultrasound picture to the mother. Blue responded to this by writing, “It’s a law that has no teeth, and there’s no way to enforce it. It won’t change one thing for us” (The Last Clinics, Vice News, May 23, 2017).

These admissions demonstrate why Wyoming should add some teeth to our defanged health laws.

Not only does Wyoming have way more abortions happening within her borders than are ever reported, there are also many abortions happening just across state lines. The Centers for Disease Control reported that in 2014 (the most recent data available) 642 Wyoming residents procured abortions in Colorado, Montana and Utah.

This fact highlights the real-world consequences of our UW student insurance plan. Less than sixty miles from campus is a Planned Parenthood clinic in Fort Collins. On-sight observers estimate three dozen surgical abortions each weekend of the school year. This is an “in-network” facility for United Health Care, the plan offered to UW students. Students who do not read the fine print are likely subsidizing Planned Parenthood by their insurance premiums.

How many of the students who sign up for this plan know about the abortion coverage? When Betzold was asked this question, she replied: “Students are provided electronic access to a summary brochure and a detailed policy document with all policy terms, including coverages and exclusions.”

That is true. I was able to go onto the UW website and find the Insurance Certificate listing “elective abortion” coverage. However, even knowing what I was looking for, it took me about half an hour of searching. One wonders how many get that far.

Why has the University of Wyoming chosen to weigh in on such a loaded issue? After all, there are only a handful of Universities in the nation that have such a draconian student health plan.

The governor’s office told the College Fix that it is merely because the United Health Plan submitted the most competitive bid to the University. There is no reason to dispute that fact. Abortions are probably cheaper than live births. But money is not the only consideration when it comes to proper health care.

We must consider the well-being of our students first and foremost. Numerous studies show how abortion can harm women. None exist that document any health benefits. Before offering students a plan that pays for abortion, we should at least be assured that it is proper “health care.”

University of Wyoming Student Health Plan pays for elective abortions

The College Fix recently reported that elective abortions are covered by the University of Wyoming student health plan. Since this is the default plan for foreign students, over 600 have been automatically enrolled in it this year.

In a state where the last Planned Parenthood clinic shuttered its operation in 2017, one might assume that abortion just isn’t an issue. After all, Wyoming’s department of health “has received fewer than five [abortion] reports over the last five years,” according to Mariah Storey, a vital services unit supervisor, quoted in Rewire News.

But this isn’t the whole story. The Guttmacher Institute, Planned Parenthood’s research arm, reported 380 abortions in the years 2011, 2013 and 2014, more than 75 times the reported number! Why is there such a huge disparity between the official tally and Planned Parenthood’s own data?

Wyoming’s two most prominent abortionists provide the answer. Dr. Brent Blue, who performs surgical abortions out of Emerg-A-Care in Jackson, told Rewire News, “I do not report to the state because it is none of their business.” While Blue refuses to report to the state of Wyoming, he does diligently report to the Guttmacher Institute.

Dr. Giovannina Anthony, who performs medical abortions about a block away from Blue, agrees. The same article quotes her as saying, “If you are looking for numbers, that [the Guttmacher Institute] is where you should focus your efforts. Their stats appropriately assess the need for reproductive services.”

This open flaunting of Wyoming law sounds eerily similar to Dr. Kermit Gosnell, who is currently spending the rest of his life in a Pennsylvania prison. That monster considered any and every health regulation to be an unnecessary annoyance that he was free to ignore in “service” of his patients. At least that’s how he justified his disease-ridden practice and murderous methods.

If Blue and Anthony openly ignore Wyoming’s reporting laws, I wonder what other Wyoming health laws they feel free to break? State law forbids abortion once the child is developed enough to survive outside the womb. Do they care about that one, or do they think it’s “none of our business”?

In 2017 Governor Mead signed into law a requirement that abortionists must offer an ultrasound picture to the mother. Blue responded to this by writing, “It’s a law that has no teeth, and there’s no way to enforce it. It won’t change one thing for us” (The Last Clinics, Vice News, May 23, 2017).

These admissions demonstrate why Wyoming should add some teeth to our defanged health laws.

Not only does Wyoming have way more abortions happening within her borders than are ever reported, there are also many abortions happening just across state lines. The Centers for Disease Control reported that in 2014 (the most recent data available) 642 Wyoming residents procured abortions in Colorado, Montana and Utah.

