In response to the controversial South Dakota abortion ban, State Rep. Terese Berceau, D-Madison, unveiled a bill Wednesday aimed to repeal Wisconsin's criminal abortion ban.

The Wisconsin abortion ban, which was deemed unconstitutional in 1973 due to the Roe v. Wade decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, declares abortion to be a crime, even in cases of rape or incest.

Berceau, backed by several other pro-choice legislators, said though, that the actions taken by the South Dakota government could lead to a reenactment of the state's ban if the U.S. Supreme Court reverses the 1973 decision.

"Wisconsin's criminal abortion law is a sleeping giant that could swiftly awaken to imprison women and their doctors," Berceau said in a statement.

Unlike South Dakota, Wisconsin's abortion ban includes possible prison time for women who obtain abortions, even if it is to preserve their health. And in addition, doctors who perform abortions could be sentenced to as many as 15 years in prison and forced to pay a $50,000 fine.

Tom Powell, spokesperson for Berceau, said the goal of the legislation is "to point out that most Wisconsinites don't even know that we already have a law on the books that is worse than South Dakota's."

However, Wisconsin anti-abortion groups slammed Berceau's measure, calling pro-choice legislators "squeamish," and adding the newly announced bill was drafted out of "fear" that Roe v. Wade would be overturned.

"We will once again prevail in this latest attempt by pro-abortion legislators to leave unborn children completely unprotected if Roe v. Wade is overturned," Susan Armacost, legislative director of Wisconsin Right to Life, said in a statement.

But the duel at Wisconsin's Capitol goes beyond the legislation: upon the signing of South Dakota's law banning abortion Monday, the Women's Medical Fund, Inc., a Wisconsin-based women's rights group, has called for a boycott on tourism to South Dakota.

The South Dakota bill bans most kinds of abortion and defines life as starting "at the time of conception."

Additionally, the bill states that any doctor who performs an abortion, except to save the mother's life, will be sentenced to five years in prison. This sentence also applies to doctors who perform abortions in cases of rape or incest.

In response to the Women's Medical Fund's boycott request, Pro-Life Wisconsin has issued a press release urging Wisconsin families to "consider sunny South Dakota as their summer vacation destination."

"Besides, the absence of people from the Women's Medical Fund and their cohorts will make South Dakota all the more delightful," Marc Tuttle, Communications Director for Pro-Life Wisconsin, added in the press release.

The South Dakota bill's proponents say it is openly intended to challenge Roe v. Wade. And it is expected to eventually make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"We have a change on the Supreme Court where they could overturn the precedent of Roe v. Wade and say that there is not a right to privacy," Anne Nicol Gaylor of the Women's Medical Fund, Inc. said. "[The passage of this bill] is a threat to women — not just in South Dakota, but to women in Wisconsin and everywhere in the U.S."

Additionally, Gaylor pointed out that Rounds, and several members of the Supreme Court are Roman Catholic — the Women's Medical Fund, Inc. attributes the bill to spiritual blackmail.

However, Tuttle disagrees with Gaylor's assessment of South Dakota's reasoning behind the bill. He sees the ban as completely based on science.

"[This bill] prevents perfectly healthy women from undergoing unnecessary surgical procedures," Tuttle said. "It is also a pretty established scientific fact that human life begins at conception."

Despite his group's claim that the bill has no religious basis, Tuttle added in his press release that he hopes Wisconsin families "take a pilgrimage to South Dakota's churches to pray for the pre-born children of Wisconsin."

University of Wisconsin law professor Robin Alta Charo said she sees the recent development in South Dakota, which is also occurring in several other states across the country, as questioning whether one can shrine in law a particular religious doctrine.

"I do think that [religion] is part of the sources of legislation in a multi-religious and multicultural setting," Charo said. "The crucial thing here is that the reason [behind the law] must be acceptable to people who do not share your religious beliefs."

Charo said she also sees the South Dakota ban as posing a serious threat to Roe v. Wade. The new Supreme Court judges, Samuel Alito, Jr., and John Roberts, are untested but have a track record that suggests they would vote to overturn the precedent, Charo added.