this post was submitted on 06 Dec 2023
337 points (99.1% liked)

politics

19170 readers
5179 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

MADISON — A Dane County judge on Tuesday ruled that a 174-year-old law thought to prohibit abortion in Wisconsin does not, in fact, do so.

"The Court declares Wis. Stat. § 940.04 does not prohibit abortions," wrote Dane County Circuit Judge Diane Schlipper.

Schlipper ruled that the law in question, a statute written in 1849, does not apply to abortions but to feticide.

A consensual abortion is sought out by a pregnant woman who voluntarily determines to end a pregnancy. Schlipper's ruling is based on a 1994 state Supreme Court decision that determined feticide is a nonconsensual act in which somebody batters a woman to the point she loses the pregnancy.

With the 1849 statute no longer in effect, Wisconsin returns to its pre-Dobbs abortion laws, under which abortion is banned 20 weeks after "probable fertilization."

Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin chief strategy officer Michelle Velasquez called the ruling "another important step forward in restoring and expanding access to abortion in Wisconsin."

"This is the judgment we were hoping for, the judgment we knew was right, and hopefully the thing that will restore access to full-scope reproductive care for women across the state," said Dr. Kristin Lyerly, a Green Bay OB-GYN and former Democratic state Assembly candidate who intervened in the case and was cited prominently in Schlipper's ruling.

Attorney General Josh Kaul and Gov. Tony Evers, both Democrats, filed the lawsuit shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court in June 2022 overturned its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which legalized abortion nationwide. The court's 2022 ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Care effectively put back into place the state's original abortion law.

Passed more than a century before the Roe ruling, the 1849 law bans doctors from performing abortions in every case except when the mother will die without the procedure. Doctors face up to six years in prison on felony charges and $10,000 in fines if they violate the law.

Kaul argued in the lawsuit that the 1849 law has been invalidated by abortion laws passed since the Roe v. Wade decision. Anti-abortion proponents and attorneys for Republican lawmakers disagreed, arguing the original law was still in effect.

In July, Schlipper denied a motion to dismiss the lawsuit from defendant Sheboygan District Attorney Joel Urmanski, who had argued that Kaul was asking a judge to perform the duties of lawmakers and was ignoring the fact that lawmakers have put forward language to repeal the original abortion law and decided against passing it.

Following Schlipper's July order, Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, the state's largest abortion provider, resumed services.

"Freedom wins. Equality wins. Women’s health wins," Kaul said in a statement. "This ruling is a momentous victory, and we are prepared to defend it — and reproductive freedom in Wisconsin."

Wisconsin Right to Life legislative director Gracie Skogman said the ruling is "truly disappointing for all Wisconsinites," and Pro-Life Wisconsin legislative director Matt Sande called it "an extraordinary leap in logic." Sande said his group is hopeful the ruling "will be appealed promptly."

"A law that was enforced before the flawed decision of Roe is now one that pro-choice activists on the court are wiling to use as a tool for their cause. Instead, they are putting lives on the line," Skogman said.

Julaine Appling, president of the conservative Christian group Wisconsin Family Action, said she wasn't surprised by the decision but looks forward to the case making its way through the judicial process.

"This doesn't change anything about what we're doing," Appling said. "We are about a culture of life, and we're going to promote that and do everything we can to help people to understand that we are about saving babies, but we're also about making sure women are fully informed about this life-taking decision, about options they have, about consequences and encouraging them to explore that, and be very, very careful before they make a decision to have an abortion."

Appling said her organization supports a package of legislation that includes bills that would classify unborn children as dependents for tax purposes and increase the dependent exemption, fund grants for families seeking to adopt, further define "abortion" under state law and prohibit public employees from engaging in abortion-related work within the scope of their government employment.

Under the state's pre-Dobbs laws, women are also required to undergo an ultrasound before an abortion, along with a counseling appointment and a 24-hour waiting period.

In the case of medication abortions, the doctor who administers the pills must be the same one the woman saw for her counseling appointment, and the pills cannot be taken remotely via telemedicine.

The case is expected to make its way to the state Supreme Court, which now has a 4-3 liberal majority. Justice Janet Protasiewicz was sworn in Aug. 1 after running a campaign that focused heavily on broadcasting her personal values to voters, including support for abortion access.

all 26 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Laughbone@lemmy.world 53 points 11 months ago (3 children)

If women weren’t allowed to vote in 1849 why should they be bound by a law from then?

[–] ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one 21 points 11 months ago

That's an easy answer; a bunch of rich, white, old men said so.