This fact highlights the real-world consequences of our UW student insurance plan. Less than sixty miles from campus is a Planned Parenthood clinic in Fort Collins. On-sight observers estimate three dozen surgical abortions each weekend of the school year. This is an “in-network” facility for United Health Care, the plan offered to UW students. Students who do not read the fine print are likely subsidizing Planned Parenthood by their insurance premiums.

How many of the students who sign up for this plan know about the abortion coverage? When Betzold was asked this question, she replied: “Students are provided electronic access to a summary brochure and a detailed policy document with all policy terms, including coverages and exclusions.”

That is true. I was able to go onto the UW website and find the Insurance Certificate listing “elective abortion” coverage. However, even knowing what I was looking for, it took me about half an hour of searching. One wonders how many get that far.

Why has the University of Wyoming chosen to weigh in on such a loaded issue? After all, there are only a handful of Universities in the nation that have such a draconian student health plan.

The governor’s office told the College Fix that it is merely because the United Health Plan submitted the most competitive bid to the University. There is no reason to dispute that fact. Abortions are probably cheaper than live births. But money is not the only consideration when it comes to proper health care.

We must consider the well-being of our students first and foremost. Numerous studies show how abortion can harm women. None exist that document any health benefits. Before offering students a plan that pays for abortion, we should at least be assured that it is proper “health care.”

--------------

Published in the Wyoming Tribune Eagle, November 9, 2018
Lange: Few know UW health plan covers abortions

Dominionism, the Ten Commandments, and Christianity

 

From the start Only Human has been a column that views current events through a Christian worldview intent on exploring the vast common ground between religions. It seeks neither to downplay the differences between Christianity and other religions, nor spend much time drawing out the differences.

Such a project, however, lends itself to a major misunderstanding that troubles both friend and foe alike. The misunderstanding is that Christianity is one vast and vague religion. This rankles believers who clearly see important differences in doctrine among various religions. It also invites nonbelievers to misunderstand the true nature of Christianity.

As an example of the latter, I recently came across an article titled, “Dominionism Rising: A Theocratic Movement Hiding in Plain Sight.” It was published in the summer 2016 issue of The Public Eye, a magazine devoted to “Challenging the Right, [and] Advancing Social Justice.”

If you have never heard of “Dominionism” that is because the word did not exist until the author of the article coined it, along with a like-minded friend. He coined it to put a label on the idea “that Christians have a mandate to take dominion over every area of life.”

That sounds scary. It’s supposed to. But it expresses nothing more and nothing less than the idea common to every human being that our entire life—and not just a few hours a week—should be lived in accordance with our fundamental understanding of the world. We should both speak the truth and listen to the truth.

Whether you are a Lutheran, Mormon, Catholic or Atheist, I assume that you want to do these things. Progressives want to “take dominion over every area of life” just as much as Buddhists do. That’s usually not a problem because differences in religion mostly have to do with our understanding of the truth about God, salvation, and the afterlife. These differences usually don’t deny the basic rules of life in this world.

Almost everybody agrees that children should obey parents and citizens should obey lawful authorities. We all agree that murder is a bad thing. Spouses across the board feel hurt if they are cheated on. Nobody likes to be robbed or slandered or envied.

You should recognize this laundry list of evils as simply what is commonly called the Second Table of the Law, expressed in Exodus 20:12-17: “Honor your father and your mother, etc. You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not steal. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. You shall not covet, etc.”

You should also recognize that to live according to the truth, to speak it and to hear it, constitute a pretty good summary of the First Table of the Law: “You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, etc. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy” (Exodus 20:3-8).

Every religious person who counts Exodus as an authoritative book agrees—whether Christian or not. Even those who don’t care about the Bible generally agree on these principles. Free speech and free exercise protections allow each person the space to live out the First Table of the Law. Laws against insurrection, murder, rape, stealing and slander are the natural result of our agreement on the Second Table.

The Ten Commandments are not distinctively Christian. They are not even “religious.” They are only human. Even if they were not found in the Bible, we should all agree on them. That’s why the article about “Dominionism” really got my attention. In defining “Christian Dominionists,” Chip Berlet and Frederick Clarkson write: “they believe that the Ten Commandments, or ‘biblical law,’ should be the foundation of American law.” For them, that's a very bad thing.

