"The
court ruled 4-3 to strike down the ban, and while the justices are officially nonpartisan, the decision split them along ideological lines. A new justice who had campaigned on her support for abortion rights, Janet Protasiewicz, joined the majority....Writing for the majority in the case, known as
Kaul v. Urmanski, Justice Rebecca Dallet [wrote]... 'Comprehensive legislation enacted over the last 50 years regulating in detail the "who, what, where, when, and how" of abortion so thoroughly covers the entire subject of abortion that it was meant as a substitute for the 19th century near-total ban on abortion'.... The opinion noted that the court had historically set a high bar for such 'implied repeal.' But in this case, the majority of the justices found that the Legislature had met that bar by entirely revising state law on abortion.... In a separate order Wednesday, the court dismissed a lawsuit filed by Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin that had asked the court to find that the right to equal protection in the state Constitution protects a right to receive an abortion and protects medical professionals who provide one. The court said its ruling in
Kaul v. Urmanski effectively settled the issue...."
The NYT reports.
That is, the decision is based on statutory interpretation and not on a state constitutional right. It's up to the legislature to make new law restricting (or permitting) abortion. The 1849 law is gone, but some or all of it could be reenacted. If that were to happen, question about the state constitutional right would need to be answered.
पोस्ट्स
६५ टिप्पण्या:
Of course we all know that the same Liberal justices would vote for a 1849 law if they liked it. But on the whole, I think every law should have a "Sunset date". Maybe the Legislature can go through the laws on books and wipe out everyone that is over 80 years old.
"every one" being a law on the books over 80. Not senior citizens.
Thanks Elon!
Democrat “Judges” on a court seizing legislative power.
So shocked.
These Pharisees need to be impeached. This is absurd.
Funny how the "right to equal protection" didn't apply in 2020 when Mark Zuckerberg's employees had read-write access to official voter rolls and were "curing" ballots for voters, but only in those precincts that historically vote overwhelmingly for the Democrat.
It's all one big clown show, and they count on the low intelligence of the average voter to bail them out. They don't even worry about people putting two and two together.
Abortion is now enshrined in the Colorado State Constitution.
That doesn't stop ignorant progressive females in CO from shrieking that 'Trump is going to take it all away!' (no - he cannot)
Exhausting. (my hairdresser - ugh)
The Supreme Court vacating Roe v Wade - and jettisoning it back to the states - was the best thing for the left's obsession with abortion on demand.
Wisconsin will likely follow Colorado.
Big win for Wisconsin, next step is to un-gerrymander the voting maps.
A woman has a right to an abortion. That's a decision that's up to the pregnant woman, not up to the pope or some do-gooders or the Religious Right. ~ Barry Goldwater
Back when Republicans were actually conservative, and most had actual principles.
" 'Comprehensive legislation enacted over the last 50 years regulating in detail the "who, what, where, when, and how" of abortion "
could someone link to this "Comprehensive legislation" ??
What is the abortion law in Wisconsin NOW?
it seems that it should be covered by this "Comprehensive legislation"..
So, could someone please provide a link?
what IS abortion law in Wisconsin NOW?
i'm guessing that there IS NO "Comprehensive legislation" ?
wipe out everyone that is over 80 years old..
"every one" being a law on the books over 80. Not senior citizens.
i don't know.. What, exactly do senior citizens contribute?
This modest proposal would SOLVE the SS crisis
Elective abortion. The wicked solution. Human rites.
Is it possible to read the two laws as not contradictory? If yes, then the court has an obligation to read it that way. But if not, then the usual rules of interpretation would support his holding.
Keep women affordable, available, reusable, and taxable, and the Planned "burden" of evidence sequestered in sanctuary states. This is a necessary step to transsocial progress including raping girls, immigration reform, etc. #NoJudgment #NoLabels
Gilbar: "This modest proposal would SOLVE the SS crisis"
Or reverse the draft - start it at age 68. Easy to find the draft dodgers - just follow their SSA checks.
Cannon fodder for neocon wars, plus right-shaping the demographic pyramid. Doubleplusgood, I say!
RR
JSM
Hate loves abortion
Homosexual behavior has a value in exchange for benefits in prehistoric cultures and modern families. The transgender spectrum has no redeeming value to society or humanity.
Kakistocracy said... "Big win for Wisconsin..."
YAY! More dead babies!
john mosby said...
Gilbar: "This modest proposal would SOLVE the SS crisis"
"Or reverse the draft - start it at age 68."
they could call it; The Ukraine Solution!
"Maybe the Legislature can go through the laws on books and wipe out everyone that is over 80 years old."
I love this idea.
