Martha Lawley

The lawmaker supports an amendment because it clarifies the language while preserving the intent of what landowners want and need regarding easements.

The lawmaker opposes division two because the funds come from industry taxes that should be reinvested to generate further economic benefits for both the companies and the state.

The lawmaker opposes the amendment because it limits the program's ability to generate additional funds from federal sources and ignores the industry's request for grants.

The lawmaker opposes the amendment because it removes discretion to help small rural hospitals comply through corrective action rather than immediately punishing them with penalties.

The lawmaker supports the amendment as a compromise to provide necessary flexibility for smaller districts that lack the financial resources of larger ones.

The lawmaker proposes an amendment to correct a technical accounting shortage in the bill by increasing the transfer amount between water funds.

The lawmaker opposes passing the bill because she believes state courts cannot enforce judgments or compel witnesses in these international cases, making the solution insufficient.

The lawmaker opposes the bill because it departs from the existing structure of the Hathaway program and raises concerns about how funds would be recovered if given upfront. They suggest that a lump sum approach fits better within the Wyoming's Tomorrow Scholarship parameters for non-traditional students.

The lawmaker supports the amendment because she believes developing outdoor recreation opportunities is essential for helping communities in her district and attracting visitors to the Big Horn Basin.

The lawmaker opposes deleting the funding because they believe it is unreasonable to trade life for life, noting that security improvements protect citizens facing animosity and threats in courtrooms.

The lawmaker supports the amendment because it clarifies the legislature's stance against using public funds for student athletes to avoid confusion among constituents, noting that private donations are an alternative.

The lawmaker states they will likely vote yes on the bill as a compromise to bridge differing opinions between ranchers and outdoor enthusiasts in their district.

The lawmaker supports the amendment because her community is struggling to find doctors who can deliver babies and she believes this funding would benefit that specific issue.

The lawmaker supports the amendment as a novel approach to ensure women have safe, nearby places to give birth, arguing that distance can be life-threatening during pregnancy complications.

The lawmaker opposes the amendment because smaller local governments lack the resources to replicate the expertise provided by associations, making it inefficient and costly for taxpayers. They also believe that voters in those localities should decide whether their government joins these organizations.

The lawmaker supports the amendment because her hardship counties and municipalities are in dire straits due to tax cuts, and higher funding is needed to maintain local services.

The lawmaker supports the bill because it provides private rights of action to empower women against coercion and allows them to enforce their own rights while accounting for medical emergencies.