Amanda Becker, reporter for The 19th, and Colleen Long, editor for NBC News, presented their post-Dobbs books at the 2025 Gaithersburg Book Festival in Gaithersburg, Maryland, May 17. Becker’s “You Must Stand Up: The Fight for Abortion Rights in Post-Dobbs America” and Long and Rebecca Little’s “I’m Sorry for My Loss: An Urgent Examination of Reproductive Care in America,” were both published in 2024. (Photo by Sofia Resnick/States Newsroom)

During the pandemic, when many people were reevaluating their life goals, Colleen Long texted her childhood best friend and fellow journalist Rebecca Little to see if, together, they could write a relatable, even funny, book about pregnancy loss.

“My friend Rebecca … she likes to say she kind of had the pu pu platter of loss,” Long said during an author panel at the 2025 Gaithersburg Book Festival in Gaithersburg, Maryland, on May 17. “She had all sorts of terrible things happen: a stillbirth; she had to end the pregnancy of twins; she had several miscarriages. And I had a stillbirth.”

They wanted to understand why it was so hard to talk about pregnancy loss in public, and thus difficult to process.

“She and I started talking about how what we would really like to do is to write a book about why we are so bad at talking about pregnancy loss,” said Long, a senior editor at NBC News. “What is it about our culture that makes it impossible to sort of discuss this, and yet, when it happens to you, then all of these people come out of the woodwork and talk about it. We’re saying it’s like ‘Fight Club,’ but maybe we should be taking fewer cues, you know, from Brad Pitt.”

Long and Little ended up speaking to about 100 people who experienced some form of pregnancy loss and continue to hear from people with experiences since their book, “I’m Sorry for My Loss: An Urgent Examination of Reproductive Care in America,” came out last year. Their book is also about how the U.S. Supreme Court’s reversal of federal abortion rights in June 2022, with the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, has exacerbated the consequences when pregnancy doesn’t go the way it’s supposed to. In the book, Little and Long document how pregnant and miscarrying women have been denied standard medical treatments because of state abortion bans, and how many people — disproportionately people of color — have been criminalized for decisions made while pregnant, long before Dobbs.

“In some ways, reproduction in America has been stripped back to basics, but we don’t find ourselves suddenly reliving a colonial life,” they write. “We would argue it’s more perverse in some ways because the advances in medicine are available, but they’re being withheld. Like the Back to the Future timeline where Biff Tannen runs a dystopian Hill Valley, we’re going back to a place we never really were.”

Joining the panel was The 19th’s Amanda Becker, whose “You Must Stand Up: The Fight for Abortion Rights in Post-Dobbs America,” also published in 2024, tells the story of the first year after Roe v. Wade was overturned, from the perspective of abortion providers and reproductive rights activists.

“I truly think a lot of the people I feature in my book are heroes,” Becker said. “Being around them was just so incredibly inspiring, and how hard they’re working to help people and take care of people and preserve the ability to access care where people can still get it, and fighting to get it back where they can’t.”

States Newsroom reporter Sofia Resnick moderated the Q&A with the authors. The version below has been edited for brevity and clarity. The full conversation is scheduled to be broadcast on C-SPAN 2 Book TV on June 8.

States Newsroom: You both were working on these books before the Dobbs decision and you’ve been both covering major national stories. Why did you both decide to dedicate so much time to this particular story?

Colleen Long: When Roe fell, it really sort of informed our reporting in a different way, because a lot of the procedures that are used to treat pregnancy loss are used to treat abortion. So, our book was focused more on pregnancy loss. But really, our sort of principle for the book is, what has happened in the past 50 years — since Roe has been codified and now fallen — is that we sort of hold out everything that isn’t a perfect pregnancy or the end of an unwanted pregnancy. But there’s this vast middle ground that a lot of people tend to experience. … When Roe fell, everybody was like, “Oh, this is not going to affect miscarriage care. This could possibly not affect a woman who is wanting a pregnancy and is unable to continue her pregnancy.” And so what we’ve seen, obviously, since the fall of Roe, is that actually these things are all very much intertwined. So our idea was to better inform everyone.

Amanda Becker: My background is as a political reporter, not a health care reporter. So I was more interested in how reproductive rights, and abortion specifically, have really reordered our politics. It’s the biggest political story of my lifetime, and because I’m a person that was capable of giving birth, I also thought it was the most important story overall that affects more than half of this country directly. And I would argue that it affects everyone indirectly in some way.

I just knew it was going to be a very big year, and that’s why I decided to structure the book — it literally starts with the decision in June, and it ends the next June — because it was just such a sprawling story that I knew would affect every single state in a different way, and the residents in those states in different ways.

SN: What were the parts of your books that were hardest to write?

