Wisconsin Supreme Court strikes down 176-year-old abortion ban
The ban state lawmakers adopted in 1849 made 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 U.S. Supreme Court's landmark Roe v. Wade decision legalising abortion nationwide nullified it. Legislators never officially repealed the ban, however, and conservatives argued that the U.S. Supreme Court's 2022 decision to overturn Roe reactivated it.
Also read: U.S. Supreme Court's decision on right to abortion is both scorned and praised
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 1849 ban in court, arguing that it 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 had 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.
The justices concluded that 'the legislature impliedly repealed' the ban 'by enacting comprehensive legislation about virtually every aspect of abortion, including where, when, and how healthcare providers may lawfully perform abortions,' Justice Rebecca Dallet wrote for the majority. 'That comprehensive legislation so thoroughly covers the entire subject of abortion that it was clearly meant as a substitute for the 19th-century near-total ban on abortion.'
In a dissent, Justice Annette Ziegler called the ruling 'a jaw-dropping exercise of judicial will." She said the liberal justices based the decision on their personal preference to allow abortions.
Urmanski's Attorney, Andrew Phillips, didn't immediately respond to an email Wednesday morning seeking comment. Kaul's spokesperson, Riley Vetterkind, also didn't immediately return an email.
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 a 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.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Ukraine arms freeze sparks GOP fury: Pentagon's pause catches Donald Trump allies off guard; target Colby
Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth (AP) The United States' latest decision to halt some weapon shipments to Ukraine came as a surprise even to people usually in the loop on such matters, including officials from the state department, members of Congress, and some key European allies, according to Politico. The halt was prompted by Pentagon policy chief Elbridge Colby and a close group of advisers, who expressed concerns that some US weapons stockpiles were becoming depleted. The unexpected decision on Monday sparked concern and frustration, even among leading Republicans, over the apparent perception that a single senior Pentagon official had such influence on the outcome. Even President Donald Trump's allies expressed frustration over the decision, accusing officials like Colby, who conducted a review of US munitions stockpiles prior to the pause, of advancing the move without informing the rest of the administration or other stakeholders. They pointed out that the decision to suspend weapons shipments to Ukraine appeared to be made with minimal coordination across the administration, following major reductions to the national security council that had significantly weakened its influence. 'I think it's all made by the DOD policy director, this Colby guy. We essentially don't have a national security adviser,' said Republican representative for Texas Michael McCaul. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Искате да научите повече за новото BMW 2 Gran Coupe? BMW Научете повече Undo 'I'm not even sure (Secretary of State Marco) Rubio was consulted on this one … There's internal division in the White House.' The decision sparked confusion and a sense of shock in Ukraine, while also prompting concern in Europe over whether the US was beginning to retreat from its military backing of Kyiv, at a time when Trump seemed increasingly open to the idea of providing additional aid to help defend Ukraine against Russian attacks. Representative Brian Fitzpatrick, a member of the house intelligence committee, wrote a letter to Trump on Tuesday requesting an emergency briefing from the White House and the department of defense regarding the suspension of military aid, which had originally been approved under the Biden administration. One official said the Pentagon's move was uncoordinated and surprised the state department. According to two other officials, Pentagon leaders didn't consult the state department, the US embassy in Kyiv, or Ukraine envoy Keith Kellogg's team before halting a shipment of critical weapons already in Poland. Some members of the Joint Staff also opposed the decision, they added, reported Politico. The White House and the state department rejected claims that the munitions pause took officials by surprise. 'This is false,' said a White House official. 'The president and top officials expect the DOD to regularly review aid allocations to ensure they are in line with the America First agenda.'
