What rigid support for 1849 abortion law says about Wisconsin Republicans
Delegates at the Wisconsin Republican Convention approved a resolution calling on the state to enforce the state's 1849 abortion law.
Granted, it was just a symbolic vote May 17 with no legal authority. But it reveals that grassroots Republicans — both here and across the country — are still embracing rigid views on abortion, despite a barrage of headlines detailing the deaths and suffering of women under similar bans.
And it made me wonder: Do we all live in different realities?
Because in today's world of algorithms, relentless news cycles, and a never-ending stream of content, it's entirely possible that we all live in different realities when it comes to the news we consume. Social media feeds and search engines curate information based on our past behavior, reinforcing our existing beliefs and filtering out what might challenge us.
Letters: Former Gov. Tommy Thompson omits real reason for rough Supreme Court race
For going on three years, I've been reading the heartbreaking stories about women harmed by abortion bans from across out country. Is it possible that others aren't seeing them at all?
For example, had any of the attendees at the WISGOP convention heard about:
Adriana Smith, a pregnant woman in Georgia who was declared brain-dead in February and is being kept alive, against her family's will, because of the state's law banning abortions? Doctors told the family that because of Georgia's LIFE Act, Smith must be kept alive until the fetus can live outside of the womb, probably at 32 weeks. Smith's pregnancy is only about 22 weeks along.
Porsha Ngumezi and Nevaeh Crain, who died in Texas because doctors hesitated, afraid of prosecution under their state's abortion ban? Or Amber Nicole Thurman, a 28-year-old mother, who died less than a month after Georgia passed its abortion law after waiting 20 hours to receive critical treatment?
Elizabeth Nakagawa, a Coast Guard commander, who nearly died after miscarrying because medical personnel waited—paralyzed by fear of legal repercussions.
Or Jaci Stratton, who was told by hospital staff in Oklahoma that 'we cannot touch you unless you are crashing in front of us" before they could provide life-saving abortion care. Her molar pregnancy meant that her fetus would never become a baby—but the law demanded she flirt with death before doctors could help her.
Though deeply alarming, these instances merely scratch the surface of what is becoming a widespread issue in states with the most restrictive laws. In addition to these stories, countless other women have survived but suffered at the hands of providers opting for riskier treatments and delaying care because of the language used in their state's abortion ban.
I'd like to believe that perhaps some of the most staunch anti-choice advocates are genuinely ignorant of how quickly abortion bans lead to maternal deaths, infections and dangerous complications.
Because the alternative is that they have read these stories and just don't care.
I don't write that lightly. But how else can we explain pushing for 19th-century laws in the face of 21st-century evidence that these bans are putting lives at risk? Some might call this a matter of moral conviction. But what kind of morality demands the painful deaths of women to prove a political point?
Abortion is health care. That's not a slogan but a fact supported by virtually every major medical association in the country, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Abortion care is a necessary component of standard treatment protocol for miscarriages, ectopic pregnancies, and fetal diagnosis incompatible with life. Bans do not prevent these conditions, they only prevent timely treatment.
And these laws don't operate in a vacuum. Every restriction breeds confusion, fear, and delay. Every vague statute pushes doctors to consult lawyers instead of focusing on patients. Every criminalized medical procedure sends a message: we don't trust women, and we don't trust the people who care for them.
The Wisconsin resolution might be nonbinding, but it is still revealing. It lays bare a movement that appears more interested in punishing abortion than in grappling with its consequences. It exposes a political stance where symbolism takes precedence over safety — where women are expected to serve as ideological props instead of autonomous human beings.
To the lawmakers and activists still supporting an abortion ban in Wisconsin, I ask again: are you reading these stories? Do you see what's happening to women in Texas, Idaho, Oklahoma, and beyond? Is that what you want for women in Wisconsin?
It is not enough to say the resolution is symbolic. Symbols matter. They reflect priorities. They telegraph what we value. And right now, this one sends a loud, clear message: that even preventable deaths of women aren't enough to change course.
If we're reading the same stories, then it's time to stop pretending this is a theoretical or political debate and starting acknowledging lives are on the line.
