House Bill 164: Wyoming Reproductive Freedom Coalition Comprehensive Talking Points Resource Guide
Key Concerns and Opposition
This bill is a simple example of government overreach. Off-label usage, when prescribed by a doctor, is safe. Many common medications are now synonymous with off-label usage: such as spironolactone, originally intended to lower blood pressure but is now a leading prescription used to treat female acne.
HB164 is targeting abortion for the sake of targeting it. This bill contains no medical reasoning - it is merely lawmakers using the government to inflict personal beliefs regardless of the real-life harm passing such a bill will cause Wyoming patients.
Talking Points
1. Government Overreach
- Politicians inserting themselves between doctors and patients
- Replaces medical judgment with political mandates
- Creates new bureaucratic barriers to care
- Selective exclusions reveal political rather than medical motivations
2. Unnecessary Solution Seeking a Problem
- Off-label prescribing already accounts for 20% of U.S. prescriptions
- FDA already recognizes physician authority for off-label prescribing
- Existing protocols successfully balance innovation and safety
- No evidence of current system failing patients
3. Patient Safety Concerns
- Strips professional oversight that protects patients
- Prevents medical boards from addressing dangerous practices
- Creates legal ambiguity that could delay care
- Similar laws have led to denial of necessary medications
4. Real-World Evidence of Harm
- AMA documents delays in patient care under similar laws
- Hospitals removing essential emergency medications
- Increased administrative burdens delaying treatment
- Legal uncertainty compromising care delivery
5. Economic Impact
- Creates new liability concerns for healthcare facilities
- Increases administrative costs
- May reduce access to care
- Could drive up healthcare costs
SUPPORTING DATA
- 20% of all U.S. prescriptions are for off-label use
- Similar laws tripled odds of patients needing additional treatment
- Multiple medical specialties rely on off-label prescribing
- Professional medical organizations oppose similar restrictions
RESPONSES TO COMMON ARGUMENTS
"This protects medical freedom."
- Actually, it creates new government restrictions
- Adds political oversight of medical decisions
- Interferes with established medical practice
- Selective exclusions limit physician autonomy
"This increases patient access."
- Evidence shows opposite effect
- Creates new barriers to care
- May reduce medication availability
- Increases administrative burden
"This reduces liability."
- Creates new legal uncertainties
- May increase provider liability
- Compromises established safety protocols
- Adds unclear documentation requirements