Wisconsin Supreme Court's liberal majority strikes down 176-year-old abortion ban
State lawmakers adopted the ban in 1849, making it a felony when anyone other than the mother 'intentionally destroys the life of an unborn child.'
It was in effect until 1973, when the US Supreme Court's landmark Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion nationwide nullified it. Legislators never officially repealed the ban, however, and conservatives argued that the US Supreme Court's 2022 decision to overturn Roe reactivated it.
Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul, a Democrat, filed a lawsuit that year arguing that the ban was trumped by abortion restrictions legislators enacted during the nearly half-century that Roe was in effect. Kaul specifically cited a 1985 law that essentially permits abortions until viability. Some babies can survive with medical help after 21 weeks of gestation.
Sheboygan County District Attorney Joel Urmanski, a Republican, defended the ban in court, arguing that the 1849 ban could coexist with the newer abortion restrictions, just as different penalties for the same crime coexist.
Dane County Circuit Judge Diane Schlipper ruled in 2023 that the 1849 ban outlaws feticide – which she defined as the killing of a fetus without the mother's consent – but not consensual abortions. Abortions have been available in the state since that ruling but the state Supreme Court decision gives providers and patients more certainty that abortions will remain legal in Wisconsin.
Urmanski asked the state Supreme Court to overturn Schlipper's ruling without waiting for a decision from a lower appellate court. It was expected as soon as the justices took the case that they would overturn the ban.
Liberals hold a 4-3 majority on the court and one of them, Janet Protasiewicz, openly stated on the campaign trail that she supports abortion rights.
Democratic-backed Susan Crawford defeated conservative Brad Schimel for an open seat on the court in April, ensuring liberals will maintain their 4-3 edge until at least 2028. Crawford has not been sworn in yet and was not part of Wednesday's ruling. She'll play pivotal role, though, in a separate Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin lawsuit challenging the 1849 ban's constitutionality. The high court decided last year to take that case. It's still pending.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
14 minutes ago
- New York Post
Idaho AG bans ‘Everyone is Welcome Here' signs at public schools, says the ‘political statement' violates state law
Idaho's attorney general has ruled that the 'Everyone is Welcome Here' signs that stirred up controversy for 'inadvertently' sparking division must be removed from every public school in the state. A legal opinion was released on Friday by Attorney General Raúl Labrador's office that officially banned signs like the one Lewis and Clark Middle School teacher Sarah Inama displayed in her classroom in February. The AG's office found that banners like Inama's, which read 'Everyone is Welcome Here,' violates the state's vague House Bill 41 prohibiting flags or banners alluding to or depicting any political viewpoint in public schools. Advertisement 'These signs are part of an ideological/social movement which started in Twin Cities, Minnesota following the 2016 election of Donald Trump. Since that time, the signs have been used by the Democratic party as a political statement. The Idaho Democratic Party even sells these signs as part of its fundraising efforts,' the office's statement said. 3 A legal opinion released by the Idaho Attorney General's Office determined that the 'Everyone is Welcome Here' banner can't be hung in public schools. KTVB-TV Inama made headlines last winter when the West Ada School District ordered her to remove her 'Everyone is Welcome Here' sign featuring cartoon hands in various skin tones. Advertisement Inama originally took the poster down, but had a change of heart and put it back up over the weekend. The district administration asserted that Inama needed to take it down because the message 'is not something that everybody believes,' she told KTVB. According to emails from the district obtained by the Idaho Statesman, the district took issue with the different skin-toned hands, which apparently violated the state's requirement that all displayed content be 'neutral and conducive to a positive learning environment.' 3 The opinion asserted that the banner was 'part of an ideological/social movement.' Advertisement The Idaho Democratic Party started to sell the merchandise inspired by the posters on March 25 'after hearing from Idahoans who wanted a way to show support for Ms. Inama,' the party's communications director Avery Roberts wrote in an email to The Post. 'Across the state, parents and teachers, regardless of their political affiliations, want children to have a fair shot. They're working hard to build strong public schools where every student feels welcome and has the support they need to succeed,' Roberts wrote. 3 The teacher at the center of the poster controversy has hung up the poster annually since 2017. Lewis and Clark Middle School 'We're not doing this to make money. The signs and stickers barely cover costs. What matters is the message. Taking a stand against discrimination shouldn't be a partisan issue, and we hope leaders in every party see it that way.' Advertisement The office's opinion goes on to note that Inama began displaying the signs in her classroom shortly after Trump's first term in 2017 and accused her of hanging it to 'share her personal, ideological beliefs.' Per the office's opinion, certain types of student artwork could also be prohibited from being hung in schools.
