Current:Home > MarketsWisconsin’s high court to hear oral arguments on whether an 1849 abortion ban remains valid -MacroWatch
Wisconsin’s high court to hear oral arguments on whether an 1849 abortion ban remains valid
View
Date:2025-04-24 16:36:34
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landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion nationwide nullified the Wisconsin ban, but legislators never repealed it.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 He contends that it was never repealed and that it can co-exist with the 1985 law because that law didn’t legalize abortion at any point.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! (292)
Related
- B.A. Parker is learning the banjo
- Where did all the Sriracha go? Sauce shortage hiking prices to $70 in online markets
- Country singer Kelsea Ballerini hit in the face with bracelet while performing
- Iowa woman wins $2 million Powerball prize years after tornado destroyed her house
- Tarte Shape Tape Concealer Sells Once Every 4 Seconds: Get 50% Off Before It's Gone
- Biden Puts Climate Change at Center of Presidential Campaign, Calling Trump a ‘Climate Arsonist’
- Midwest Flooding Exposes Another Oil Pipeline Risk — on Keystone XL’s Route
- This $20 Amazon Top Is the Perfect Addition to Any Wardrobe, According to Reviewers
- 'Squid Game' without subtitles? Duolingo, Netflix encourage fans to learn Korean
- Chrissy Teigen Believed She Had an Identical Twin After Insane DNA Test Mishap
Ranking
- Don't let hackers fool you with a 'scam
- Overstock.com to rebrand as Bed Bath & Beyond after purchasing its assets
- Read the full text of the dissents in the Supreme Court's affirmative action ruling by Sotomayor and Jackson
- Virginia sheriff gave out deputy badges in exchange for cash bribes, feds say
- Could your smelly farts help science?
- Kathy Hilton Confirms Whether or Not She's Returning to The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills
- In the San Joaquin Valley, Nothing is More Valuable than Water (Part 1)
- ‘We Need to Be Bold,’ Biden Says, Taking the First Steps in a Major Shift in Climate Policy
Recommendation
Federal court filings allege official committed perjury in lawsuit tied to Louisiana grain terminal
The Idol Makeup Artist Kirsten Coleman Reveals Euphoria Easter Eggs in the New Series
The Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Climate Change. Is it Ready to Decide Which Courts Have Jurisdiction?
Semi-truck driver was actively using TikTok just before fiery Arizona car crash that killed 5, officials say
Why Sean "Diddy" Combs Is Being Given a Laptop in Jail Amid Witness Intimidation Fears
10 Best Portable Grill Deals Just in Time for Summer: Coleman, Cuisinart, and Ninja Starting at $20
Read full text of the Supreme Court affirmative action decision and ruling in high-stakes case
I've Tried Over a Hundred Mascaras—This Is My New Go-To for the Quickest Faux-Looking Lashes