Current:Home > NewsWisconsin’s high court to hear oral arguments on whether an 1849 abortion ban remains valid -ValueCore
Wisconsin’s high court to hear oral arguments on whether an 1849 abortion ban remains valid
View
Date:2025-04-17 11:50:10
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landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion nationwide nullified the Wisconsin ban, but legislators never repealed it.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 He contends that it was never repealed and that it can co-exist with the 1985 law because that law didn’t legalize abortion at any point.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! (92628)
Related
- Jorge Ramos reveals his final day with 'Noticiero Univision': 'It's been quite a ride'
- NBCUniversal CEO Jeff Shell fired after CNBC anchor alleges sexual harassment
- Tucker Carlson Built An Audience For Conspiracies At Fox. Where Does It Go Now?
- NBCUniversal CEO Jeff Shell fired after CNBC anchor alleges sexual harassment
- Jamie Foxx reps say actor was hit in face by a glass at birthday dinner, needed stitches
- Warming Trends: Butterflies Bounce Back, Growing Up Gay Amid High Plains Oil, Art Focuses on Plastic Production
- There are even more 2020 election defamation suits beyond the Fox-Dominion case
- Forecasters Tap High-Tech Tools as US Warns of Another Unusually Active Hurricane Season
- IRS recovers $4.7 billion in back taxes and braces for cuts with Trump and GOP in power
- Why Chris Evans Deactivated His Social Media Accounts
Ranking
- Charges tied to China weigh on GM in Q4, but profit and revenue top expectations
- Roy Wood Jr. wants laughs from White House Correspondents' speech — and reparations
- Pete Davidson Admits His Mom Defended Him on Twitter From Burner Account
- Precision agriculture technology helps farmers - but they need help
- Federal Spending Freeze Could Have Widespread Impact on Environment, Emergency Management
- Charlie Sheen and Denise Richards’ Daughter Sami Shares Her Riskiest OnlyFans Photo Yet in Sheer Top
- Warming Trends: How Hairdressers Are Mobilizing to Counter Climate Change, Plus Polar Bears in Greenland and the ‘Sounds of the Ocean’
- 'Leave pity city,' MillerKnoll CEO tells staff who asked whether they'd lose bonuses
Recommendation
North Carolina trustees approve Bill Belichick’s deal ahead of introductory news conference
New Mexico Wants it ‘Both Ways,’ Insisting on Environmental Regulations While Benefiting from Oil and Gas
Tucker Carlson Built An Audience For Conspiracies At Fox. Where Does It Go Now?
Airbnb let its workers live and work anywhere. Spoiler: They're loving it
Man can't find second winning lottery ticket, sues over $394 million jackpot, lawsuit says
Feeding Cows Seaweed Reduces Their Methane Emissions, but California Farms Are a Long Way From Scaling Up the Practice
Pete Davidson’s New Purchase Proves He’s Already Thinking About Future Kids
In South Asia, Vehicle Exhaust, Agricultural Burning and In-Home Cooking Produce Some of the Most Toxic Air in the World