Let that sink in. At first reading, it sounds like a swipe against Christian fundamentalism—as it is intended to be. But on a more fundamental level, it is making two huge assumptions that need to be called out.

First, it assumes that anyone who agrees with the Ten Commandments is a “Christian Dominionist.” Second, it seems to assume that American law would be just as good if insurrection, murder, rape, thievery, slander and envy were the law of the land.

It boggles my mind that a magazine advocating for “social justice” would take such a stand. But that is the logical outcome of opposition to the Ten Commandments. I am not exaggerating. It is simply a cold, hard fact that if you oppose some law, you are advocating for its opposite.

If you don’t think children should honor their father and mother, you think instead that children should dishonor them. Do we really think America would be better off if people were encouraged to disobey every law and authority that they didn’t like?

Again, if you oppose the commandment, “You shall not murder,” you are embracing a principle that allows murder. If you oppose restraints on adultery, you are encouraging parents to break up families. If you throw out laws against stealing, you are breaking down the doors of every home on the block.

I sincerely hope that my progressive friends will think this through. I understand that those who oppose Christianity don’t recognize the Bible as an authority and don’t want American law to be based on the Bible as such. I can respect this. I certainly would not want American law to be based on the Koran or the Bhagavad Gita.

But neither would I want to rule out good laws just because they may be found in these books. Let’s not throw out the baby with the bath water. You don’t need biblical authority to tell you what every society in the history of the world has figured out by common sense.

In his excellent book, “What We Can’t Not Know,” J. Budziszewski explores which basic principles can be known by pure human reason, apart from any religious revelation. It’s a tour de force into the arena that many call the “natural law.”

Budziszewski is a professor of government and philosophy at the University of Texas. He argues powerfully that the Ten Commandments are in the minds of all mankind quite apart from the tablets of stone brought down from Mount Sinai.

In the process, he demonstrates another point that we would all do well to grasp. The Ten Commandments do not define Christianity. Just because various religious people can agree on the Ten Commandments, doesn’t mean that they are Christian.

Christ did not come to reveal what can be known and understood by anybody. Christ came because our common knowledge of the natural law cannot save us from our own propensity to break it. That’s the human dilemma. We know how we should act and speak and think, but can’t do it.

The distinctly Christian Truth is that God came to earth as a man to do for you what you cannot do for yourself. Jesus not only knew the natural law but lived it. He is the only person who ever has. By living it, He fulfilled it for you and invites you to believe in Him to save you from yourself.

That is Christianity. You will never come to know this by philosophy or natural law. You can only learn this news from Christ in His Bible and His Church.

UW student health plan exposes widespread lack of transparency

An investigative journalist from The College Fix recently exposed a troubling practice at the University of Wyoming. Over 600 foreign students have been automatically enrolled in health insurance that covers elective abortions.

That article caught my attention. We live in a state where the last Planned Parenthood clinic shuttered its operation in 2017. Also, Wyoming’s department of health “has received fewer than five [abortion] reports over the last five years,” according to Mariah Storey, a vital services unit supervisor, quoted in Rewire News. From this, one might assume that abortion just isn’t an issue in the Cowboy State.

But when you dig just a little bit deeper, you find that there is more going on than meets the eye. The Guttmacher Institute, Planned Parenthood’s research arm, reported 380 abortions in the years 2011, 2013 and 2014. That’s 75 times the reported number!

Why is there such a huge disparity between the official tally and Planned Parenthood’s own data? That’s a question that deserves an answer. The fact is that Wyoming’s current abortion reporting laws have no provisions to enable enforcement. Abortionists who thumb their noses at Wyoming’s reporting requirements face no penalties whatsoever.

And thumb their noses they do. Dr. Brent Blue, who performs surgical abortions out of Emerg-A-Care in Jackson, Wyoming, told Rewire, “I do not report to the state because it is none of their business.” While Blue refuses to report to the state of Wyoming, he does diligently report to the Guttmacher Institute.

Dr. Giovannina Anthony, who performs medical abortions about a block away from Blue, agrees. The same article from Rewire quotes her as saying, “If you are looking for numbers, that [the Guttmacher Institute] is where you should focus your efforts. Their stats appropriately assess the need for reproductive services. They do not ask intrusive, irrelevant questions.”

