Liberal justices on Wisconsin’s Supreme Court have trampled on 176 years of state history by striking down a longstanding abortion ban in a 4-3 decision that will now allow the killing of unborn children up to the point of viability.
Key Takeaways
- Wisconsin’s Supreme Court liberal majority voted 4-3 to repeal the state’s 1849 abortion ban, claiming newer abortion legislation supersedes the historic law
- The ruling allows abortions in Wisconsin up to fetal viability, with several restrictions still in place, including mandatory ultrasounds and waiting periods
- Conservative justices strongly condemned the decision, with Justice Annette Ziegler calling it judicial overreach and an attempt to impose personal preferences as law
- The decision ensures abortion will remain a divisive political issue in Wisconsin, with liberal control of the court now secured until at least 2028
Liberal Justices Override Nearly Two Centuries of Wisconsin Law
In a deeply controversial ruling that has outraged conservatives across Wisconsin, the state’s Supreme Court, controlled by a liberal majority, voted 4-3 to strike down a 176-year-old abortion ban. The court determined that more recent abortion regulations effectively replaced the 1849 statute, which had previously made destroying “an unborn child” a felony except in medical emergencies. This decision comes despite the fact that the original ban had been on the books since Wisconsin’s early days of statehood, designed specifically to protect unborn life at a time when scientific understanding of fetal development was just emerging.
The 1849 law had been temporarily nullified after the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision but was argued by conservatives to have been reinstated after the Supreme Court overturned Roe in 2022. Instead of respecting this long-standing legal tradition, the liberal court majority has decided to prioritize modern abortion access over historical protections for the unborn. The decision effectively enshrines in Wisconsin law a standard that permits abortion until viability – typically around 23-24 weeks – when a child could potentially survive outside the womb, albeit with medical assistance.
Conservative Justices Condemn Judicial Activism
The court’s conservative justices delivered scathing dissents, recognizing the ruling for what it truly is – judicial activism at its most brazen. Justice Annette Ziegler did not mince words in her criticism of her liberal colleagues’ overreach, stating: “Put bluntly, our court has no business usurping the role of the legislature, inventing legal theories on the fly in order to make four justices’ personal preference the law,” stated Justice Annette Ziegler, Wisconsin Supreme Court
Justice Rebecca Bradley went even further, correctly identifying the majority’s decision as “an affront to democracy,” said Justice Rebecca Bradley, Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Justice Brian Hagedorn also dissented, criticizing the ruling as judicial policymaking rather than the neutral application of existing law. These powerful dissents highlight the dangerous precedent of allowing courts to override duly enacted legislation simply because liberal justices disagree with the policy outcomes.
The Political Machinations Behind the Decision
The ruling stems from a lawsuit filed by Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul, who argued that newer abortion restrictions should trump the old ban. This legal maneuver was clearly designed to circumvent the will of the people as expressed through their elected representatives. Justice Rebeca Dallet, writing for the majority, claimed that “comprehensive legislation so thoroughly covers the entire subject of abortion that it was clearly meant as a substitute for the 19th century near-total ban on abortion,” said Justice Rebeca Dallet, Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice
Pro-life advocates, including Sheboygan County District Attorney Joel Urmanski, had presented the reasonable argument that the 1849 ban could coexist with newer restrictions, creating a coherent framework of protection for the unborn. Pro-Life Wisconsin rightly condemned the ruling as “an extraordinary leap in logic” and “an egregious decision.” With the court’s liberal majority now secured until at least 2028 following Susan Crawford’s recent election, this decision represents a serious setback for the protection of unborn life in Wisconsin for years to come.
Remaining Restrictions Offer Limited Protections
While the court’s decision is a severe blow to pro-life causes, some restrictions on abortion still remain in Wisconsin. These include mandatory ultrasounds, a 24-hour waiting period, and requirements for in-person visits to obtain abortion-inducing drugs. However, these minimal protections fall far short of the comprehensive safeguards for unborn life that the 1849 law provided. The court has also left open the question of whether the Wisconsin Constitution protects a right to bodily autonomy, including abortion rights, leaving the door open for further erosion of protections for the unborn.
Attorney General Kaul has indicated no plans to challenge these remaining restrictions, suggesting instead that the Legislature should revisit abortion policy – a clear sign that the current administration is content with the newly liberalized abortion regime. With abortion certain to remain a contentious issue in upcoming state elections and Supreme Court races, conservatives will need to mobilize to prevent further judicial activism from undermining the state’s ability to protect its most vulnerable citizens.
