/
Wisconsin Supreme Court hears arguments on whether state's 175-year-old abortion ban is valid

Wisconsin Supreme Court hears arguments on whether state's 175-year-old abortion ban is valid


Wisconsin Supreme Court hears arguments on whether state's 175-year-old abortion ban is valid

MADISON, Wis. — Two liberal members of the Wisconsin Supreme Court didn't even try to hide their bias when a conservative prosecutor's attorney appeared before them Monday to try to persuade the Court to reactivate the state's 175-year-old abortion ban.

Sheboygan County’s Republican district attorney, Daniel Urmanski, has asked the high court to overturn a Dane County judge’s ruling last year that invalidated the ban. 

Monday's two-hour session amounted to little more than political theater. Liberal Justice Rebecca Dallet told Urmanski's attorney, Matthew Thome, that the ban was passed in 1849 by white men who held all the power and that he was ignoring everything that has happened since. Jill Karofsky, another liberal justice, pointed out that the ban provides no exceptions for rape or incest and that reactivation could result in doctors withholding medical care. She told Thome that he was essentially asking the court to sign a “death warrant” for women and children in Wisconsin.

“This is the world gone mad,” Karofsky said.

The ban stood until 1973, when the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion nationwide nullified it. Legislators never repealed the ban, however, and conservatives have argued the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe two years ago reactivated it.

Democratic Attorney General Josh Kaul filed a lawsuit challenging the law in 2022. He argued that a 1985 Wisconsin law that allows abortions before an unborn baby can survive outside the womb supersedes the ban. 

Urmanski contends that the ban was never repealed and that it can co-exist with the 1985 law because that law didn’t legalize abortion at any point.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.