Thank you WI Supreme Court, now on to gerrymandering. I’d like to see the WI House and Senate try to bring back that 1849 law and see what happens.
We're officially non-partisan !
Planned parenthood after six weeks is homicide by statute in every state, a hate crime following conception or her choice. #HateLovesAbortion #LoveWins
Democratic gerrymandering, especially when motivated by DEIsm (e.g. racism), is bigoted, and transConstitutional. #HateLovesAbortion
Inga said...
Thank you WI Supreme Court, now on to gerrymandering. I’d like to see the WI House and Senate try to bring back that 1849 law and see what happens.
These people are purely about power. They do not care about any principles or any systemic issues with what they do. They will tear the system down to get what they want.
In this case, it is to make sure Planned Parenthood has baby parts to sell.
Things that literally don't work... function, but let's do it anyway. Women deserve a better choice and the dignity attributed to a conscience. Men, too.
Planned Parenthood corporation: human rites performed for social, clinical, criminal, political, and climate progress.
gerrymandering is only cool when leftist democratics get to do it.
As usual, Inga rejoices at the thought of slaughtered children.
If I were Republicans in the Wisconsin legislature, I would pass a bill limiting abortion after 20 weeks gestation just to make the Democrat governor veto it. Get the Democrats on record.
Still a progressive place, on, Wisconsin! Now can't they do something about that awful 2nd Amendment? I know, I know, it's kinda a Fed matter. But Wisconsin is pretty big, it can set up some good rules of its own. And then the 1st definitely needs some attention too. And then they can cut out that silly Electors business and just get down to real voting.
I’m personally pro-life, but as a policy, I’m against abortion bans. I’m happy Wisconsin tossed theirs and wish Texas would do the same. The reason is there are medical grey areas in which taking the fetus is ultimately the right thing to do. The odds that any of us would experience this is low enough for us to think it non-existent, but if you work in neonatal care, the odds are near 100% that you will experience it. I rather doctors and nurses have the ability to do what is best for the patient rather than having the possibility of losing their livelihood and freedom when doing what I know is the right thing.
That doesn’t mean support for any abortion for any reason. I think legislators could, if they had any desire, write a very restrictive policy that has carve outs for the conditions that fit the grey areas. However, I’m a bit more pragmatic into accepting abortion on demand up to 20 weeks and for medical necessity.
The way I reconcile my pro-life beliefs is the same as any other unfortunate challenge to my beliefs. I don’t believe in murder, but support the death penalty for murderers and a strong defense that is capable of killing the enemy. What to do? Use reason to convince people there are other ways with dealing with an unwanted pregnancy (or people you don’t like).
We have no actual Supreme Courts anymore, rather, we have puppet installations who are required to rubber stamp whatever is in fashion for the majority Party.
For several decades only the left did this, and the left-wing media provided cover with talk about "long overdue justice" and "a living constitution that meets the needs of the era." Now that the right-wing is fully engaged in mirror-image lawfare, the pretense of being a "judge" who follows "laws" is gone. Puppets, just political puppets.
We've got a back door parliamentary system -- winner take all. Banana Republic. It ain't just an overpriced store in a dying mall.
"Do what thou wilt" is the whole of the Law.
Aleister Crowley, with three others concurring.
Leland,
"I don’t believe in murder, but support the death penalty for murderers and a strong defense that is capable of killing the enemy."
What a preposterous analogy. To make it actually comparable, wouldn't you need to say, " I don't believe in murder but I don't support the laws against it"?
Enigma,
Can you cite some of those right wing decisions that you think are not based on law?
Of course.
Modern notions of killing your children are so much more,
Wonderful.
While the justices are officially nonpartisan, the 4 who decided this are definitely Democrat Party hacks who invent new laws whenever it suits them.
FTFY
"YAY! More dead babies!
We really don't want Democrats to spread their defective genes, polluting our pool, so this is definitely a big win.
Now Wisconsin can compete with Illinois for abortion tourism.
So, I’m not a legislative expert, but if the legislature intended to “complete rewrite” the law wouldn’t it be simple enough to start the new law saying something like “Law XYZ of 1849 is hereby repealed”?
The opinion noted that the court had historically set a high bar for such 'implied repeal.' But in this case, they weren't going to let anything get in their way.
FIFY
To make it actually comparable, wouldn't you need to say, " I don't believe in murder but I don't support the laws against it"?
That sounds preposterous to me, so I guess we don't need to worry about trying to find common ground that likely doesn't exist.
I guess I could rewrite the sentence from an earlier post to say more accurately "I'm against total abortion bans", since clearly later I note what bans I do support.
