In a 4-3 decision on Wednesday, the liberal majority of the Wisconsin Supreme Court invalidated the state’s 176-year-old abortion ban. They determined that the ban was superseded by newer state laws that regulate the procedure, specifically laws that criminalize abortions only after a fetus can survive outside the womb. The ruling, which was anticipated due to the court’s liberal makeup, marked a significant victory for advocates of abortion rights.
The original statute, enacted in 1849, imposed severe restrictions on abortion by making it a felony for anyone other than the mother or a doctor in a medical emergency to terminate “an unborn child.” This ban remained in place until 1973 when the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision legalized abortion nationwide. Despite never being officially repealed, conservatives argued that the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision to overturn Roe reactivated the ban.
Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul, a Democrat, filed a lawsuit asserting that subsequent abortion regulations introduced by Republican lawmakers during the decades following Roe had effectively replaced the ban. These regulations included a law from 1985 that allowed abortions until viability, typically around 21 weeks of gestation. The court majority agreed, stating that the comprehensive legislation addressing abortion post-Roe was intended to serve as a substitute for the outdated ban.
The decision provided clarity and assurance that abortion would remain legal in Wisconsin, a sentiment supported by a majority of voters in the state. Justice Annette Ziegler dissented, criticizing the majority’s ruling as an overreach of judicial power. Nonetheless, the ruling signified a significant victory for abortion rights and a progressive stance in the state.
In a statement, Ziegler firmly stated that the court should not overstep its bounds by creating legal theories to impose personal preferences as law. Urmanski’s lawyer, Andrew Phillips, did not respond to email inquiries. Attorney General Kaul expressed satisfaction with the court’s decision, noting it as a significant win for reproductive rights. However, Heather Weininger from Wisconsin Right to Life expressed disappointment in the ruling, arguing that the liberals failed to provide a clear statutory basis for repealing the 1849 ban.
Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin had sought a constitutional evaluation of the ban in February 2024, but the Supreme Court dismissed the case without elaboration. Michelle Velasquez of Planned Parenthood acknowledged the ruling’s benefits for abortion providers and patients but expressed dismay over the dismissal of the constitutional challenge. She hinted at potential future legal actions against Wisconsin’s remaining abortion restrictions.
Attorney General Kaul mentioned no immediate plans to challenge the remaining restrictions, suggesting that the Legislature should address abortion policy. The recent election saw Susan Crawford, supported by Democrats, defeat conservative Brad Schimel for an open court seat, maintaining the liberal majority until at least 2028. Abortion is expected to remain a prominent issue in the 2026 court race, as Chris Taylor, a former Planned Parenthood policy director and Democratic legislator, challenges conservative Justice Rebecca Bradley.
Taylor hailed the ruling as a significant win and criticized Bradley’s dissent as a politically charged response. Bradley, in contrast, accused the liberal justices of acting as “super legislators” in a move that she deemed against democracy.