Blue and Anthony are the chief abortionists in Wyoming. Their open flaunting of Wyoming law sounds eerily similar to Dr. Gosnell, who is currently spending the rest of his life in a Pennsylvania prison. That monster considered any and every health regulation to be an unnecessary annoyance that he was free to ignore in “service” of his patients. At least that’s how he self-justified his disease-ridden practice and murderous methods.

If Blue and Anthony openly ignore Wyoming’s reporting laws, I wonder what other Wyoming laws they feel free to break? Wyoming law forbids abortion once the child is developed enough to survive outside the womb. Do they care about that one, or do they think it’s “none of our business”? They are required to offer an ultrasound picture to the mother. Do they also think this is an optional law?


Dr. Brent Blue

Writing in Vice News last spring, Blue said about the ultrasound law, “It’s a law that has no teeth, and there’s no way to enforce it. It won’t change one thing for us.” His open contempt for the law is chilling.

Not only does Wyoming have more abortions happening within her borders than are ever reported, there are also many abortions happening across state lines. The Centers for Disease Control reported that in 2014 (the most recent data available) 642 Wyoming residents procured abortions in Colorado, Montana and Utah.

This figure gives added relevance to the UW student insurance plan. Less than sixty miles from campus, there is a Planned Parenthood clinic in Fort Collins that averages three dozen surgical abortions each weekend of the school year. This is an “in-network” facility for United Health Care, the plan offered to UW students. It means that students who do not read the fine print are unwittingly subsidizing Planned Parenthood by their insurance premiums.

The College Fix contacted UW’s Office of Risk Management about the insurance coverage. Laura Betzold, the chief risk officer, confirmed that “elective abortion” is covered by the plan even though such coverage is not mandated by any state or federal law. So why is it included in the UW plan?

Apparently, insurance for elective abortions has become the latest hot-potato issue in the culture wars. As recently as the 1990s nobody included such coverage, according to Elizabeth Nash, Senior State Issues Manager at the Guttmacher Institute. Then, abortion special interest groups started quietly pressuring insurance companies to add the coverage.

This went largely unnoticed until it broke into the public eye during debates over the Affordable Care Act (ACA), also known as ObamaCare. When the government gets into the insurance business through its state exchanges, can it cover elective abortions without running afoul of the Hyde Amendment? That is the federal law, renewed each year since 1977, which prohibits federal money from being spent on elective abortions.

This debate was finally settled with an Obama executive order that prohibits the ACA state exchanges from covering abortions. If the UW health plan is subsidized by any federal money, it would be in violation of that executive order.

Governor Matt Mead’s chief of staff, Mary Jo Gray, wrote in an email to The College Fix: “The University of Wyoming student health plan is funded entirely by students participating in the health program. No state money is provided for the plan.” That’s a good thing.

But questions still remain. How many of the students who sign up for this plan know about the abortion coverage? When Betzold was asked this question, she replied: “Students are provided electronic access to a summary brochure and a detailed policy document with all policy terms, including coverages and exclusions.”

That is true. I was able to go onto the UW website and find the Insurance Certificate listing “elective abortion” coverage. Even knowing what I was looking for, it took me about half an hour of searching. For foreign students who are automatically signed up for the coverage, one has to wonder how many get that far.

As the newest front in the culture wars, abortion insurance is not a neutral issue. Oregon recently enacted a state law that requires every plan to include it. On the other side of the coin, Texas passed a law that bans such coverage except when the woman’s life is in danger. In all, 29 states have some kind of restriction on the abortions that insurance can cover. Wyoming has none.

So, why has the University of Wyoming chosen to weigh in on such a loaded issue? The governor’s office told The College Fix that it is merely because the United Health Plan submitted the most competitive bid to the University. There is no reason to dispute that fact. Abortions are probably cheaper than live births.

But money is not the only consideration when it comes to proper health care. We must consider the well-being of our students first and foremost. Before offering them a plan that pays for abortion, we should at least be assured that it is proper “health care.”

Roe v. Wade made abortion “the law of the land” over 45 years ago. But we still have no serious clinical study that proves it enhances the physical, emotional, or mental health of the mother. Even the Guttmacher Institute has not conducted such a study. It’s another thing that nobody really wants to know.