Kristin Brey is the "My Take" columnist for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
This article originally appeared on Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Abortion is health care. WI GOP ignores dangers for women. | Opinion
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Associated Press
12 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Rural Democratic lawmaker announces switch to the GOP in the latest setback for Kentucky Democrats
FRANKFORT, Ky. (AP) — A longtime state lawmaker announced Friday that she is switching parties, joining Republican supermajorities in the latest setback for Democrats trying to rebuild support across rural Kentucky. State Sen. Robin Webb, who represents a four-county swath of northeastern Kentucky, revealed she will join the ranks of GOP lawmakers who control the flow of legislation in the state. Webb was one of the last rural Democrats in Kentucky's legislature, and her defection leaves her ex-party more tethered to urban and suburban districts in a state with large stretches of rural territory controlled by the GOP. Webb said in a prepared release that the state's Democratic Party has continued to 'lurch left.' 'It has become untenable and counterproductive to the best interests of my constituents for me to remain a Democrat,' Webb said. 'I will continue to be a fearless advocate for rural Kentucky and for the residents of eastern Kentucky who have been so good to me and my family.' Webb has compiled a resume deeply ingrained in Kentucky culture. She has ties to the coal industry and is a well-known gun enthusiast who changed career paths to become an attorney. Webb first joined the Kentucky House in 1999, when Democrats controlled the chamber. She spent a decade as a state representative before joining the GOP-led Senate in 2009. Republicans seized total control of the legislature in the 2016 election, when they rode Donald Trump's coattails to win the Kentucky House for the first time in nearly a century. Republicans padded their legislative numbers in subsequent elections, giving them their overwhelming majorities. Republicans attained that dominance by winning in rural districts previously held by Democrats, but Webb's district had remained a blue dot on the map until Friday. Her party switch leaves Democrats mostly devoid of a rural presence in the legislature. One exception is Democratic state Rep. Ashley Tackett Laferty, who represents an Appalachian district. The state's two-term governor, Democrat Andy Beshear, won a number of rural counties and shrank GOP margins in others in his 2023 reelection. His popularity was built on the state's robust economic growth in his first term and his handling of disasters, from tornadoes and floods to the COVID-19 pandemic. Kentucky Democrats are trying to spark a rural comeback with a grassroots strategy, evidenced by the state party's ongoing 'listening tour' with stops in culturally conservative towns across the state. Lawmakers will begin their 2026 session in early January, but Beshear has said he will likely call lawmakers back for a special session sometime this year to take up storm-relief funding. Parts of southeastern Kentucky were devastated by deadly tornadoes earlier in May, while other parts of the Bluegrass State were inundated by flooding in April.
Chicago Tribune
12 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Supreme Court lets President Donald Trump end humanitarian parole for 500,000 people from Venezuela, Cuba, Haiti and Nicaragua
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday again cleared the way for the Trump administration to strip temporary legal protections from hundreds of thousands of immigrants, pushing the total number of people who could be newly exposed to deportation to nearly 1 million. The justices lifted a lower-court order that kept humanitarian parole protections in place for more than 500,000 migrants from four countries: Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela. The court has also allowed the administration to revoke temporary legal status from about 350,000 Venezuelan migrants in another case. Republican President Donald Trump promised on the campaign trail to deport millions of people, and in office has sought to dismantle Biden administration polices that created ways for migrants to live legally in the U.S. Trump amplified false rumors that Haitian immigrants in Ohio with legal status under the humanitarian parole program were abducting and eating pets during his only debate with President Joe Biden, according to court documents. His administration filed an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court after a federal judge in Boston blocked the administration's push to end the program. Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson wrote in dissent that the effect of the court's order is 'to have the lives of half a million migrants unravel all around us before the courts decide their legal claims.' Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined the dissent. Jackson echoed what U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani wrote in ruling that ending the legal protections early would leave people with a stark choice: flee the country or risk losing everything. Talwani, an appointee of Democratic President Barack Obama, found that revocations of parole can be done, but on a case-by-case basis. Her ruling came in mid-April, shortly before permits were due to be canceled. An appeals court refused to lift her order. The Supreme Court's order is not a final ruling, but it means the protections will not be in place while the case proceeds. It now returns to the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston. The Justice Department argues that the protections were always meant to be temporary, and the Department of Homeland Security has the power to revoke them without court interference. The administration says Biden granted the parole en masse, and the law doesn't require ending it on an individual basis. Taking on each case individually would be a 'gargantuan task,' and slow the government's efforts to press for their removal, Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued. Biden used humanitarian parole more than any other president, employing a special presidential authority in effect since 1952. Beneficiaries included the 532,000 people who have come to the United States with financial sponsors since late 2022, leaving home countries fraught with 'instability, dangers and deprivations,' as attorneys for the migrants said. They had to fly to the U.S. at their own expense and have a financial sponsor to qualify for the designation, which lasts for two years. The Trump administration's decision was the first-ever mass revocation of humanitarian parole, attorneys for the migrants said. They called the Trump administration's moves 'the largest mass illegalization event in modern American history.' The case is the latest in a string of emergency appeals the administration has made to the Supreme Court, many of them related to immigration. The court has sided against Trump in other cases, including slowing his efforts to swiftly deport Venezuelans accused of being gang members to a prison in El Salvador under an 18th century wartime law called the Alien Enemies Act.
