Wisconsin supreme court strikes down 1849 abortion ban
State lawmakers adopted the ban in 1849, making it a felony when anyone other than the mother 'intentionally destroys the life of an unborn child'.
It was in effect until 1973, when the US supreme court's landmark Roe v Wade decision legalizing abortion nationwide nullified it. Legislators never officially repealed the ban, however, conservatives argued that the US supreme court's 2022 decision to overturn Roe reactivated it.
Wisconsin attorney general Josh Kaul, a Democrat, filed a lawsuit that year arguing that the ban was trumped by abortion restrictions legislators enacted during the nearly half century that Roe was in effect. Kaul specifically cited a 1985 law that essentially permits abortions until viability. Some babies can survive with medical help after 21 weeks of gestation.
Sheboygan county district attorney Joel Urmanski, a Republican, defended the ban in court, arguing that the 1849 ban could coexist with the newer abortion restrictions, just as different penalties for the same crime coexist.
Dane county circuit judge Diane Schlipper ruled in 2023 that the 1849 ban outlaws feticide – which she defined as the killing of a fetus without the mother's consent – but not consensual abortions. Abortions have been available in the state since that ruling but the state supreme court decision gives providers and patients more certainty that abortions will remain legal in Wisconsin.
Urmanski asked the state supreme court to overturn Schlipper's ruling without waiting for a decision from a lower appellate court. It was expected as soon as the justices took the case that they would overturn the ban. Liberals hold a 4-3 majority on the court and one of them, Janet Protasiewicz, openly stated on the campaign trail that she supports abortion rights.
Democratic-backed Susan Crawford defeated conservative Brad Schimel for an open seat on the court in April, ensuring liberals will maintain their 4-3 edge until at least 2028. Crawford has not been sworn in yet and was not part of Wednesday's ruling. She'll play a pivotal role, though, in a separate Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin lawsuit challenging the 1849 ban's constitutionality. The high court decided last year to take that case. It's still pending.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BreakingNews.ie
24 minutes ago
- BreakingNews.ie
Hakeem Jeffries sets record with 8 and a half hour speech before vote on Trump tax bill
Hakeem Jeffries talked. And talked. And talked, as the top Democrat in the US House of Representatives on Thursday blasted president Donald Trump's sweeping tax cut and spending bill in the longest speech in the chamber's history. Mr Jeffries' speech, at 8 hours and 46 minutes, marked Democrats' last chance to prosecute their case against the $3.4 trillion package. Advertisement Lacking the votes to defeat the measure in a chamber that Republicans control by a slim 220-212 margin, Mr Jeffries, 54, railed against legislation that he characterised as a giveaway to the wealthy that would strip low-income Americans of federally-back health insurance and food aid benefits. "It's not the type of leadership that this country needs right now. But that's what we're getting. Chaos. Cruelty. And corruption," he said. Mr Jeffries began speaking at 4.53am and wrapped up at 1.38pm. That broke a 2021 House record sent by then-House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy, who spent 8 hours and 32 minutes lambasting Democratic president Joe Biden's clean-energy and domestic-spending package. Shortly after Mr Jeffries concluded his speech, the House voted 218-214 to pass the bill. Every Democrat and two Republicans opposed it. Advertisement His speech recalled that of another Democratic lawmaker, senator Cory Booker of New Jersey, who broke the record for the longest Senate speech in April with a 25-hour, five-minute attack on Mr Trump's unilateral firings of federal workers. Mr Booker's performance drew cheers from Democratic voters who have been frustrated by their party's powerlessness in Washington and have accused the party's leaders of being too meek. Mr Jeffries used his status as Democratic leader to stretch his customary 60-second speaking time, known as a "magic minute," for hours. Mr Jeffries made clear he also had his eye on a prize further down the road. Voters, Mr Jeffries said, "will get even" in the November 2026 midterm elections "because of these cuts being unleashed on the American people". Advertisement If Democrats win control of the House, Mr Jeffries would be positioned to make history again by becoming the first Black House speaker in the Congress that convenes at the start of 2027. Early into his speech, Mr Jeffries showcased sick children in Republicans' home districts who might eventually lose Medicaid coverage under the legislation. It was a manoeuvre that could increase coverage of his speech in local media across the country. Mr Jeffries pulled no punches. He said the bill was "ripping healthcare" from Americans and called it "shameful," "disgusting" and "reckless". "This is a crime scene and House Democrats want no part of it," he said.