Long: Rebecca trained at [the famed Chicago improv theater] Second City, so she’s funny, she will be the first to tell you. We wanted to make this book readable … so we worked on the tone a lot. That said, the hardest part about writing this book was interviewing the people. We interviewed 100 different people, and they ran the gamut. Some experienced a miscarriage, some had a stillbirth, some had multiple stillbirths. Some had to end their pregnancies because of a host of reasons. We interviewed people from every religion, conservative people, liberal people, all kinds of different people, and it was hard. As a journalist, you are used to listening to people and hearing stories that are upsetting, but I think the thing that was most upsetting for us was how common a lot of their stories were in that they all felt, like, alone, unsure, didn’t know where to go.

Becker: I was trying to write a book that was ultimately hopeful. … I would say the most difficult points were just, like, the overwhelmingness of what was happening that year. And because my book is kind of looking at the loss of abortion rights as happening in tandem with the erosion of our democracy, which is something I care a lot about, it just would start to feel overwhelming sometimes. Like, how are we going to fix these things that have been happening over the last 100 years, you know? How can we get reproductive rights back unless we fix gerrymandering?

SN: In your respective historical research, what were some things that surprised you?

Becker: I was floored when I found out that the American Medical Association came into being to elevate male doctors over female midwives and then go on an anti-abortion crusade over the next 30 years that eventually changed the laws in almost every state in this country.

[Addressing Long:]And you get into this in your book, too: The father of gynecology did non-consensual experiments without anesthesia on enslaved women. And I’m learning this history of women’s healthcare and gynecological care and being like, this is how we ended up here.

Long: We have a long history in the beginning of our book — it’s literally called “How We Got Here” — to sort of explain how our attitudes have changed over the years on pregnancy and pregnancy loss. Because, for example, the way we view pregnancy — this was really surprising to me — the way we view pregnancy today is really only like 47 to 48 years old, and it has to do so much with modern medical advances, sonograms, the home pregnancy test. Our ideas about how we bond and the way we discuss pregnancy is just so different. 

SN: What have been some of the impacts of increased anti-abortion laws on health care and grief and loss?

Long: My OB-GYN came from Oklahoma [where abortion is banned] because she was, like, “I feel as though I can’t practice safely.” … And the other thing we’re noticing is that doctors — not OB-GYNs, but like any doctors — they’re considering where to go to medical school. And the states in which the abortion laws are very strict, they’re sort of looking away from those states because … they’re afraid of their own medical care. So I would expect us in — I don’t know, five years, maybe, let’s say six years — we’re going to start seeing like a real disparate situation in the United States, where we have some states with very good medical care, and other states, which, let’s face it, already had poor medical care, are going to have worse medical care.

Becker: You don’t find out about a lot of really bad fetal abnormalities until the 20- to 21-week anatomy scan, so [people] made really difficult decisions, and a lot of them that I’ve spoken to feel like they can’t even grieve that openly because of what’s in the public discourse right now about abortion and abortion bans. Yes, they had an abortion, but they’re grieving a pregnancy that they very much wanted and a child that they very much wanted, and I think it’s just making it more difficult for people to talk about.

Long: This is where politics is tricky. … We interviewed a lot of women who identified as politically left-leaning who felt they weren’t allowed to mourn their miscarriage because they didn’t want to be seen as a traitor to the cause of abortion rights, which is hard.

And then … you have what has happened with the restrictions and the fetal personhood laws. … This is a very new concept, to have the sort of baby and the mother have the same legal rights, and that’s what we’re seeing play out in some of these places. And it plays out in really strange ways. Because when you have a life or death situation and you have these two entities, one does not exist without the other. And like, who is worth saving more? It’s just a really complicated morass.

Becker: If you talk to experts, both legal and medical, in fetal personhood and what it means in practice, they will tell you that in a fetal personhood situation where you’re putting at odds the rights of a fetus versus the right of the gestational parent, the fetus always wins when we apply fetal personhood. And so we’re going to see more and more of that.

Audience Member: It seems to me that in the last political campaign, we started to hear a lot about the impact of these laws on women, and somehow that’s fallen out of the news. And so how do we mobilize around this issue?

Becker: I think we were hearing about it in part because it was an election season and a presidential election, and I would expect that to come back around for the midterms and the next time we have a lot of abortion ballot measures on ballots. … Politicians pay attention to what gets them elected or not elected. So if that’s a reason you’re going to elect someone or not elect them, let them know that. 

Long: I covered the [presidential] campaign, and like even during the campaign, I felt like these issues sort of only caught fire when they thought it could be a winning issue. And the Democrats are in a weird rebuilding phase right now, and so I think they’re trying to figure out what works and what doesn’t. … They were really hoping that reproductive rights and reproductive health was going to drive people to the polls, in particular women, and in the end, they lost. … And the conversation is no longer happening. But if you think about it, the conversation was never happening. It only just started happening, and then it was a blip. And then now we’re sort of back to where we were, which is super annoying. 

