Last week, a request was made to the Wisconsin Supreme Court to overturn the 2023 ruling to invalidate the state-wide abortion ban, according to PBS Wisconsin. Sheboygan County District Attorney Joel Urmanski was behind the request in hopes of reinstating a state-mandated abortion ban.
The original abortion ban was in place for nearly 125 years until the 1973 Roe v. Wade court ruling granted federal protection of abortion rights. But, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the ruling in 2022, returning the right to ban abortion to individual states. It was only last year Wisconsin took the step forward to legalize abortion in the state when a Dane County Circuit Court judge ruled the ban did not apply to consensual abortions. A challenge to this re-legalization would revert women’s rights to where they were in 1849.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court is implicated in the potential implementation of a statewide abortion ban, and it currently has a 4-3 advantage to liberal-leaning judges. These seven judges rarely deviate from ruling in alignment with their respective party’s values. In fact, liberal judges Rebecca Dallet and Jill Karofsky have already made comments to Urmanski’s attorney in opposition of his request.
A decision is likely to be made within a few weeks, and it looks unlikely that the 2023 ruling will be overturned given the 4-3 advantage for the liberal justices. This request effectively has no chance, but its approval may not be Urmanski’s ultimate goal.
So why bother asking the court to overturn something you know they aren’t likely to?
It is important to understand that in politics — specifically legislation — that setting a political precedent is incredibly important. Those who support or oppose Urmanski are not likely to drastically change their viewpoints on such a fundamentally controversial issue. Urmanski’s goal in challenging their previous decision is not to change the judges’ stances. Instead, it was to enforce the general public’s perception that jury is still out on the issue of abortion.
To get the general public on your side of an issue, you have to introduce them to the ideas you present and explain to them why those ideas align with their personal values. A single conversation with a voter on an issue will rarely change their position.
This is to say that making changes in the political world takes time and consistency. Despite what “Schoolhouse Rock!” made it seem, no one person, idea or bill will get pushed up the chain or written into law without the support of many people and many previous attempts at change.
Urmanski, proudly anti-abortion, wants to reinforce the public perception that abortion is incredibly contested and people sit on both sides. If last year’s decision were to go years into the future without anybody stepping in to challenge it, it would become a norm for Wisconsin and become harder to challenge in the future. To combat this, Urmanski is continuing his push for anti-abortion legislation.
It should be seen as a good sign that Urmanski is fighting a losing battle against abortion rights, because that means Wisconsin is on the right side of this issue.
The right to seek an abortion should be universal. Conversations can be had about the moral consequences of getting an abortion, or the stage of pregnancy in which it is ideal. No matter what your stance is on those aspects, however, one thing is certain — banning abortion restricts women’s rights.
It is baffling why debates on abortion often fail to consider the life and future of the pregnant individual. Having a child can be an immeasurable emotional, physical and financial burden for women, putting their lives and futures at risk.
Every year, at least 40 million women are likely to experience a long-term health problem caused by childbirth, according to a study published in medical journal The Lancet. Nearly a fourth of recently pregnant women cannot afford necessary health care, according to a study in the National Library of Medicine. It is these women who are abandoned by the anti-abortion agenda.
So, why are people anti-abortion to begin with? Eighty percent of people who said abortion should be illegal also said they have a certainty in their belief in God, according to Pew Research Center. Christianity, the most popular religion in the U.S., and the many denominations often condemn abortion in their interpretations of scripture, according to Pew Research Center. As such, strong opposition to legislation around reproductive rights from some members of that religious community is to be expected.
But, when you take away the freedom to do something previously established, people will still find a way to do it. Just take Prohibition as a precedent — when alcohol was banned in the 1900s, people made their own drinks without health and safety standards and made untaxed earnings from selling them.
Laws to prohibit abortion do not lower abortion rates, according to a study published in National Library of Medicine. Instead of using safe, regulated treatment, individuals will use unsafe methods to end pregnancies.
Until the socioeconomic hardships that pregnant individuals face are addressed, the demand for abortions will not lower. Anyone who considers themselves truly anti-abortion should understand that the lives of pregnant people are lives that deserve to be protected and prioritized over those of unborn children.
Even for those who disagree, it is still hard to ignore that fact that people like Donald Trump, Urmanski and some of their supporters, do not truly care about unborn children. If they did, they would support legislation that makes healthcare more accessible and efficient.
A request to reinstate Wisconsin’s abortion ban does nothing but hurt Wisconsin’s women and children. Urmanski knows it won’t happen, but by asking, he is trying to get everyone to consider that it might not be such a bad idea. The truth is it would be a disaster.
Ned Eggert ([email protected]) is a freshman majoring in political science.