Politico
15 minutes ago
- Politico
Kilmar Abrego Garcia describes ‘severe beatings' and ‘psychological torture' in Salvadoran prison
The Salvadoran prison where Abrego was initially housed, known as the Anti-Terrorism Confinement Center or by its Spanish-language acronym CECOT, is reputed to be rife with gang violence and human rights abuses. But there are few first-hand accounts of treatment there because El Salvador's president, Nayib Bukele, has vowed that its prisoners will never be released. Abrego's account of physical and psychological torture stands in stark contrast to the portrayal by the Trump administration and Bukele, who posted a photo of what he claimed was Abrego having 'margaritas' with Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), after the senator secured a meeting with Abrego in April. (Van Hollen has since said the margaritas were staged by Salvadoran officials). The Trump administration told a federal judge in May, after Abrego had been moved out of CECOT to another prison, that he was 'in good health' and had 'gained weight.' But Abrego said he lost 31 pounds at CECOT in his first two weeks there. And he reported witnessing and suffering harrowing violence and abuse. Abrego's lawyers presented his account in a 40-page proposed amendment to a lawsuit over his deportation. Spokespeople for the White House and for the Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to requests for comments on Abrego's new claims. Abrego allegedly entered the U.S. illegally around 2011 and had lived in Maryland for more than a decade when the Trump administration deported him. The deportation violated a 2019 order from an immigration judge who barred the U.S. from sending Abrego to El Salvador because he faced a danger of gang violence there. The Supreme Court noted that the deportation was 'illegal' after a Justice Department lawyer admitted that the deportation had been a mistake. 'Whoever enters here doesn't leave' In the new court filing, Abrego described being the first person off an airplane in El Salvador after the Trump administration flew him there with more than 200 men on March 15. He recalled bright lights illuminating the airfield and cameras trained on him while officials forcefully guided him — shackled in chains — to a bus. The next day, Bukele triumphantly circulated cinematically edited videos of the deportees being handed over to Salvadoran authorities.
The Hill
25 minutes ago
- The Hill
Chip Roy says Senate's Medicaid cuts ‘a bit better' than expected
Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) said during a recent interview that Medicaid cuts in the Senate-passed 'big, beautiful bill' are a 'bit better' than what he expected, but added that he still has 'concerns.' 'I will note that I have now gotten a little bit more information on some of the Medicaid stuff that I feel like it's a little bit better than I originally anticipated, but I still have concerns,' Roy said during his Wednesday appearance on Fox News's 'The Will Cain Show.' 'I voted against the rule in the committee because I wasn't at a place where I felt like we should advance the product last night,' the Texas Republican told host Will Cain. 'I'm still in that place, right? I'm still looking through the bill. We got it yesterday. 'I asked every witness at the panel in the Rules Committee yesterday, if they'd read the bill, who were testifying on the bill and they haven't read it, Will. This is no way to do things, so I'm trying to go through the bill and understand it,' Roy said. The Senate passed the One Big, Beautiful Bill Act on Tuesday after Vice President Vance cast the tiebreaking vote, delivering a huge legislative win for President Trump. The Senate bill would mark the biggest cuts to Medicaid. Nearly 12 million low-income Americans would lose health insurance by 2034, the Congressional Budget Office projected. The legislation is now on the House side, where some moderate GOP members have expressed worry about the cuts to the social safety net. Roy, who called some of the last-minute changes senators made to the legislation before passing the package a 'travesty,' has previously voiced concerns about the spending levels within Trump's 'big, beautiful bill.' On Wednesday, Roy told Cain he still has 'massive observations about the green new scam subsidies, and the overall spending level — so we're trying to work through those to see where we can go from here.'
