Current:Home > ScamsWisconsin’s high court to hear oral arguments on whether an 1849 abortion ban remains valid -CapitalTrack
Wisconsin’s high court to hear oral arguments on whether an 1849 abortion ban remains valid
View
Date:2025-04-13 13:09:15
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landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion nationwide nullified the Wisconsin ban, but legislators never repealed it.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 He contends that it was never repealed and that it can co-exist with the 1985 law because that law didn’t legalize abortion at any point.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! (5658)
Related
- Off the Grid: Sally breaks down USA TODAY's daily crossword puzzle, Triathlon
- Baltimore man convicted in 2021 ambush shooting of city police officer
- Saquon Barkley NFL free agency landing spots: Ranking 9 teams from most to least sensible
- Betty Ford forever postage stamp is unveiled at the White House
- McKinsey to pay $650 million after advising opioid maker on how to 'turbocharge' sales
- Hoda Kotb Shares Daughter Hope Is Braver Than She Imagined After Medical Scare
- Biden is hoping to use his State of the Union address to show a wary electorate he’s up to the job
- Why are clocks set forward in the spring? Thank wars, confusion and a hunger for sunlight
- Senate begins final push to expand Social Security benefits for millions of people
- Lawyer who crashed snowmobile into Black Hawk helicopter is suing for $9.5 million
Ranking
- Warm inflation data keep S&P 500, Dow, Nasdaq under wraps before Fed meeting next week
- Ex-Virginia lawmaker acquitted of hit-and-run charges
- What is the State of the Union? A look at some of the history surrounding the annual event
- 4 people arrested, more remains found in Long Island as police investigate severed body parts
- Tarte Shape Tape Concealer Sells Once Every 4 Seconds: Get 50% Off Before It's Gone
- Four family members convicted in 2018 New Mexico compound case sentenced to life
- 'Rust' armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed found guilty of involuntary manslaughter
- Spectacular fields of yellow mustard draw visitors to Northern California’s wine country
Recommendation
'Survivor' 47 finale, part one recap: 2 players were sent home. Who's left in the game?
Virginia judge sets aside guilty verdict against former school superintendent
Show stopper: Rare bird sighting prompts Fountains of Bellagio to pause shows Tuesday
What these red cows from Texas have to do with war and peace in the Middle East
2025 'Doomsday Clock': This is how close we are to self
U.N. says reasonable grounds to believe Hamas carried out sexual attacks on Oct. 7, and likely still is
Embattled New York Community Bancorp announces $1B cash infusion
Is a 100-point performance possible for an NBA player in today's high-scoring game?