This post originally appeared at https://wifamilycouncil.org/radio/the-real-death-warrant/
https://episodes.castos.com/64063b9346f5f0-85323018/1912559/c1e-7z7jku41rmdtd7v78-wwm3k013az63-6ijbwk.mp32024 | Week of December 2 | Radio Transcript #1595
Three weeks ago, the Wisconsin Supreme Court heard arguments for and against enforcing the state’s pre-Roe law prohibiting most abortions, known as Statute 940.04, in the case Kaul v. Urmanski. The law was nullified in 1973 when the US Supreme Court fabricated from thin air the infamous Roe v. Wade case. However, the statute was never revoked by our state legislature or our voters.
After the June 2022, US Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision returned the abortion issue to the states, the law was immediately enforceable; and abortion providers in Wisconsin ceased actively killing the unborn. The law states that it is illegal to provide an abortion and clarifies that actions taken to save the life of a mother in an emergency are exempt from the law.[i]
Just days after Statute 940.04 was “reactivated” by the Dobbs decision, Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul filed a lawsuit arguing that the law should not be used against abortion providers. In late 2023, a Dane County judge ruled that the law doesn’t ban abortions, but rather bans feticide, which by definition is the act of attacking a pregnant woman and ending her pregnancy. We strongly disagree with this interpretation of the law for several reasons. Thankfully so does Sheboygan County District Attorney Joel Urmanski, who as a named defendant, appealed the case following that ruling. The state Supreme Court agreed earlier this year to bypass a state appeals court and hear the case directly.[ii]
During opening arguments earlier this month, Attorney Matthew Thome representing Urmanski, stated the issue plainly:
This case is not about what the law on abortion should be in the state of Wisconsin after the United States Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe v. Wade and its progeny. This case is about what the law on abortion currently is…Section 940.04 applies to prohibiting consensual abortions from conception until birth, subject to an exception when it is necessary to save the life of the mother. It remains on the books; policy makers have not repealed it. Indeed, they have expressly declined to do so at multiple opportunities and until they do, it can be enforced. It may be that the citizens of a state of Wisconsin would be better served by a different law. That is not a question for this court.[iii]
The Associated Press noted that the two-hour hearing amounted to little more than “political theater” as two of the Court’s liberal justices peppered Urmanski’s attorney with divisive and somewhat irrelevant questions.[iv] One of those justices was Jill Karofsky, who seemed fixated on the lack of exceptions provided for in the original abortion ban–an angle which is legally irrelevant to whether the challenged law should still be enforced.
Liberal Justice Rebecca Dallet piled on, implying the pre-Roe law is invalid because it was written by “white, landowning men” and is inapplicable considering the current pro-abortion climate of the nation. Under this argument, the Court would also have to overturn state statutes that ban slavery, murder, and theft in the Badger State. A poor legal argument, at best.[v]
Had the state Supreme Court allowed Wisconsin Family Action, Wisconsin Right to Life, and Pro-Life Wisconsin the opportunity to intervene in the case, many of these flawed arguments could have been rebuffed through a pro-life worldview. However, the Court’s denial of these pro-life groups’ intervention and the court’s liberal majority’s antics clearly showed they did not want the pro-life position to be adequately represented through a fair hearing.
Here’s how bizarre the justice’s comments became. Even though Statute 940.04 provides exceptions for the life of the mother, Justice Jill Karofsky ironically and oh-so-wrongly claimed, “I fear what you are asking this court to do is sign the death warrant of women and children and pregnant people in this state.” “Pregnant people”? But I digress.
The unfortunate reality is that the Dane County judge’s ruling that struck down Statute 940.04 is the real “death warrant” for thousands of babies each year who are killed in the womb in Wisconsin. This case is one of several before our state Supreme Court that will determine the legality of abortion in our state. Please join us in prayer for those involved in making these crucial decisions that will determine the life or death of thousands of babies in our state and for the spring election when we will again elect a new justice to our state supreme court.
For Wisconsin Family Council, this is Julaine Appling, reminding you that God, through the Prophet Hosea, said, “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.”
Sierra John