BreakingNews.ie
25 minutes ago
- BreakingNews.ie
Republicans muscle Trump's sweeping tax-cut and spending bill through Congress
The 218-214 vote amounts to a significant victory for the Republican president that will fund his immigration crackdown, make his 2017 tax cuts permanent and deliver new tax breaks that he promised during his 2024 campaign. It also cuts health and food safety net programmes and zeroes out dozens of green energy incentives. It would add $3.4 trillion to the nation's $36.2 trillion debt, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Advertisement Despite concerns within Donald Trump's party over the 869-page bill's price tag and its hit to healthcare programmes, in the end just two of the House's 220 Republicans voting against it, following an overnight standoff. The bill has already cleared the Republican-controlled Senate by the narrowest possible margin. Independence Day The White House said Mr Trump will sign it into law at 5pm ET (2100 GMT) on Friday, the July 4th Independence Day holiday. Republicans said the legislation will lower taxes for Americans across the income spectrum and spur economic growth. "This is jet fuel for the economy, and all boats are going to rise," House speaker Mike Johnson said. Advertisement Every Democrat in Congress voted against it, blasting the bill as a giveaway to the wealthy that would leave millions uninsured. "The focus of this bill, the justification for all of the cuts that will hurt everyday Americans, is to provide massive tax breaks for billionaires," House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries said in an eight-hour, 46-minute speech that was the longest in the chamber's history. Mr Trump kept up the pressure throughout, cajoling and threatening lawmakers as he pressed them to finish the job. "FOR REPUBLICANS, THIS SHOULD BE AN EASY YES VOTE. RIDICULOUS!!!" he wrote on social media. Though roughly a dozen House Republicans threatened to vote against the bill, only two ended up doing so: Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, a centrist, and Thomas Massie of Kentucky, a conservative who said it did not cut spending enough. Advertisement Marathon weekend Republicans raced to meet Trump's July 4th deadline, working through last weekend and holding all-night debates in the House and the Senate. The bill passed the Senate on Tuesday in a 51-50 vote in that saw vice president JD Vance cast the tiebreaking vote. According to the CBO, the bill would lower tax revenues by $4.5 trillion over 10 years and cut spending by $1.1 trillion. Those spending cuts largely come from Medicaid, the health programme that covers 71 million low-income Americans. The bill would tighten enrollment standards, institute a work requirement and clamp down on a funding mechanism used by states to boost federal payments - changes that would leave nearly 12 million people uninsured, according to the CBO. Republicans added $50 billion for rural health providers to address concerns that those cutbacks would force them out of business. Advertisement Nonpartisan analysts have found that the wealthiest Americans would see the biggest benefits from the bill, while lower-income people would effectively see their incomes drop as the safety-net cuts would outweigh their tax cuts. The increased debt load created by the bill would also effectively transfer money from younger to older generations, analysts say. Ratings firm Moody's downgraded US debt in May, citing the mounting debt, and some foreign investors say the bill is making US Treasury bonds less attractive. The bill raises the US debt ceiling by $5 trillion, averting the prospect of a default in the short term. But some investors worry the debt overhang could curtail the economic stimulus in the bill and create a long-term risk of higher borrowing costs. Advertisement On the other side of the ledger, the bill staves off tax increases that were due to hit most Americans at the end of this year, when Mr Trump's 2017 individual and business tax cuts were due to expire. Those cuts are now made permanent, while tax breaks for parents and businesses are expanded. Tipped income The bill also sets up new tax breaks for tipped income, overtime pay, seniors and auto loans, fulfilling Trump campaign promises. The final version of the bill includes more substantial tax cuts and more aggressive healthcare cuts than an initial version that passed the House in May. During deliberations in the Senate, Republicans also dropped a provision that would have banned state-level regulations on artificial intelligence, and a "retaliatory tax" on foreign investment that had spurred alarm on Wall Street. The bill is likely to feature prominently in the 2026 midterm elections, when Democrats hope to recapture at least one chamber of Congress. Republican leaders contend the bill's tax breaks will goose the economy before then, and many of its benefit cuts are not scheduled to kick in until after that election. Opinion polls show many Americans are concerned about the bill's cost and its effect on lower income people.
