Current:Home > reviewsWisconsin Supreme Court to consider whether 175-year-old law bans abortion -WealthSync Hub
Wisconsin Supreme Court to consider whether 175-year-old law bans abortion
View
Date:2025-04-26 14:17:55
MADISON, Wis. (AP) — The Wisconsin Supreme Court decided Tuesday to consider two challenges to a 175-year-old law that conservatives maintain bans abortion without letting the cases wind through lower courts.
Abortion advocates stand an excellent chance of prevailing in both cases given the high court’s liberal tilt and remarks a liberal justice made on the campaign trail about how she supports abortion rights.
Wisconsin lawmakers enacted statutes in 1849 that had been widely interpreted as outlawing abortion in all cases except to save the mother’s life. The U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion nullified the statutes, but legislators never repealed them. The high court’s 2022 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade reactivated them.
Democratic Attorney General Josh Kaul filed a lawsuit challenging the statutes in 2022, arguing they were too old to enforce and a 1985 law that permits abortions before a fetus can survive outside the womb supersedes them. A Dane County judge ruled last year that the statutes outlaw attacking a woman in an attempt to kill her unborn baby but doesn’t ban abortions. The decision emboldened Planned Parenthood to resume offering abortions in Wisconsin after halting procedures when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.
Sheboygan County District Attorney Joel Urmanski, a Republican, asked the state Supreme Court in February to overturn the ruling without letting an appeal move through the state’s lower appellate courts. He argued the ruling will have a statewide impact and guide lawmakers and the case will ultimately end at the Supreme Court anyway.
Days after Urmanski filed his request, Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin sued Urmanski and asked the Supreme Court to take it directly. The organization is seeking a ruling that the 1849 statutes are unconstitutional, arguing that the state constitution’s declaration that people have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness means women have a right to control their own bodies — essentially asking the court to declare a constitutional right to abortion.
The court released orders indicating the justices voted unanimously to take Urmanski’s appeal and voted 4-3 to take the Planned Parenthood case. The court’s four liberal justices voted to take that case, and the three conservative justices voted against taking it.
Urmanski’s attorneys, Andrew Phillips and Matthew Thome, didn’t immediately respond to an email seeking comment.
Persuading the court’s liberal majority to uphold the statutes looks next to impossible. Liberal Justice Janet Protasiewicz even went so far as stating openly during her campaign that she supports abortion rights, a major departure for a judicial candidate. Typically such candidates refrain from speaking about their personal views out of concerns they could appear biased on the bench.
The conservative justices accused the liberal majority in their Planned Parenthood dissents of playing politics.
“The signal to a watching public is that, when certain policy issues touch the right nerve, this court will follow the party line, not the law,” Hagedorn wrote.
Liberal Justice Jill Karofsky countered in a concurrence that the state Supreme Court is supposed to decide important state constitutional questions.
“Regardless of one’s views on the morality, legality, or constitutionality of abortion, it is undeniable that abortion regulation is an issue with immense personal and practical significance to many Wisconsinites,” Karofsky wrote.
Michelle Velasquez, chief strategy officer for Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, said in a statement that the organization was grateful the court agreed to take its case and Wisconsin residents need to know whether abortion is legal in the state.
Wisconsin Watch, a media outlet, obtained a leaked draft of the order accepting the case last week, prompting Chief Justice Annette Ziegler to call for an investigation.
Anti-abortion groups decried the Supreme Court’s decision to take the Planned Parenthood case.
“Every Wisconsinite should be troubled by this blatant weaponization of the court system to enshrine death on demand,” Heather Weininger, executive director of Wisconsin Right to Life, said in a statement.
___
This story has been updated to correct the day of week in the first sentence to Tuesday, not Monday.
veryGood! (293)
Related
- Paula Abdul settles lawsuit with former 'So You Think You Can Dance' co
- 55 US Coast Guard cadets disciplined after cheating scandal for copying homework answers
- Judge rejects defense efforts to dismiss Hunter Biden’s federal gun case
- Jury convicts former DEA agent of obstruction but fails to reach verdict on Buffalo bribery charges
- Small twin
- 'I can't believe that': Watch hundreds of baby emperor penguins jump off huge ice cliff
- What we learned covering O.J. Simpson case: We hardly know the athletes we think we know
- 2 tractor-trailers hit by gunfire on Alabama interstate in what drivers call ambush-style attacks
- Trump wants to turn the clock on daylight saving time
- Roberto Cavalli, Italian fashion designer whose creations adorned celebrities, dies at 83
Ranking
- NFL Week 15 picks straight up and against spread: Bills, Lions put No. 1 seed hopes on line
- Tiger Woods sets all-time record for consecutive made cuts at The Masters in 2024
- Teen Mom's Maci Bookout and Taylor McKinney Reveal the Biggest Struggle in Their 7-Year Marriage
- Faith Ringgold, pioneering Black quilt artist and author, dies at 93
- Meta releases AI model to enhance Metaverse experience
- Woman who stabbed classmate in 2014 won’t be released: See timeline of the Slender Man case
- As a landmark United Methodist gathering approaches, African churches weigh their future.
- Big E gives update on WWE status two years after neck injury: 'I may never be cleared'
Recommendation
North Carolina trustees approve Bill Belichick’s deal ahead of introductory news conference
OJ Simpson's trial exposed America's racial divide. Three decades later, what's changed?
River barges break loose in Pittsburgh, causing damage and closing bridges before some go over a dam
What we learned covering O.J. Simpson case: We hardly know the athletes we think we know
Newly elected West Virginia lawmaker arrested and accused of making terroristic threats
Faced with possibly paying for news, Google removes links to California news sites for some users
As a landmark United Methodist gathering approaches, African churches weigh their future.
Suburban Detroit police fatally shoot man who pointed gun at them