✅ Law #1: Protecting Privacy in Public Spaces Act — HB 0072

• Statute / Bill: Wyoming House Bill 72 — Protecting Privacy in Public Spaces Act (Wikipedia)

• Effective: July 1, 2025 (Wyoming Public Media)

📝 What it does

• Bans people in Wyoming from using restrooms, showers, locker rooms, sleeping quarters in public facilities that do not match their biological sex at birth. (Wikipedia)

• Applies to facilities managed by the state, including government facilities and the University of Wyoming; excludes some places like K-12 schools. (Wikipedia)

• Contains exceptions (e.g. facility staff) and allows civil lawsuits when violations occur. (Wikipedia)

💰 Cost to taxpayers / state budget

• Minor administrative cost (signage, updating policies).

• Potential legal costs if lawsuits challenge the law.

👥 Who it helps / affects

• Helps: those who prefer sex-segregated spaces defined by biological sex; supporters of privacy in such facilities.

• Affects: transgender and non-binary people; public facility operators; University of Wyoming; individuals wanting access aligned with gender identity.

⚙️ Who sponsored / who opposed

• Sponsored by Rep. Martha Lawley (R-27). (Wikipedia)

• Support from conservative legislators / privacy advocates. Opposition from LGBTQ+ groups and civil rights organizations. (Wikipedia)

✅ Pros:

• Provides clarity in facility regulations.

• Aligns with views of those who believe sex at birth should determine access in private spaces.

❌ Cons:

• Seen by critics as discriminatory / exclusionary.

• Likely legal challenges; potential emotional or social harm to affected individuals.

🗳️ The Ballot Beacon Takeaway:
Wyoming HB 72, effective July 1, 2025, prohibits use of public restrooms, locker rooms, etc., based on gender identity for biological sex not matching. In short: privacy defined strictly by sex at birth, sparking rights vs. inclusion debates.

• Statute / Bill: HB 64 — mandating an ultrasound at least 48 hours before prescribing medication abortion pills. (The Washington Post)

• Effective: Immediately upon being signed / overridden in early 2025. (The Washington Post)

📝 What it does

• Requires women seeking medication abortion (abortion with pills) in Wyoming to undergo an ultrasound at least 48 hours beforehand. (The Washington Post)

• Provides for viewing the ultrasound or hearing the fetal heartbeat if audible. (The Washington Post)

💰 Cost to taxpayers / state budget

• Possible increased costs for clinics due to added procedure and travel / scheduling burdens.

• May increase healthcare costs or delays for patients.

👥 Who it helps / affects

• Helps: supporters who believe in more information before abortion decision; legislators who want stricter regulations.

• Affects: people seeking medication abortions (especially those far from ultrasound services), clinics; may impose travel, delay, cost burdens.

⚙️ Who sponsored / who opposed

• Passed by Legislature; the governor vetoed but the Legislature overrode the veto. (The Washington Post)

• Support from pro-life / conservative groups. Opposition from reproductive rights advocates and medical professionals who warn of burden or access issues.

✅ Pros:

• More chances for patients to understand fetal development; aligns with views of those emphasizing “informed consent.”

❌ Cons:

• Creates delay; may be traumatic in certain circumstances (rape, incest); logistical and access challenges.

🗳️ The Ballot Beacon Takeaway:
Wyoming’s HB 64 requires an ultrasound 48 hours before medication abortion — imposing pre-procedure delay and possibly cost on patients, despite strong legislative support.

• Statute / Bill: HB 42 — regulations for surgical abortion facilities. (Wikipedia)

• Effective: Part of the 2025 session; went into effect once signed. (Wikipedia)

📝 What it does

• Requires abortion clinics to meet ambulatory surgical center standards. (Wikipedia)

• These rules impose facility licensing and infrastructural requirements.

💰 Cost to taxpayers / state budget

• Clinics must invest in facility upgrades, licensing, infrastructure to meet surgical center standards.

• Possible increases in cost of care / fewer clinics able to comply, affecting access.

👥 Who it helps / affects

• Helps: proponents who believe stricter safety standards improve patient outcomes.

• Affects: abortion providers (especially smaller ones), patients needing surgical abortions, people living far from compliant clinics.

⚙️ Who sponsored / who opposed

• Passed by Wyoming Legislature; supported by conservative legislators and anti-abortion advocacy. Opposition from abortion rights advocates and reproductive health organizations.

✅ Pros:

• Adds safety standards; may reassure those concerned about clinic quality.

❌ Cons:

• Might reduce availability / access; increased travel & cost for patients; possibility of clinic closures.

🗳️ The Ballot Beacon Takeaway:
Wyoming’s HB 42 mandates surgical abortion clinics meet stricter surgical center standards — boosting facility regulation at the cost of potential access, especially for rural or small providers.

• Statute / Bill: HB 0156 — requiring qualified electors to be bona fide state residents for at least 30 days before the election; requiring documentation proving residence. (LegiScan)

• Effective: Chapter 172, passed March 21, 2025; becomes law according to statutory schedule. (LegiScan)

📝 What it does

• Voters must have resided in Wyoming for at least 30 days before the election they vote in. (LegiScan)

• Proof of residence/documentation required for voter registration/eligibility.

💰 Cost to taxpayers / state budget

• Administrative cost for election offices to verify documentation.

• Potential costs of public education and signage to inform voters.

👥 Who it helps / affects

• Helps: supporters of stricter election rules / voter integrity advocates.

• Affects: new residents, people who recently moved; individuals without stable housing or documentation; election offices.

⚙️ Who sponsored / who opposed

• Passed in the Legislature; part of election law reforms 2025. (LegiScan)

• Support from those emphasizing election security; opposition from voting-rights advocates concerned about disenfranchisement.

✅ Pros:

• Adds certainty about voter eligibility; may discourage fraud.

❌ Cons:

• Can disenfranchise legitimate voters who recently moved; documentation burdens; might be confusing for some voters.

🗳️ The Ballot Beacon Takeaway:
Wyoming’s HB 0156 requires voters to live in the state at least 30 days and prove residence — stricter eligibility rules for voting, with risks of excluding recent movers or those lacking documents.