6 days ago
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
