Current:Home > MyWisconsin’s high court to hear oral arguments on whether an 1849 abortion ban remains valid -WealthSync Hub
Wisconsin’s high court to hear oral arguments on whether an 1849 abortion ban remains valid
View
Date:2025-04-16 21:54:09
MADISON, Wis. (AP) — The Wisconsin Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Monday on whether a law that legislators adopted more than a decade before the Civil War bans abortion and can still be enforced.
Abortion-rights advocates stand an excellent chance of prevailing, given that liberal justices control the court and one of them remarked on the campaign trail that she supports abortion rights. Monday’s arguments are little more than a formality ahead of a ruling, which is expected to take weeks.
Wisconsin lawmakers passed the state’s first prohibition on abortion in 1849. That law stated that anyone who killed a fetus unless the act was to save the mother’s life was guilty of manslaughter. Legislators passed statutes about a decade later that prohibited a woman from attempting to obtain her own miscarriage. In the 1950s, lawmakers revised the law’s language to make killing an unborn child or killing the mother with the intent of destroying her unborn child a felony. The revisions allowed a doctor in consultation with two other physicians to perform an abortion to save the mother’s life.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion nationwide nullified the Wisconsin ban, but legislators never repealed it. When the Supreme Court overturned Roe two years ago, conservatives argued that the Wisconsin ban was enforceable again.
Democratic Attorney General Josh Kaul filed a lawsuit challenging the law in 2022. He argued that a 1985 Wisconsin law that allows abortions before a fetus can survive outside the womb supersedes the ban. Some babies can survive with medical help after 21 weeks of gestation.
Sheboygan County District Attorney Joel Urmanski, a Republican, argues the 1849 ban should be enforceable. He contends that it was never repealed and that it can co-exist with the 1985 law because that law didn’t legalize abortion at any point. Other modern-day abortion restrictions also don’t legalize the practice, he argues.
Dane County Circuit Judge Diane Schlipper ruled last year that the old ban outlaws feticide — which she defined as the killing of a fetus without the mother’s consent — but not consensual abortions. The ruling emboldened Planned Parenthood to resume offering abortions in Wisconsin after halting procedures after Roe was overturned.
Urmanski asked the state Supreme Court in February to overturn Schlipper’s ruling without waiting for lower appellate courts to rule first. The court agreed to take the case in July.
Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin filed a separate lawsuit in February asking the state Supreme Court to rule directly on whether a constitutional right to abortion exists in the state. The court agreed in July to take that case as well. The justices have yet to schedule oral arguments.
Persuading the court’s liberal majority to uphold the ban appears next to impossible. Liberal Justice Janet Protasiewicz stated openly during her campaign that she supports abortion rights, a major departure for a judicial candidate. Usually, such candidates refrain from speaking about their personal views to avoid the appearance of bias.
The court’s three conservative justices have accused the liberals of playing politics with abortion.
veryGood! (42319)
Related
- California DMV apologizes for license plate that some say mocks Oct. 7 attack on Israel
- Two men in Alabama riverfront brawl plead guilty to harassment; assault charges dropped
- Unhinged yet uplifting, 'Poor Things' is an un-family-friendly 'Barbie'
- Privacy concerns persist in transgender sports case after Utah judge seals only some health records
- Which apps offer encrypted messaging? How to switch and what to know after feds’ warning
- Ashlyn Harris Steps Out With Sophia Bush at Art Basel Amid Ali Krieger Divorce
- UN takes no immediate action at emergency meeting on Guyana-Venezuela dispute over oil-rich region
- Russia puts prominent Russian-US journalist Masha Gessen on wanted list for criminal charges
- Opinion: Gianni Infantino, FIFA sell souls and 2034 World Cup for Saudi Arabia's billions
- 3 fascinating details from ESPN report on Brittney Griner's time in Russian prison
Ranking
- Average rate on 30
- Derek Hough Shares Update on Wife Hayley Erbert’s Health After Skull Surgery
- Think twice before scanning a QR code — it could lead to identity theft, FTC warns
- Bills coach Sean McDermott apologizes for crediting 9/11 hijackers for their coordination while talking to team in 2019
- Can Bill Belichick turn North Carolina into a winner? At 72, he's chasing one last high
- Thursday Night Football highlights: Patriots put dent into Steelers' playoff hopes
- Stolen packages could put a chill on the holiday season. Here's how experts say you can thwart porch pirates.
- FDA approves gene-editing treatment for sickle cell disease
Recommendation
The FBI should have done more to collect intelligence before the Capitol riot, watchdog finds
With Putin’s reelection all but assured, Russia’s opposition still vows to undermine his image
NOT REAL NEWS: A look at what didn’t happen this week
Mexican immigration agents detain 2 Iranians who they say were under observation by the FBI
Most popular books of the week: See what topped USA TODAY's bestselling books list
New York can enforce laws banning guns from ‘sensitive locations’ for now, U.S. appeals court rules
Polish truck drivers are blocking the border with Ukraine. It’s hurting on the battlefield
What makes food insecurity worse? When everything else costs more too, Americans say