[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 13 points 11 months ago

We're apparently bound to religious "laws" from before the founding of our nation. This isn't much of a stretch.

[–] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world -3 points 11 months ago

Pretty sure murder was against the law before women could vote...

[–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 51 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Buckle up buckaroos, the far right supreme court is going to impose a national ban on abortion.

[–] PlantJam@lemmy.world 42 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Luckily this case will go to the state supreme court.

[–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 16 points 11 months ago
[–] BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social 20 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Well, this isn't about the Supreme Court of the United States, so thankfully, they're not relevant at all. This will actually be seen by the state Supreme Court, which just recently got a liberal majority. Also, SCOTUS could have easily done that during the Dobbs ruling if they really wanted to.

Please consider doing a milligram of research before speaking.

[–] Bob_Robertson_IX@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Do you think the conservatives will just stop when/if the liberal Wisconsin Supreme Court upholds the ruling?

[–] BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social 20 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Yes, because there is no higher authority to appeal to. The SCOTUS doesn't have jurisdiction over purely internal state law unless they want to claim that it violated the US Constitution. And again, if the SCOTUS wanted to establish fetus personhood, they already had the perfect opportunity to do that.

[–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Most of the conservative justices are shrewd and intelligent, unlike most Republicans. Scalia and Thomas are idiotic hacks of course, but the other four seem too smart to try and ban abortion federally. They know how deeply unpopular they are and how unpopular their abortion decision was. It wouldn't surprise me if they're purposely holding back for damage control. They seem to recognize that things can and will change for them. Ethics and gifts are a good example of how their unpopularity is leading to consequences.

[–] BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social 3 points 11 months ago

Pragmatism is definitely playing a role, but I think for some of the (relatively) more principled ones, they do simply see it as a matter reserved for the states and past that point, the states can do as they like.

[–] Wermhatswormhat@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Well said. Once cases are heard at the SC level the buck stops there. So hopefully this can be a win.

[–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 2 points 11 months ago

Well...except when they revisit them and overturn previous Supreme Court rulings, which is why we're talking about this now.

[–] TurnItOff_OnAgain@lemmy.world 22 points 11 months ago (1 children)

her organization supports a package of legislation that includes bills that would classify unborn children as dependents for tax purposes and increase the dependent exemption, fund grants for families seeking to adopt,

While I do not agree with her stance toward abortion, at least she supports creating policies that actually see the fetuses as people, unlike many that want to ban abortion. I wonder what her after-birth policy support is. As the great George Carlin said "If You’re Pre-Born, You’re Fine. If You’re Preschool, You’re Fucked"

[–] AdamEatsAss@lemmy.world 17 points 11 months ago (2 children)

I just don't know how you would regulate preborn dependents. Obviously there is a point where someone knows they are pregnant. But when do the tax benefits start? It is impossible to determine when conception happens, unless you space out your attempts. And so many things can happen between conception and birth that could cause a baby to not be born. Am I to list every time I have sex on my tax form? If it happens at the point of fetile viability, as defined by roe vs wade, that would solidify the arguments of roe vs wade, which I don't think the writers of this bill want. If they chose to make it happen at first detection of pregnancy we run into a similar issue as conception. Some people could know a month before others. Also would proof of pregnancy be required? What's to stop be from fudging the detection date to get another year of a dependent. I don't think many people would want to have to submit medical records along with their taxes. Also to claim a dependent you currently need their social security number and birthdate. I understand they want to change those requirements but you would still want some kind of government issued identifier to ensure the dependent isn't being claimed multiple times.

[–] GentriFriedRice@lemmy.world 11 points 11 months ago (1 children)

My favourite conundrum is the unlawful imprisonment of the unborn if the mother is in prison or jail.

[–] AdamEatsAss@lemmy.world 11 points 11 months ago

That is a good one. What about bars and clubs with age restrictions, are pregnant people not allowed to enter because they have a child with them? What if you commit a crime while pregnant, are you also guilty of child endangerment? Do you need to get an infant ticket on planes, at sporting events, or at theaters if you're pregnant? Would you become a sex offender if you have sex while pregnant?

[–] Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Not just claimed multiple times but that they actually exist

[–] AdamEatsAss@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

That too. I could just claim to be pregnant, multiple times and save money. Again leading back to I don't think the writers of this bill want the government to collect their medical records to prove someone is pregnant. I think it is intentionally confusing and difficult to define. The conservatives who support this bill generally oppose taxes to begin with so if it leads to the collapse of the tax system all the better.