The future of abortion access in Wyoming remains undecided after nearly four hours of arguments Thursday.

A Teton County judge said she would issue a ruling at a later date despite two sides requesting that she decide the fate of abortion access in Wyoming now.

“Based on the hours of oral argument and the complex constitutional issues before this court, there’s no way I’d be ruling from the bench today,” 9th Judicial District Court Judge Melissa Owens said as the clock inched toward 5 p.m. Thursday in the well-attended hearing.

Three attorneys — Peter Modlin, Marci Bramlet and John Robinson — representing six plaintiffs argued that the constitutionality of two laws against abortion need to be evaluated in the context of how they will affect women.

Abortion remains legal in Wyoming while the court case proceeds. The two laws — a general ban on abortion with some exceptions, and a second ban on medication abortions — were halted in March.

“We’re talking about statutes that would have a profound effect on real people,” Modlin said. “The state wants the court to blind itself to devastating real-world impacts.”

The state, represented by Special Assistant Attorney General Jay Jerde, argued the laws need only be read on their face, without extraneous evidence.

“This is a court of law, this is not a court of policy,” Jerde said. “We are here to decide whether [the laws] violate any provision in the constitution.”

Modlin argued that the bans will “kill, injure and traumatize women” while physicians will be left guessing when exceptions apply, ultimately delaying treatment.

Plaintiffs — Jackson OB-GYN Dr. Giovannina Anthony, Dr. Rene Hinkle, two women of childbearing age and two abortion access nonprofits — also argued that the laws “enshrine” a religious viewpoint.

“Prior to 1977 no one questioned whether Wyoming’s statute was grounded in religion,” Jerde said. “It’s not related to religion at all. It’s always been the case in Wyoming.”

The plaintiffs also argued that the bans violate equal protection by singling out health care elected by women.

“The state presents coercion as protection,” Bramlet said. “These laws are a direct assault on women’s equal rights and equal participation in society.”

“The plaintiffs clearly disagree with the policies,” Jerde said. “Their recourse is to get the statutes changed or the Wyoming Constitution changed.”

A ruling from Owens is expected to take at least six weeks.