Current:Home > MarketsWisconsin’s high court to hear oral arguments on whether an 1849 abortion ban remains valid -ProfitPioneers Hub
Wisconsin’s high court to hear oral arguments on whether an 1849 abortion ban remains valid
View
Date:2025-04-19 05:47:31
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landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion nationwide nullified the Wisconsin ban, but legislators never repealed it.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 He contends that it was never repealed and that it can co-exist with the 1985 law because that law didn’t legalize abortion at any point.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! (21)
Related
- Are Instagram, Facebook and WhatsApp down? Meta says most issues resolved after outages
- FDA rolls back Juul marketing ban, reopening possibility of authorization
- Mexico Elected a Climate Scientist. But Will She Be a Climate President?
- Céline Dion’s Ribs Broke From Spasms Stemming From Stiff-Person Syndrome
- Opinion: Gianni Infantino, FIFA sell souls and 2034 World Cup for Saudi Arabia's billions
- Texas sheriff says 7 suspects arrested, 11 migrants hospitalized after sting near San Antonio
- Dolly Parton developing Broadway musical based on her life story
- World War II veteran, 102, dies in Germany while traveling to France for D-Day ceremonies
- Newly elected West Virginia lawmaker arrested and accused of making terroristic threats
- NCAA panel sets up schools having sponsor logos on football fields for regular home games
Ranking
- DeepSeek: Did a little known Chinese startup cause a 'Sputnik moment' for AI?
- Police won’t bring charges after monster truck accident injures several spectators
- Jennifer Aniston Becomes Emotional While Detailing Her Time on Friends
- UN Secretary-General Calls for Ban on Fossil Fuel Advertising, Says Next 18 Months Are Critical for Climate Action
- House passes bill to add 66 new federal judgeships, but prospects murky after Biden veto threat
- Wisconsin withholds nearly $17 million to Milwaukee schools due to unfiled report
- Massachusetts House approves sweeping housing bill
- Scorching heat keeps grip on Southwest US as records tumble and more triple digits forecast
Recommendation
Could your smelly farts help science?
Geno Auriemma explains why Caitlin Clark was 'set up for failure' in the WNBA
Padma Lakshmi Debuts Lingerie Collection, Choosing Comfort First: “My Mood Is More Important Than My Ass”
California Oil Town Chose a Firm with Oil Industry Ties to Review Impacts of an Unprecedented 20-Year Drilling Permit Extension
'Vanderpump Rules' star DJ James Kennedy arrested on domestic violence charges
France's First Lady Brigitte Macron Breaks Royal Protocol During Meeting With Queen Camilla
GameStop shares surge nearly 50% after 'Roaring Kitty' teases livestream
A new Nebraska law makes court diversion program available to veterans. Other states could follow