March 20, 2023 at 1:53 p.m.
As election day looms, Republicans fight over abortion
Democrats united behind Protasiewicz ... and on abortion
Appearing at a news conference, Assembly speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) said a group of lawmakers would introduce legislation to expand abortion exceptions to include not only the health of the mother but also incest and rape.
But state Sen. Devin LaMahieu (R-Oostberg) said the Senate would not take up the bill.
The Republican divide - not to mention the party's overall position - could have serious repercussions for the state Supreme Court race between conservative Dan Kelly and progressive Janet Protasiewicz, the latter's vow to back a woman's right to abortion being the central element of her campaign.
Specifically, the proposed GOP bill would create rape and incest exceptions and would clarify that abortions are permissible when a woman is suffering certain pregnancy complications, including risk of death or irreversible physical impairment, and in any circumstance in which the fetus has no chance of survival.
At the news conference, Vos acknowledged the impact the issue was having on the Supreme Court race.
"The first hope is that Dan Kelly wins the election so that we have a legislature that actually is a place where political decisions are made, not the state Supreme Court," Vos said.
"I'm an optimist. I think that eventually people will realize that the right way to do it is through the traditional process, not through a super Legislature, the state Supreme Court, but hopefully the voters agree."
In a separate interview, he told the Associated Press: "We are still proudly pro-life, but there are some things that are different than they were 175 years ago. We wanted to put an idea forward that shows we are willing to be reasonable."
Rep. Donna Rozar (R-Marshfield), who authored the bill in the Assembly, said it was unfortunate that the bill was necessary.
"As a pro-life legislator, I believe in the protection of all life, from conception to natural death; however, our statutes must reflect modern medical realities," Rozar said. "Medical advances have created gray areas for healthcare professionals seeking to administer care to their patients. I am authoring this proposal to ensure the health of pregnant women, assist those dealing with a tragic pre-natal diagnosis, and to protect victims of rape and incest."
Friendly, not friendly
The proposed legislation drew immediate fire from all sides.
Gov. Tony Evers announced he would veto any such legislation, and LeMahieu said the governor's "snap decision" to veto the bill made clear that politics and not the well-being of Wisconsin's mothers was the administration's priority.
"This is not a topic to use as a political football," LeMahieu said. "It takes careful consideration; speaking to our constituents and our families. Further discussion on this specific proposal is unnecessary. The bill will not be considered on the floor of the Senate."
On the pro-choice side, Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin registered strong objections to the Vos plan.
"This bill is simply a covert way for legislative leadership to enshrine the 1849 criminal abortion ban and take away Wisconsinites' ability to make their own health care decisions," Tanya Atkinson, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Advocates of Wisconsin, said. "It's taking away freedoms in compromise's clothing. This is a political stunt to distract from the Republicans' unpopular record on abortion and the unpopular position of the conservative Supreme Court candidate who is backed by extreme anti-abortion groups. Even more, it's an attempt to undermine the pending lawsuit challenging the enforceability of the criminal abortion ban - a case they know is likely to make its way to the Wisconsin Supreme Court."
State Sen. Kelda Roys (D-Madison) also called the bill a cynical, desperate ploy by Vos to manipulate the media and mislead voters about the GOP's extreme anti-choice record.
"It's a 'Hail Mary' to try to secure a permanent lock on power in Wisconsin, by electing their preferred Supreme Court candidate," Roys said.
"No one should fall for this trick. The GOP knows how to pass bills - if this were a serious attempt, they already would have passed it anytime in the last year since it became clear that Republicans on the U.S. Supreme Court would overturn Roe v. Wade."
Opposition on the pro-life side was just as strong.
"The language describing the need for an abortion to save the life of the mother is totally unnecessary," Julaine Appling, president of Wisconsin Family Action, said. "The bill mentions three specific circumstances, all three of which are either not pregnancies at all or are already recognized as medically necessary to save the life of the mother. Anembryonic pregnancy and molar pregnancy are circumstances where there is no embryo or fetus; so obviously, it cannot be an abortion. Ectopic pregnancy is a life-threatening condition that requires emergency treatment. In all three of these cases, there is no current law that would prohibit a physician from providing the necessary medical care."
As for rape and incest, Appling said the termination of a viable pregnancy under any circumstances is the destruction of a human life.
"The child who is conceived under these circumstances is just as viable and valuable as any other child," she said. "He or she should not be destroyed because of the crime that was committed by her father. Rape or incest are tragic circumstances to be sure, and the trauma to a woman is horrific. But abortion doesn't stop that trauma; it actually adds to it."
The Wisconsin Catholic Conference also urged legislators to kill the bill.
"This bill is not about protecting survivors," the conference said in a statement. "Rape and incest exceptions to abortion bans are in no way centered on what survivors need, and do not provide them meaningful access or support."
Comments:
You must login to comment.