Abortion Weighs Heavily On the Race for Wisconsin Attorney General

An 1849 state law bans abortion in nearly all cases. The candidates disagree over whether it should be enforced.

Connecticut, Minnesota, Vermont, and Wisconsin hold primary elections today. One race in particular, for Wisconsin's attorney general, could be a meaningful test case for abortion rights.

Josh Kaul, the Democratic incumbent, won his first term in 2018's "blue wave" by less than a point. He is running unopposed for his party's nomination. Of the three Republican candidates, the two apparent front-runners are Adam Jarchow, a former member of the State Assembly, and Eric Toney, the district attorney of Fond du Lac County.

Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the Supreme Court decision that overturned Roe v. Wade in June, relegated the issue of abortion to the states. As Reason's Jacob Sullum has pointed out, Wisconsin is one of five states where new abortion restrictions "are unlikely in the short term but are possible in the longer term, depending on electoral outcomes or judicial decisions."

The uncertainty stems from an 1849 state law that prohibits abortion in all cases except to save the life of the mother; some legal experts believe the law was effectively overturned by more recent bills. Kaul said in December that if Roe were overturned, he would not investigate or prosecute violations of the 1849 restrictions. And a week after the Dobbs decision, Kaul filed a lawsuit seeking to overturn the law formally.

Meanwhile, Jarchow and Toney have each indicated that if elected, they would enforce the abortion ban as written—which presumably means without exceptions for rape or incest.

Kaul's refusal to prosecute may not actually be consequential: Typically, most prosecutions are brought by district attorneys at the county level, not by the state attorney general. But in liberal enclaves whose district attorneys refuse to enforce the state ban, an Attorney General Jarchow or Toney would have the authority to prosecute a doctor or clinic who performed an abortion.

Last week, when traditionally deep-red Kansas had an outright abortion ban on the ballot, a clear majority of Kansans rejected the measure. It remains to be seen if the issue will similarly drive Wisconsinites to the polls in November. No matter which Republican wins the nomination today, the race for attorney general is shaping up to be a proxy fight over abortion.

Comments

[rbike]

So. The state legislature needs to legislate? None of this using an issue to bash the other side, but never solving anything? More useless politicians. I guess if I had to choose, the ones obeying the laws as written would win my vote. But I am 90 miles away so y do not get to vote.

[Foo_dd]

the disagreement is what the law is...... they have passed other abortion bills since 1849 that most say are what the law is as written. those looking to the 1849 bill are doing so out of desire to ban abortion, not anything resembling any respect for the law as written.

[eva21foster]

I am creating eighty North American nation greenbacks per-hr. to finish some web services from home. I actually have not ever thought adore it would even (avt-10) realisable but my friend mate got $27k solely in four weeks simply doing this best assignment and conjointly she convinced Maine to avail. Look further details going this web-page.
.
---------->>> https://smartpay241.blogspot.com

[Michael Ejercito]

I wonder why that law was passed.

[mad.casual]

To force the Civil War Era women of WI to get back alley abortions with 6 ft. tall wooden coat racks, duh. And that's exactly where we will be sending women back to if this law is enforced.

[JFree]

That 1849 statute made it illegal to perform abortions after fetal movement - ie quickening or roughly 20 weeks. Not much different than post-Roe in most states or early abortion laws pretty much everywhere. It was an 1858 law that made it illegal to perform abortions after conception (however that could be measured).

In most cases back then, abortion was not really a choice of women. It was mandated by men - namely employers ordering pregnant female employees to get an abortion or be fired.

[Dillinger]

Kaaaaaaaul!

[mad.casual]

The uncertainty stems from an 1849 state law that prohibits abortion in all cases except to save the life of the mother;

I'm sure the 1849 law talks about fetal heartbeats and viability and banning abortion from the time the sperm meets the egg rather than just referring to 'the quickening' and effectively banning late-term abortions except in the case of saving the Mother's life. I'm also sure that Reason would never disingenuously pretend that procedures taking place from conception through the quickening, that it has previously said were abortions, weren't abortions so that it could simply say the law bans all abortions except to save the life of the mother.

But let's not quibble, what does the law actually say:

The willful killing of an unborn quick child, by any injury to the mother of such child, which would be murder if it resulted in the death of such mother, shall be deemed manslaughter in the first degree.

Oh, weird, this almost makes it sound like the law isn't an anti-abortion law but actually an anti-infanticide law that Reason is trying to pawn of as draconianly anti-abortion.

Fuck you Reason.

[Foo_dd]

you quoted the wrong section, but that is a fair point.... the law does specifically say a "quick" child.

"Every person who shall administer to any woman pregnant with a quick child, any medicine, drug, or substance whatever, or shall use or employ any instrument or other means, with intent thereby to destroy such child, unless the same shall have been necessary to preserve the life of such mother, or shall have been advised by two physicians to be necessary for such purpose, shall, in case the death of such child or of such mother be thereby produced, be deemed guilty of manslaughter in the second degree"

what is interesting, though, is that both sides of the debate seem to be ignoring that word.... there was the case with an ectopic pregnancy, and those never make it past the "quickening" point.

[mad.casual]

I don't have evidence of both sides ignoring that word. I only have evidence of Reason who, prior to the publication of this article, would've rightly regarded 'plan B' and anything else between conception and 20 weeks/quickening as an abortion suddenly regarding anything before 20 weeks as 'not an abortion'.

I also have similar evidence from when Scott Walker tried to pass legislation under Roe v. Wade that pretty much did the same thing, the similarly disingenuous "ban abortion" rhetoric was leveled against him despite his loud and vociferous proclamations that it only banned most abortions after 20 weeks.

