Current:Home > MyWisconsin’s high court to hear oral arguments on whether an 1849 abortion ban remains valid -Financium
Wisconsin’s high court to hear oral arguments on whether an 1849 abortion ban remains valid
View
Date:2025-04-13 19:24:04
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landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion nationwide nullified the Wisconsin ban, but legislators never repealed it.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 He contends that it was never repealed and that it can co-exist with the 1985 law because that law didn’t legalize abortion at any point.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! (49122)
Related
- Off the Grid: Sally breaks down USA TODAY's daily crossword puzzle, Triathlon
- DNA from trash links former U.S. soldier to 1978 murder in Germany, investigators say: Match was 1 in 270 quadrillion
- 2 minor earthquakes recorded overnight in Huntington Park, Lake Pillsbury, California
- Hilary Swank on Ordinary Angels and miracles
- Dick Vitale announces he is cancer free: 'Santa Claus came early'
- Blake Lively Reveals She Just Hit This Major Motherhood Milestone With 4 Kids
- Foreigner founder Mick Jones reveals Parkinson's diagnosis amid farewell tour absences
- Ranking 10 NFL teams most in jeopardy of losing key players this offseason
- Head of the Federal Aviation Administration to resign, allowing Trump to pick his successor
- What to know as Julian Assange faces a ruling on his U.S. extradition case over WikiLeaks secrets
Ranking
- Who are the most valuable sports franchises? Forbes releases new list of top 50 teams
- Drunk driver who struck and killed an NYPD detective sentenced to more than 20 years in prison
- Attrition vs. tradition: After heavy losses, Tampa Bay Rays hope to defy odds yet again
- When does tax season end in 2024? Here's when you should have your taxes filed this year.
- Head of the Federal Aviation Administration to resign, allowing Trump to pick his successor
- Young girl dies after 5-foot deep hole collapses in Florida beach tragedy
- Nvidia’s 4Q revenue, profit soar thanks to demand for its chips used for artificial intelligence
- Three slain Minnesota first responders remembered for their commitment to service
Recommendation
Federal appeals court upholds $14.25 million fine against Exxon for pollution in Texas
Paul Giamatti on his journey to 'The Holdovers' and Oscars: 'What a funny career I've had'
A man tried to open an emergency exit on an American Airlines flight. Other passengers subdued him
Hunter Biden’s lawyers suggest his case is tainted by claims of ex-FBI informant charged with lying
All That You Wanted to Know About She’s All That
Customers sue Stanley, say the company failed to disclose presence of lead in tumblers
Ex-romantic partner of Massachusetts governor says she’s ready to serve on state’s high court
Hoda Kotb says she wants Kelly Rowland to 'come back' after singer's 'Today' show departure