So in other words, the Progressive-dominated State Supreme Court just ratified what has long been the status quo in Wisconsin, and now they're celebrating as if they've just won the Battle of Bull Run. Was there any dissent?
Joni Earnst Hey were all gonna die!
Leland said...
I’m personally pro-life, but as a policy, I’m against abortion bans. I’m happy Wisconsin tossed theirs and wish Texas would do the same.
How you do it matters.
People who do not understand process and consensus forming will never achieve anything meaningful in societal development.
Having a bunch of robed hacks wearing judge skinsuits toss a law because of some stupid women who refuse to take responsibility for their whoring to a relatively small percentage of rutting males who would be shitty fathers anyway is no way to build a society of capable responsible citizens.
"and while the justices are officially nonpartisan"
oh please. Just stop it.
Agree Achilles.
The robed hacks have no interest in building a society of capable responsible citizens.
I am with Leland on this. However, what the court did seems inappropriate given the history of the law.
DINKY DAU 45 said...
Joni Earnst Hey were all gonna die!
isn't this TRUE? or do YOU know something you're keeping to yourself?
are You Actually thinking that you're going to live forever?
i'm wondering HOW retarded you Are?
The Partisan Democratics on the court skipped past the job of the legislature
Anything for the left's holy grail of abortion.
“ Big win for Wisconsin, next step is to un-gerrymander the voting maps”
You obviously don’t follow the news and your talking points are out of date. The GOP legislature and Dem governor created a state legislative map that was in place for the 2024 election, and the state Supreme Court a week or so ago rejected “gerrymander” lawsuits for the Wi congressional maps. Those lawsuits were so baseless that even the progs on the court rejected them.
"Those lawsuits were so baseless that even the progs on the court rejected them."
That's our Inga.
"Those lawsuits were so baseless that even the progs on the court rejected them."
That’s simplistic. There is far more to the story and there is nothing saying that the Court won’t take up the gerrymandering cases at some other point in the future.
https://www.wpr.org/news/unpacking-wisconsin-supreme-court-rejection-congressional-redistricting-lawsuits
“Only speculation as to why court wouldn’t hear redistricting challenges
University of Wisconsin Law School Professor Robert Yablon, who co-directs the State Democracy Research initiative, told WPR that one can only speculate about why the court didn’t take up the cases. He said it could be that justices felt lower courts are better-equipped to handle the factfinding necessary to rule on gerrymandering claims.
Yablon said there could still be a legal challenge to the congressional map and, according to state law, the Supreme Court could appoint a panel of three circuit court judges to hear the case.
“The same statute says an appeal from any order or decision issued by the panel may be heard by the Supreme Court,” Yablon said, which would put the case back before justices, just by a different path.”
The simple answer is the congressional maps included a federal nexus and the US Supreme Court would have bitch-slapped the Wisconsin court like it did with 9-0 carholic charities case.
Catholic charities…typo
Catholic Charities.
“ That’s simplistic” is often the best answer. The Dems sold a judicial seat on overturning those maps in time for 2026. They were not going to wait for “complex answers”
Kak: A woman has a right to an abortion. That's a decision that's up to the pregnant woman, not up to the pope or some do-gooders or the Religious Right. ~ Barry Goldwater
Kak, you will die in one of two ways: natural cause, or homicide. That is true of every moment of your life until you die, and every moment since your life's beginning.
Abortion is, by definition, always homicide. Very rarely, it is justifiable self defense against the threat of bodily harm or death; however, the vast majority of abortions are premeditated homicides of convenience.
Nothing to do with do-gooders or religion. Just looking at abortion for what it is.
I'm sorry but, our hostess lives just "around the corner" from WI Supreme Court & she needs the NYT to inform her of what's happening? You'd think a Constitutional Law Professor, ret'd, would be up to date on her city's/State's? Whatever algorithm's she's using to stay up to date?????
@Aggie, Yes there was a dissent. (Instapundit). Looks like it was nearly as rough as the majority opinion ACB wrote (The X post mistakenly conflates them both as dissents).
Demos-cracy is aborted at the Twilight Fringe.
Wisconsin often instantiates objects of phantasmagorical law.
WSJ says;
"The Wisconsin court’s decision means that the state’s current abortion regulations remain in effect. These include a ban on abortion after 20 weeks, a parental-consent requirement for minors, and a 24-hour waiting period before an abortion is performed."
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/wisconsin-abortion-law-supreme-court-rebecca-dallet-3f2a224e?mod=opinion_lead_pos2
is this correct Wisconsinners?
The media has long called it the “1849 law”, as if laws fade away over time, somehow. Apparently it timed out
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.