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Ten Commandments in Every Classroom: Texas Bill Nearing Law
This article was originally published in The Texas Tribune. Come September, every public school classroom in Texas could be required to display the Ten Commandments under a requirement that passed the Texas legislature Wednesday — part of a larger push in Texas and beyond to increase the role of religion in schools. Senate Bill 10 passed the Senate 28-3, despite a federal court ruling that a similar Louisiana law violated a constitutionally required separation of church and state. Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter The bill preliminarily passed the House 88-49 on Saturday — the Jewish Sabbath day. The Ten Commandments forbids work on that day, Rep. James Talarico noted in an effort to highlight legislative hypocrisy. The lower chamber's initial approval came after more than two hours of debate and despite last-ditch Democratic efforts to water down the law, including giving school districts the opportunity to vote on the policy, and adding codes of ethics from different faiths into the bill. On Sunday, the House passed the bill 82-46, but clarified in it that the state would be responsible for any legal fees if a school district were to be sued over the policy. The bill now goes to Gov. Greg Abbott, who is expected to sign it. Sponsored by Sen. Phil King, a Republican from Weatherford, the bill requires every classroom to visibly display a poster sized at least 16 by 20 inches. The poster can't include any text other than the language laid out in the bill, and no other similar posters may be displayed. 'It is incumbent on all of us to follow God's law and I think we would all be better off if we did,' Rep. Candy Noble, a Republican from Lucas who is carrying the bill in the House, said during the floor debate Saturday. Supporters argue that the Ten Commandments and teachings of Christianity more generally are core to U.S. history, a message that has resurged in recent years as part of a broader national movement that considers the idea of church-state separation a myth. That movement fueled Texas' push to require schools display 'In God We Trust' signs if they were donated by a private foundation — signed into law in 2021. In 2024, the State Board of Education approved Bible-infused teaching materials. This session, lawmakers have advanced bills that allow a prayer or religious study period in school, and one that would require teachers to use the terms 'Anno Domini' (AD) — Latin for 'in the year of the Lord,' and 'Before Christ' (BC) when expressing dates. Proponents of King's bill also say making the Ten Commandments more prominent in schools will combat what movement leaders see as a generations-long moral decline. Texas is one of 16 states where lawmakers have pursued the Ten Commandments bills. Although the Supreme Court ruled against a similar Kentucky law in 1980, supporters in Texas and beyond find support in the current makeup of the court's justices and in the 2019 Supreme Court decision in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, which found a football coach could lead prayers on the field after games. But Robert Tuttle, a professor of religion and law at George Washington University, said allowing a private individual to pray — as in the Kennedy case — is different from displaying the Ten Commandments in the classroom. Last June, a federal court struck down a Louisiana law requiring all public school classrooms display the Ten Commandments — the first state this decade to pass such a law. The state is appealing the decision. 'The constant presence of a sacred text in the room with them is effectively telling them, 'Hey, these are things you should read and obey,'' Tuttle said. 'That's not the state's job — to do religious instruction.' He also said that despite the Supreme Court trending in a more conservative direction, its decision Thursday that leaves in place a prohibition on the establishment of a religious charter school in Oklahoma could mean that the Court, for now, is not throwing out that principle. During Texas legislative committee hearings, opponents from free speech and civil rights groups — some of whom waited till 4 a.m. to testify — said the policy could send a message of exclusion to students of other faiths or those who don't practice a religion. They also said the commandments were irrelevant to classes like math, and could prompt questions that were not age-appropriate, such as what adultery means. The teachers union said it opposes the bill because members believe it violates the principle of separation of church and state. 'Public schools are not supposed to be Sunday school,' said spokesperson Clay Robison. Talarico — who is studying to become a minister — raised concerns in House floor discussions Wednesday that the First Amendment forbids imposing a state-sponsored religion. 'My faith means more to me than anything, but I don't believe the government should be forcing religion onto any American citizen, especially our children,' the Austin lawmaker told the Tribune. 'I'm a Christian who firmly believes in the separation of church and state.' This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune at The Texas Tribune is a member-supported, nonpartisan newsroom informing and engaging Texans on state politics and policy. Learn more at