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Denied toilet access, made to kneel overnight: US deportee says he was tortured in El Salvador prison
Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia was supposed to be safe. In 2019, a US immigration judge ruled that the 29-year-old Salvadoran could not be deported to his home country, citing credible fears that local gangs there would persecute him and his family. But in March 2025, the Trump administration deported him anyway. What followed has triggered a political and legal firestorm over the administration's immigration enforcement, reaching all the way to the US Supreme Court. The White House has repeatedly claimed that Abrego Garcia is a member of MS-13, the Salvadoran gang the US government has designated a foreign terrorist organisation. US President Donald Trump, speaking last month, declared that Abrego Garcia 'will never live' in the United States again. Yet multiple judges, including one on the Supreme Court, have ruled that he was deported in error and that the government is obliged to help 'facilitate' his return to Maryland, where he had lived since 2012. That court order came only after Abrego Garcia had already spent nearly three harrowing months inside El Salvador's notorious Terrorism Confinement Center, or CECOT, where he was sent immediately after his wrongful deportation. 'Welcome to CECOT. Whoever enters here doesn't leave,' one official reportedly told him upon arrival, according to court documents filed by his lawyers. Held in an overcrowded, windowless cell with bright lights on 24 hours a day, Abrego Garcia says he was forced to sleep on a metal bunk with no mattress and was denied access to a bathroom, eventually soiling himself. He said he lost 14 kg in two weeks. In his testimony, he lists harrowing details. Upon arrival, he says he was kicked and hit repeatedly, leaving his body bruised and swollen. He and 20 others were made to kneel overnight, with guards striking anyone who collapsed, he claims. At times, he was told he would be transferred to cells with known gang members who would 'tear' him apart. He also said he heard screaming through the night. He saw prisoners assaulting each other in nearby cells. He was told by prison staff that his tattoos would mark him for death—until they later admitted they weren't gang-related at all. According to the new court filings, Salvadoran prison officials determined that Abrego Garcia was not affiliated with any gang. The Trump administration initially brushed aside the deportation as an 'administrative error.' But after weeks of legal pressure, it abruptly flew Abrego Garcia back to the US last month—not to release him, but to indict him. He is now in federal custody in Nashville, Tennessee, facing charges of participating in a conspiracy to smuggle undocumented immigrants, allegedly as a member of MS-13. His lawyers argue the evidence is flimsy and that the government is backpedalling on its previous mistake by doubling down on criminal accusations. Justice Department attorney Jonathan Guynn told a Maryland judge that the US intends to deport Abrego Garcia again, this time to an unnamed third country. There is no set timeline, but his attorneys say the threat is immediate and illegal. 'This was not a mistake,' one of his lawyers told reporters. 'It was a deliberate defiance of a court order.' The Justice Department has not commented publicly on whether it will comply with the Supreme Court's latest ruling or where it intends to send Abrego Garcia next.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Explained: What is 'magic minute'? Democrat's last ditch attempt to delay Trump's 'One Big, Beautiful Bill'
House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries took to the House floor for what has now become a marathon speech, invoking a rarely used House procedure known as the 'magic minute' to protest President Donald Trump's massive tax and spending package. The move comes as Republicans race to pass the so-called 'One Big Beautiful Bill' before a self-imposed 4 July deadline. Jeffries began speaking at 4.53am ET and has now delivered one of the longest speeches in recent House history — clocking over five hours and counting. His speech, delivered to a mostly empty chamber but cheered on by Democratic colleagues, is not a filibuster in the technical sense but utilises the House tradition that allows leaders unlimited speaking time at the close of debate. 'I feel the obligation, Mr. Speaker, to stand on this House floor and take my sweet time to tell the stories of the American people, and that's exactly what I intend to do,' Jeffries said. What is the 'magic minute'? The 'magic minute' is an informal House rule that grants party leaders — such as the Speaker, Majority Leader, or Minority Leader — the right to speak for as long as they wish once debate has concluded. While most representatives are limited to short time allotments, the magic minute allows leaders to effectively stall proceedings without the Senate's formal filibuster tool. Jeffries has made clear he intends to use every minute of this procedural leverage. As of Thursday morning, his speech had already surpassed five hours, placing it as the third-longest 'magic minute' in House history. The current record stands at 8 hours and 32 minutes, held by former Republican Speaker Kevin McCarthy, who spoke in opposition to Joe Biden's Build Back Better Act in 2021. This extended address is seen as the final major effort by Democrats to stall the controversial Republican bill — a sweeping legislative package that enshrines Trump's domestic agenda for his second term, including \$4.5 trillion in extended tax breaks and significant cuts to Medicaid, SNAP, and other social welfare programmes. 'This reckless Republican budget is an immoral document,' Jeffries declared. 'Everybody should vote no against it because of how it attacks children, seniors, and everyday Americans.' Jeffries' fierce critique of the Bill Throughout his speech, Jeffries has zeroed in on what he calls an 'extraordinary assault' on American health care, repeatedly warning that the proposed cuts would severely damage Medicaid, Medicare, the Affordable Care Act, and children's health services. 'This bill represents the largest cut to health care in American history,' Jeffries said. 'Hospitals will close, including all throughout rural America… People in America will die unnecessary deaths. That is outrageous. It's disgusting.' Citing the Congressional Budget Office, Jeffries warned that up to 11.8 million Americans could lose health insurance under the Senate-approved provisions of the bill, which would impose stricter work requirements and roll back health and food assistance. The House Minority Leader also accused Republicans of cruelty and neglect, adding: 'Leadership requires courage, conviction, compassion — and yet what we have seen from this administration and co-conspirators on the Republican side of the aisle is cruelty, chaos and corruption.' The bill, officially titled the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' by Republicans, would also fund mass deportation efforts and reverse green energy investments. Jeffries ridiculed the branding: 'Republicans are trying to jam this one, big, ugly bill down the throats of the American people.' What happens next Despite the delay, Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson claimed he had secured the necessary votes to pass the bill. The package, after narrowly passing a series of procedural hurdles, was expected to go to a final vote shortly after Jeffries' remarks conclude. 'We feel very good about where we are and we're moving forward,' Johnson said. 'We're going to deliver the Big, Beautiful Bill — the president's 'America First' agenda.' The bill is expected to be signed by President Trump shortly after passage, marking a defining victory for his second term. But Democrats, united in their opposition, have promised to campaign hard against it ahead of the 2026 midterms, framing it as a historic transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich. > 'This bill — this one big, ugly bill — this reckless Republican budget, this disgusting abomination — is not about improving the quality of life of the American people,' Jeffries said, closing in on the sixth hour of his address.
