{"id":10402,"date":"2024-04-25T18:45:34","date_gmt":"2024-04-25T18:45:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/wifamily.news\/?p=10402"},"modified":"2024-04-25T18:59:58","modified_gmt":"2024-04-25T18:59:58","slug":"will-opposes-new-effort-from-planned-parenthood-to-make-abortion-a-constitutional-right-in-wisconsin","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/wifamily.news\/?p=10402","title":{"rendered":"WILL Opposes New Effort from Planned Parenthood to Make Abortion a \u201cConstitutional Right\u201d in Wisconsin"},"content":{"rendered":"

This post originally appeared at https:\/\/will-law.org\/will-opposes-new-effort-from-planned-parenthood-to-make-abortion-a-constitutional-right-in-wisconsin\/<\/a><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

4.25.24<\/p>\n

The News:<\/span><\/span><\/strong>\u00a0<\/span><\/strong>The Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (WILL) has filed a response to a case brought by Planned Parenthood seeking an\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span>o<\/span><\/span>riginal\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span>a<\/span><\/span>ction ruling from the Supreme Court of Wisconsin<\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span>(<\/span><\/span>SCoW<\/span><\/span>)<\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span>that would create a\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span>constitutional right to an abortion<\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span>in Wisconsin. WILL believes ruling in favor of Planned Parenthood would embroil\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span>SC<\/span><\/span>oW<\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span>in the same mess of policy questions that<\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span>Roe v. Wade created.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

As WILL has stated before, Wisconsin\u2019s duly elected\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span>l<\/span><\/span>egislature and\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span>g<\/span><\/span>overnor should go through the normal legislative process and create policy to govern abortion.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The Quotes:<\/span><\/span><\/strong>\u00a0<\/span><\/strong>WILL Deputy Counsel, Luke Berg, stated, \u201cThere is no right to an abortion in Wisconsin\u2019s\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span>C<\/span><\/span>onstitution. No judge, justice, or lawyer should be creating policy for Wisconsinites out of thin air. Reversing Roe v<\/span><\/span>.<\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span>Wade<\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span>through the Dobbs decision rightfully placed the abortion issue back where it should have been all along\u2014in the halls of state legislatures. That\u2019s where the debate and conversation must remain.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Where Would the Court Draw the Line<\/span><\/span>?\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span>If<\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span>the Wisconsin Supreme Court were to agree with Planned Parenthood, 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, very late term abortions<\/span><\/span>?<\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span>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.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Does it reimpose Roe\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? Dobbs, 597 U.S. at 274\u201378.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Or does this Court impose some other arbitrary line, and if so, what line?\u00a0 A fetal heartbeat (weeks 5\u20136)?\u00a0 Brain activity (weeks 6\u20137)? Movement in the womb (8 weeks)? Organ function (week 10)? Facial expressions (weeks 10\u201312)?\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/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.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The Politics of Roe v<\/span><\/span>.<\/span><\/span><\/strong>\u00a0<\/span>Wade:<\/strong>\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span>Roe v. Wade politicized the United States Supreme Court more than any other decision of that Court, and it generated an intense backlash that lasted for decades. This has been documented by numerous writers and Court-observers on both sides of the political aisle. Wisconsin\u2019s Supreme Court should not replicate that sequence of events.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Proposed Opposition to Petition for Original Action, April 2024<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n

\n
\n
\"Luke<\/div>\n
\n

Luke Berg<\/h4>\n

Deputy Counsel<\/p>\n

\n

Luke@will-law.org<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n

\n
\n
\n
\"Rick<\/div>\n
\n

Rick Esenberg<\/h4>\n

President and General Counsel<\/p>\n

\n

rick@will-law.org<\/p>\n<\/div>\n