[Foo_dd]

ah... i found it. the law was amended in the 1858 statues to remove the word quick.

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/misc/lrb/lrb_reports/history_of_abortion_laws_6_4.pdf

"The enacted bill amended and renumbered provisions relating to abortion under chapter 164, sections 10 and 11, of the 1858 Wisconsin Statutes. As amended, these sections generally prohibited abortions, whether they occurred before or after quickening"

sorry... you did read the original law correctly, but it was subsequently amended and IS a near total ban on abortions. it even has punishments for the women in it (something even the hard-line anti-abortion people today tend to avoid):

"Every woman who shall take any medicine, drug, substance, or thing whatever, or who shall use or employ any instrument, or shall submit to any operation or other means whatever, with intent to procure a miscarriage, shall upon conviction be punished by
imprisonment in a county jail, not more than six months nor less than one month, or by a fine, not exceeding five hundred dollars, or by both fine and imprisonment, at the discretion of the court."

[mad.casual]

it even has punishments for the women in it (something even the hard-line anti-abortion people today tend to avoid):

That's because you're reading an impartial, historical anti-infanticide law as a modern anti-woman, anti-abortion law. The law is pretty clear that it doesn't matter who sticks the the bowie knife, knitting needle, or whatever up there and kills the fetus, unless they're doing so under the doctor's advice to save her life, they're committing manslaughter. Even today, self-administered surgical abortion (the only effective means after 'quickening') would be considered self-harm and get most women arrested and/or committed.

[Foo_dd]

look, i tried nicely to explain that you misread the law..... but that your misreading was understandable...

instead of being a grown up and recognizing that mistake, you just want to fight...... and your fight makes absolutely no sense whatsoever..... trying to pretend that "anti-infanticide" prior to birth and anti-abortion law is somehow something different...... (especially the provisions against the pregnant woman.) that is just dumb.

[Sheldonius Rex]

Hoes mad.

[Quo Usque Tandem]

So the matter has been remanded to the States, and now each State has to decide how they want to deal with it.

Which is as it should be.

[ElvisIsReal]

Exactly. A win for democracy, right? Nope!

[BestUsedCarSales]

It's weird to have the argument. The answer is kind of philosophical, which is do laws that are on the books get kicked out by judicial rulings. It seems that most things lean towards, "No, they stay on the books but are unactivated." I think that's a reasonable thing from what I've read, but the main point is, the Legislation can change laws. If people don't want it, get rid of it.
Man, I'm tired of people being actively confused by the idea of a legislature having to create laws.

[JasonAZ]

"Man, I'm tired of people being actively confused by the idea of a legislature having to create laws."

Feature, not a bug. This is why the far left progressives had taken over the schools and universities. Try explaining to any progressive how the Constitution is the actual rules by which the Fed government is allowed to govern. Eyes are glassed over, then they recover and talk about their feelings and/or people dying on the streets because Daddy government doesn't take care of everybody.

[mad.casual]

Part of it is the disingenousness of bad faith actors. Read the law and consider the context. It's effectively written to convict rapists, sociopaths, and quacks of infanticide. Of course Reason's aborto-freaks would see need to repeal it.

Next up: How to truly teach transgenderism with laws against FGM?
Later: Without anti-FGM, anti-infanticide, and pro-transgenderism laws, how do we protect women?

We went through this with centuries of no bathroom or locker panics until 2016, when suddenly it became a right for men to occupy someone else's women's room. Eons of even uneducated, illiterate, salt of the earth morons being able to answer the question "What is a woman?" until we appointed KBJ to SCOTUS.

Nardz is right. They are a form of psychological cancer.

[Foo_dd]

"We went through this with centuries of no bathroom or locker panics until 2016, when suddenly it became a right for men to occupy someone else's women's room."

just so you know, the first regulations making men and women pee in different bathrooms were in 1887, and it wasn't nation wide until about 30yrs later.... so we are barely more than one century with separate bathrooms, and a few eons of nobody giving a fuck which bathroom anyone used.

[mad.casual]

Just so you know, that's a very misogynistic, cherry-picked, pro-trans interpretation of what I said. Even back into antiquity, the distinctions between men and women were understood and gender-specific spaces are widely known and legally/historically recorded. To pretend they didn't exist until the law was enacted in 1887 is literally retarded and to pretend that the 1887 law wasn't enacted to effectively allow women to access the public sphere is misogynistic. Throughout the Victorian Era public toilets were just presumed to be men's toilets and women were assumed to stay home. The law, in this country, in 1887 ensured women would have access to bathrooms outside their home. Still, no one panicked.

[Foo_dd]

"Just so you know, that's a very misogynistic, cherry-picked, pro-trans interpretation of what I said."

congratulations.... you have just said the stupidest thing that i have ever seen on these boards. (and the bar is high.) the idea that it doesn't matter where people pee is prejudiced against women? WTF kind of stupid shit is that? your statement assumes that women need special treatment and is, itself, misogynistic.

fact.... the first recorded separate bathrooms were in France in the 18th century.

fact.... separate bathrooms did not come into common usage until the late 19th century.

fact.... everything you just said is BS.

[TJJ2000]

Yep... Republicans really proved to the world that they can be just as much of a tyrannical dictator when their faithful 'unicorn' is on the line.

[WE] Power-Mad freak jobs will FORCE you to reproduce!!....
[WE] Power-Mad freak jobs will FORCE you to buy an EV car!!...

Two peas in the same pod.