The Guardian
28 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Former CBS anchor slams Paramount settlement with Trump: ‘It was a sellout'
A former CBS News anchor and 60 minutes correspondent, Dan Rather, has blasted the $16m settlement between Paramount, the parent company of CBS News, and Donald Trump, calling it a 'sad day for journalism'. 'It's a sad day for 60 Minutes and CBS News,' Rather, a veteran journalist who was a CBS News anchor for over 20 years, told Variety in an interview published Wednesday. 'I hope people will read the details of this and understand what it was. It was distortion by the president and a kneeling down and saying, 'yes, sir,' by billionaire corporate owners.' Last November, Trump sued CBS News, claiming that the network's interview with Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris, had been doctored to portray her in a favorable light – which he alleged amounted to 'election interference'. Many legal experts had widely dismissed the lawsuit as 'meritless' and unlikely to hold up under the first amendment, but on Wednesday Paramount announced that it had agreed to pay Trump $16m to settle the case over the interview that was broadcast on the CBS News program 60 Minutes. The settlement comes as Paramount is preparing for a $8bn merger with Skydance Media, which requires approval from the US Federal Communications Commission. Paramount has said that the lawsuit is separate from the company's merger. A spokesperson for Trump's legal team said in a statement to the Guardian that 'With this record settlement, President Donald J. Trump delivers another win for the American people as he, once again, holds the Fake News media accountable for their wrongdoing and deceit.' 'CBS and Paramount Global realized the strength of this historic case and had no choice but to settle' the spokesperson added. According to Wednesday's announcement, the settlement funds will not be paid to Trump directly, but instead would be allocated to Trump's future presidential library. The settlement did not include an apology. Rather told Variety on Wednesday that in his opinion 'you settle a lawsuit when you've done something wrong' and '60 minutes did nothing wrong, it followed accepted journalistic practices'. 'Lawyers almost unanimously said the case wouldn't stand up in court,' he said. Ultimately though, Rather said he was disappointed but not surprised by the settlement. 'Big billionaire businesspeople make decisions about money' he said. 'We could always hope that they will make an exception when it comes to freedom of the press, but it wasn't to be. 'Trump knew if he put the pressure on and threatened and just held that they would fold, because there's too much money on the table' Rather said. 'Trump is now forcing a whole news organization to pay millions of dollars for doing something protected by the constitution – which is, of course, free and independent reporting. Now, you take today's sellout. And that's what it was: It was a sellout to extortion by the president. Who can now say where all this ends?'. He continued: 'It has to do with not just journalism, but more importantly, with the country as a whole. What kind of country we're going to have, what kind of country we're going to be. If major news organizations continue to kneel before power and stop trying to hold the powerful accountable, then we all lose.' In his more than 60 years in journalism, Rather told Variety he has never seen the profession face the kind of challenges as those it faces today. 'Journalism has had its trials and tribulations before, and it takes courage to just soldier on,' Rather said. 'Keep trying, keep fighting. It takes guts to do that. And I know the people at CBS News, and particularly those at 60 Minutes, they'll do their dead level best under these circumstances. But the question is what this development and the message it sends to us. And that's what I'm trying to concentrate on.'
