STATE POSITIONS AND LEGISLATIVE ACTION HISTORY ON RIGHT TO PRIVACY IN REPRODUCTIVE CHOICES
Updated 2024, with updates through 2023
In 1983 Wisconsin Leagues concurred with leagues across the nation in support of a national position to allow action to protect the individual's constitutional right to privacy in reproductive matters.
This right had been guaranteed by the 1973 Supreme Court decision in the Roe vs. Wade case. The decision prohibits states from restricting the right to abortion during the first trimester, allows regulation to protect health and safety during the second and permits prohibition during the third trimester except to save the life or health of a pregnant woman.
Occasions for action came very quickly and continue to the present time. In taking action the League has worked cooperatively with the Reproductive Rights Task Force of the Wisconsin Women’s Network and other coalitions. Through 2010, action was successful in maintaining the legal right to choose. While anti choice activists have failed to get abortion banned, they have had considerable success in gaining League has opposed five major restrictions:
The first restriction denies the use of public funds to pay for abortions. Because most hospitals receive public funds, they have been unable to provide abortion services to Medicaid patients, who must now seek private funding. League has supported a number of bills in unsuccessful attempts to restore this funding. In 2015 a League-opposed law was enacted banning distribution of Well Woman Program funding to organizations that perform abortion. A 2014 proposal, which did not pass, would have prohibited the group insurance board from contracting for or providing abortion services.
The second restriction, passed in 1992, requires consent of an adult for a minor to have an abortion. The original bill called for “parental consent,” but we were able to get modification to allow consent to be given by a close family member, a member of the clergy, or the court and to provide for anonymity. The League holds that the majority of teens do tell their parents, but for those who, for whatever reason, cannot talk to their parents, and who will be responsible for a child for 18 years if abortion is not available, the right of personal choice should not be restricted.
In 1985 a law was enacted containing a number of provisions intended to reduce the number of abortions. It should be noted that while the League supports the right to choose abortion, it also supports programs to reduce teen pregnancies under Social Policy positions. These positions combined with the reproductive rights position allowed the League to support the bill that became law.
The third major restriction was adopted in 1996, requiring a 24-hour waiting period between the first consultation and the actual abortion procedure. The League’s opposition was based on the lack of accessibility of clinics in most parts of the state and the fact that such laws cause many clients undue problems of cost, time, transportation and confidentiality. The law also requires the doctor to provide state-prepared information about all aspects of the procedure and all options open to the client if the pregnancy were to continue. Pro-choice advocates worked to ensure that the required information provide unbiased content and medically accurate materials.
The League opposed a 2015 bill, which became law, that required a determination of probable postfertilization age of the fetus before an abortion, along with information about possible pain experienced by the fetus. LWVWI has opposed several “informed consent” requirements on the grounds of state interference with a doctor’s practice.
To counter misinformation the League has consistently supported proposals to require instruction in human health and development in high school and provide medically accurate materials for women by healthcare organizations.
The fourth major restriction was enacted in 1997. The term “partial birth abortion” was designed to shock the public to gain support for anti-abortion legislation. The term is not used by the medical community; it implies that a healthy, viable fetus is aborted at the request of a pregnant woman. Under Roe vs. Wade and Wisconsin law, third trimester abortion is illegal unless the life and health of the woman is at stake. If the fetus is healthy and viable, the doctor would choose to induce live birth. If the fetus is not healthy, the doctor might choose this procedure as the best means of protecting a woman’s ability to conceive in the future.
In 2011-2018 variations on this restriction were introduced as proposals to ban abortion after 20 weeks, end the use of fetal tissue for research, ban the sale and use of fetal tissue, and require a certificate for anatomical gifts and disposition of remains after miscarriage or stillbirth.
The fifth restriction takes the form of “conscience bills” which allow healthcare providers and pharmacists to opt out of providing care or services that they object to. This proposal failed several times to be passed by the legislature until 2019 -- when it was passed but then vetoed by the Governor, who also vetoed three other bills based on the restrictions listed above.
The League continues to work for bills to remove Wisconsin’s existing criminal sanctions for performing an abortion, none of which have passed.
Thus, the law remains in place if the Supreme Court should overturn Roe vs. Wade.
Abortion opponents wanted the durable power of attorney for health care law to exempt pregnant women. In a compromise supported by the League, a bill passed containing a legal form for a “durable power of attorney” for health care, with a checklist to be marked if the appointed attorney is to have the power to make decisions for a woman who is pregnant. Other conditions also require check-off.
In 1989 the League joined other groups objecting to an action of the state attorney general in signing for Wisconsin an amicus curiae brief to the U.S. Supreme court that urged the overturn of the Roe vs. Wade decision. League argued that Wisconsin had taken no such position either legislatively or by citizen vote.
The League has also opposed a number of bills which have sought to define the fetus as an “unborn child” in order to establish a legal status for a fetus, as well as bills that create some 20 penalties for intended or unintended injury or death to an “unborn” child. We also have opposed legislation that prohibits use of public funds or use if public facilities to programs which provide information on abortion, and prohibit public employees from taking part in such programs.
Other proposals that have been introduced, but not enacted as of 2020, include:
Legislation to confine pregnant women with drug dependencies to treatment centers, opposed because of denial of personal freedom and because such facilities are not available in most places. An effort to permit pharmacists to refuse to provide prescriptions on the basis of their own beliefs, opposed because it would deny contraceptives and abortifacients and anything else to customers. A bill that would protect doctors from being sued for failing to inform a pregnant woman about the condition of the fetus in time for an abortion, also opposed.
(For other action affecting women, see Social Policy).