Knowledge is power. The first thing that Wyoming should do is strengthen reporting laws so that the likes of Dr. Blue will begin to follow them. Once our state’s health department has actual data, perhaps we could lead the country in commissioning a study of whether abortion is actually “health care” at all.

WTE: Cheney’s bill to release WSA lands is something we can all get behind

The commissioners of Big Horn, Lincoln and Sweetwater counties have asked Wyoming’s congressional delegation to address a 40-year-old problem. They want Congress to remove over 386,000 acres of land from a limbo created by the Federal Land Policy & Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976. Congresswoman Liz Cheney responded on September 27 by introducing the “Restoring Local Input and Access to Public Lands Act” (H.R. 6939).

The Wilderness Act of 1964 created the National Wilderness Preservation Service (NWPS) and gave Congress the authority to designate acres from the National Park Service and the National Forest Service as “Wilderness Areas.” In general, wilderness designation restricts logging, mining, vehicles (including bicycles) and road maintenance—any form of human development.

Congress then designated 15 wilderness areas in Wyoming totaling 3,111,975 acres. These offer some of the best packing and snowshoeing in the United States.

As a young man, I fell in love with Wyoming in the Washakie Wilderness near Dubois. There is no better way to experience her rugged beauty. There is, however, a price to pay for the privilege of walking in undisturbed wilderness.

First, the ability to enjoy them is limited to those fit enough to hike rugged trails and camp in primitive conditions. Many Wyoming citizens, and an even larger percentage of Americans will never see these preserves.

Second, lands that once contributed to the local economy through multiple uses are now restricted to the single use of hiking. As loggers and miners were pushed off the land, towns lost jobs and counties lost taxes.

Third, by restricting mechanized equipment, trails fall into disrepair and undergrowth accumulates. As a result, a wilderness area becomes a tinderbox ripe for the annual wildfire season. These threatens not only wildlife, but also property on the non-restricted lands nearby.

Despite such costs, wilderness areas are beautiful and important parts of Wyoming’s total land management. Most Wyomingites are willing to pay the price. But because wilderness designations are always a balance between costs and benefits, the Wilderness Act of 1964 was careful to keep the authority for creating them in the hands of elected officials.

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 changed all that. The new law instructed the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to suggest some of its holdings for Wilderness designation. But it also added a twist. The FLPMA instructed the Secretary of the Interior to designate these areas as Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and to apply wilderness area restrictions to these lands for up to 15-years while they were studied.

This end run around the Wilderness Act of 1964 gave temporary restrictive authority to an unelected official, bypassing our elected representatives. Thus, with the stroke of a pen the BLM restricted Wyoming citizens from mining, logging and even mountain biking on over 700,000 acres that historically had been accessible.

The story gets worse. When the 15-year temporary period was over, Congress neither acted to designate or to release these areas. The temporary restrictions just rolled into a perpetual status lasting 40 years and counting.

During these years there have been many attempts to negotiate a resolution to the impasse. But through countless hours of negotiation, heartbreaking compromises and herculean efforts the results inevitably end up in federal court.

Groups favoring the unilateral restriction of wilderness areas have no reason to negotiate. They cynically sit back and watch the process knowing that no matter what is decided, an army of lawyers can undo the deal and make the personal opinion of some unelected federal judge to be the only opinion that matters.

It’s no wonder that so many people are feeling disenfranchised and marginalized. The American ideal of self-governance offers the promise of good-hearted people dealing face to face to solve complex problems. It was designed to be both transparent to public scrutiny and responsive to the voting public. Its success depends entirely on elected people, not faceless appointees, writing the laws.

That is why three Wyoming counties have decided to go to the root of the problem. They are not challenging Congress’ creation of 15 wilderness areas in Wyoming--nobody is. But they are challenging the BLM’s authority to unilaterally and perpetually restrict an additional 42 wilderness areas without congressional action.

Years of fruitless negotiation have proven that unless congress acts directly, the people of Wyoming will never be given the chance to work together. Passage Cheney’s bill would enable these counties to negotiate in good faith and with final authority.

By introducing the “Restoring Local Input and Access to Public Lands Act,” Cheney is not undermining local control of public lands but giving it back. Since local control and elected representation was taken away by a bad act of congress in 1976, only congress has the power to restore it again.