U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, the Republican candidate for Wisconsin governor, supported highly restrictive federal abortion legislation after voting for a Wisconsin law that generally allows abortion through 20 weeks of pregnancy.
The 2015 law that Tiffany voted for as a member of the Legislature prohibits abortion at 20 weeks postfertilization and after, except to protect the life or health of the mother.
But in 2023, as a member of Congress, Tiffany co-sponsored a bill to prohibit abortion in cases where a fetal heartbeat is detectable, generally six weeks. That legislation didn’t become law.
Campaigning for governor, Tiffany has said he would uphold the 2015 law.
The Democratic nominee in the Nov. 3 election, Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley, questioned Tiffany about his two positions in their only debate.
Tiffany replied: “My position’s been consistent ever since I announced for governor,” adding he would not sign fetal heartbeat legislation.
This Fact Brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.
We’ve written more extensively about this topic in a different article. You can read more about it here.
Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin filed a new lawsuit challenging Wisconsin abortion restrictions Thursday, just days after the Wisconsin Supreme Court returned to work with a newly cemented 5-2 liberal majority in place.
The lawsuit, filed in Dane County against Dane County District Attorney Ismael Ozanne, argues that two Wisconsin laws violate the state constitution’s guarantee of personal liberty.
One of those laws requires people seeking abortions to wait 24 hours between requesting an abortion and receiving one. The other states that only licensed physicians may provide abortions; this limits a person’s ability to self-administer abortion drugs through telehealth.
“This case asks our court to recognize … that our constitutional freedom includes the ability to make deeply personal decisions about our reproductive health care without unnecessary government interference,” said Tanya Atkinson, the president of Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, during a press briefing announcing the lawsuit.
The case names Ozanne as a representative of all Wisconsin district attorneys because they would prosecute violations of the rule that only physicians can administer abortions, said Diane Welsh, a lawyer for Planned Parenthood.
“Anywhere in the state where an abortion would be provided, there could be criminal charges for a person who’s not a physician,” said Welsh.
Lawsuits challenging Wisconsin’s abortion restrictions have been anticipated since Roe vs. Wade — which federally protected abortion access — was overturned in 2022, effectively throwing the issue back to the states. The most significant challenge was over a Civil War-era statute that had been interpreted as banning abortion in Wisconsin and that went back into effect when Roe was overturned.
That law was at the heart of campaigns to elect liberal justices to the state Supreme Court, and last year, the high court overturned the statute, allowing abortions to be administered within the state under certain restrictions.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court found that the 19th-century law had been superseded by a series of additional restrictions passed in the ensuing decades. Immediately, abortion advocates signaled they might challenge those restrictions.
Thursday’s announcement makes good on those possibilities. In the briefing, attorneys for Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin argued that requiring a physician to be present during abortions and requiring a person to receive counseling and wait a full day before receiving abortion care are unnecessary and illegal barriers to health care access.
“Through this case, we are asking Wisconsin courts to recognize that these restrictions conflict with the freedoms and protections guaranteed to each of us under our state’s constitution,” said Atkinson. “It’s about whether our constitutional freedoms belong to each of us, or whether the government can make our most personal decisions for us.”
In a statement, a spokesperson for Wisconsin Right to Life said Planned Parenthood is seeking a “permanent constitutional shield” for abortion access.
“This lawsuit isn’t about access,” said Samantha Craig. “It’s about removing the last few guardrails standing between a woman and the procedure table. It is incredible to us that such basic protections for informed consent and women’s safety are disregarded for the sake of protecting Planned Parenthood’s abortion-first business model.”
The Wisconsin Supreme Court, which would have the final say in the case, has a definitive liberal slant that is all but guaranteed to be in place for years to come. Liberal Justice Chris Taylor, whose 10-year term began in August, was once a lobbyist for Planned Parenthood. Liberal Justice Susan Crawford, who was sworn in a year earlier, once represented the group as a private attorney.
Login
