NEWS
Right to life bills draw contention
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Ann Babe:
- Legislators introduce Jessica's Law (October 20, 2005)
- Parisi seeks prison releases (October 21, 2005)
- State Street getting 'freaky' (September 14, 2006)
- Concealed-carry veto override attempt fails in Capitol (February 1, 2006)
- Doyle signs bill redefining abuse law (February 17, 2006)
Related Stories:
- Legislative agenda needs 'real issues' (April 17, 2007)
- Budget bill covers for unrelated legislation (April 17, 2002)
- Budget bill covers unrelated legislation (April 18, 2002)
- Legislators prepare for heated debate (December 6, 2005)
- News analysis: The cost of fixing a budget (April 25, 2002)
by Ann Babe
Friday, October 7, 2005
Always raging, the divisive debate in the Wisconsin State Legislature over right-to-life initiatives heightened considerably Wednesday as the Senate Judiciary, Corrections and Privacy Committee approved a trio of controversial bills regarding women's health and reproductive issues in a narrow, party-line vote of three to two.
Drafted by Republican legislators, Senate Bills 71, 72 and 97 have caused much debate in the Legislature, leaving Democrats and pro-choice organizations charging the initiatives are too restrictive to women's rights.
Authored by Sen. Neal Kedzie, R-Elkhorn, and Rep. J. A. Hines, R-Oxford, SB 71 would allow physicians to withhold prenatal information, such as physical disabilities, from pregnant women if they believe such disclosure could lead to abortion.
"The very notion that a disabled person's life is 'wrong' or that they should never have been born is reprehensible," Kedzie, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in a release. "This legislation will affirm that Wisconsin values the lives of all citizens, no matter their level of ability."
However, Sen. Lena Taylor, D-Milwaukee, disagreed, saying women should be made aware of any potential problems in their pregnancies.
"We all want fewer abortions, but it is an outrageous breach of medical ethics to allow doctors to intentionally deceive a pregnant woman and her family about possible health risks," Taylor, also a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in a newsletter.
Another controversial initiative, SB 72, aims to prevent abortion-related facilities and organizations from receiving state funding as a protective measure for taxpayers, causing legislators from both parties to butt heads on the issue.
According to lead Assembly author Rep. Scott Suder, R-Abbotsford, "[The state] should not force taxpayers to provide money to abortion services, and that's simply what this bill does."
In addition, Suder said pro-choice organizations "are trying to misrepresent the issue."
Conversely, National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League Pro-Choice Wisconsin Executive Director Kelda Roys described Suder's claims as "disingenuous and dishonest."
"SB 72 would defund family planning around the state and take away basic preventative care [like birth control] for women," Roys added.
But Suder maintained the bill is specific to abortion, adding "there is no evidence [in the bill] that other services [like contraception] will be affected."
The last of the three bills approved by the Senate Committee, SB 97, made its way to the Assembly Judiciary Committee Thursday. Authored by Sen. Joe Leibham, R-Sheboygan, and Rep. Leah Vukmir, R-Wauwatosa, the legislation would strengthen abortion law in Wisconsin by requiring minors to obtain official parental consent before receiving the procedure.
Current law states these young women may instead seek consent from another trusted person, such as a family member, judge, foster parent or clergy member.
"This bill is devastating to the most vulnerable young women," Roys said, referring to minors whose pregnancies are the result of incest or whose parents are abusive. "The Legislature, rather than empowering [young women], are (sic) putting them in dangerous positions."
The initiatives approved Wednesday now face a Senate vote expected to be held near the end of the month before they move on to the Assembly. While all three measures are likely to pass the Republican-controlled Legislature, it is nearly certain Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle will, in turn, respond with a veto.
