{"id":10398,"date":"2024-04-25T17:36:05","date_gmt":"2024-04-25T17:36:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/wifamily.news\/?p=10398"},"modified":"2024-04-25T18:00:13","modified_gmt":"2024-04-25T18:00:13","slug":"planned-parenthood-v-urmanski","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/wifamily.news\/?p=10398","title":{"rendered":"Planned Parenthood v Urmanski"},"content":{"rendered":"

This post originally appeared at https:\/\/will-law.org\/planned-parenthood-v-urmanski\/<\/a><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

Case Name:<\/strong> Planned Parenthood\u00a0v Urmanski<\/span><\/p>\n

Type of Case: <\/strong>Constitutional Government and Rule of Law<\/span><\/p>\n

Court: <\/strong>Supreme Court of Wisconsin<\/span><\/p>\n

Filed On:\u00a0 <\/strong>April 25th, 2024\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Current Status: <\/strong>WILL filed a response to Planned Parenthood\u2019s Motion seeking to define a right to an abortion in the Wisconsin Constitution.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n

WILL Opposes New Effort from Planned Parenthood to Make Abortion a \u201cConstitutional Right\u201d in Wisconsin <\/h2>\n
\n

March 12, 2024<\/strong> | WILL and the Thomas More Society, on behalf of Wisconsin Right to Life, Wisconsin Family Action, and Pro-Life Wisconsin, have filed a response to Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul\u2019s \u201cbypass petition\u201d seeking to create a <\/span>constitutional right to an abortion\u00a0in Wisconsin, by adding a new claim to his lawsuit that was not previously raised.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n

\n
\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

Where Would the Court Draw the Line? <\/b>If the Wisconsin Supreme Court were to agree with Kaul, what would happen next? For example, would the prohibitions on abortions after viability, Wis. Stat. \u00a7 940.15, or after the unborn child can experience pain (defined in the statute as 20 weeks), Wis. Stat. \u00a7 253.107, also be unconstitutional? How about partial-birth abortions, or very late-term abortions? None of those prohibitions are challenged or at issue in this case, but if this Court constitutionalizes abortion, it will have to answer these questions sooner or later.<\/p>\n

And if the Court\u2019s answer is that any of these are ok, where does it draw the line and how does it justify that line? Does it reimpose\u00a0Roe<\/i>\u2019s now-jettisoned \u201cviability\u201d line, which \u201chas not found much support among philosophers and ethicists,\u201d which \u201cother countries almost uniformly eschew,\u201d and which raises a host of other questions, such as what \u201cprobability of survival\u201d counts as \u201cviable\u201d?\u00a0Dobbs<\/i>, 597 U.S. at 274\u201378.<\/p>\n

Or does this Court impose some other arbitrary line, and if so, what line?\u00a0A fetal heartbeat (weeks 5\u20136)?\u00a0Brain activity (weeks 6\u20137)? Movement in the womb (8 weeks)? Organ function (week 10)? Facial expressions (weeks 10\u201312)?<\/p>\n

Again, addressing this litany of questions should be reserved to the legislative process and a transparent debate from the state\u2019s elected policy makers.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n

CASE DOCUMENTS<\/strong><\/span><\/h1>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n