“We just want to ensure that the most popular method for abortion in Virginia and beyond is protected no matter who sits at the White House and who sits in the FDA,” said Whole Woman’s Health founder and president Amy Hagstrom Miller outside of the U.S. District Court of the Western District of Virginia in Charlottesville, Virginia, on May 19, 2025. (Photo by Charlotte Rene Woods/Virginia Mercury)

CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. — Abortion pills — and questions over their inherent safety — were back in federal court Monday. Unlike a lawsuit rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court last year, plaintiffs this time are not anti-abortion activists arguing medication abortion should be banned, but abortion providers arguing the remaining restrictions should be lifted to match the drug’s 25-year record of safety and efficacy.

The suit seeks to make abortion pills more accessible by removing several existing restrictions on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s mifepristone-misoprostol regimen first approved in 2000. The drug was approved under the FDA’s drug safety program called Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS), provisions of which have been steadily eliminated over time but not fully.

On behalf of independent providers in Virginia, Montana, and Kansas, Center for Reproductive Rights senior counsel Linda Goldstein argued the FDA’s most recent evaluations did not properly assess whether remaining restrictions are still medically necessary. She argued that the biggest risks the FDA has identified with mifepristone — serious bleeding and infection — are not exclusive to the drug but with all pregnancy terminations, including spontaneous miscarriages, which she said affected about 25% of all pregnancies. Beyond abortion, for which the drug has captured attention, mifepristone is also used to treat miscarriages so that they conclude safely to help prevent infection.

“The FDA has acknowledged that staying pregnant is more dangerous than not staying pregnant,” said Goldstein, arguing that at minimum the FDA should be required to explain why drugs that pose similar risks are not subject to the same restrictions.

She noted that of the 20,000 drugs the FDA has approved, only 73 have REMS provisions, and that mifepristone has proven to be a safe drug over time. About 7.5 million U.S. patients have taken it as of the end of last year, Goldstein said. As of December 2024, the FDA has reported 36 patient deaths associated with mifepristone since it was first approved in 2000.

Whole Woman’s Health Alliance v. FDA is the first time the U.S. Department of Justice is arguing a position on mifepristone in court since the Trump administration took office. Justice Department attorneys said current regulations are necessary for the most common form of pregnancy termination to be considered safe. When asked by the judge, DOJ attorney Noah Katzen did not confirm or deny whether or not the FDA still considers the drug to be safe and effective overall.

“That is what the FDA determined in the past,” Katzen said during the hearing at the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia in Charlottesville, where the case was originally filed in 2023.

Katzen, the FDA’s former associate chief counsel until 2021 and currently a trial attorney for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, said the FDA has found that the evidence was “not sufficient” to conclude the REMS are no longer necessary.

U.S. District Judge Robert S. Ballou, appointed by Democratic President Joe Biden, appeared more sympathetic to plaintiffs’ argument that some of the requirements appear arbitrary in that they don’t apply to other drugs with equal or greater risk, including drugs his parents have taken. 

Ballou did not rule at the end of Monday’s hearing but said he would as soon as possible.

After the hearing, Whole Woman’s Health Alliance founder and president Amy Hagstrom Miller told States Newsroom she took note of Katzen’s response about whether the FDA considers mifepristone to be safe and effective.

“It was an interesting choice of words,” she said.

This lawsuit is among several federal cases involving mifepristone. Earlier this month, the Trump administration filed a brief in the case Missouri v. FDA, requesting the court dismiss three states’ lawsuit to restrict mifepristone on procedural grounds, but did not comment on the merits of the case or explicitly defend the FDA’s current medication abortion policy.

While the Missouri v. FDA lawsuit seeks to reinstate regulations loosened between 2016 and 2021, the Whole Woman’s Health v. FDA lawsuit takes aim at restrictions that require: medical professionals who prescribe mifepristone to register with the drug manufacturer; pharmacies to apply for special certification and maintain copious records, and patients to review and sign a counseling form.

On behalf of plaintiffs, which include Whole Woman’s Health Alliance in Virginia and other states, All Families Healthcare and Blue Mountain Clinic in Montana, and Trust Women in Kansas, Goldstein argued that these existing rules are burdensome and make these medications harder to access by limiting the number of providers and pharmacies who can provide and dispense it and impede access to time-sensitive care.

Goldstein noted the “political climate” surrounding mifepristone and pointed to how abortion opponents seek either rescinding of FDA approval for mifepristone or a return to the in-person dispensing requirements. She added how efforts to make abortion medication more difficult to obtain are outlined in Project 2025 — the conservative Heritage Foundation’s playbook.

Before and especially since Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022, anti-abortion groups have tried to convince courts that abortion pills, in addition to ending the lives of embryos and fetuses, harm pregnant people at rates that warrant being pulled from the market or at the very least heavily restricted.

During his presidential campaign and since taking office, President Donald Trump and his health appointees have messaged strategically on medication abortion, on the one hand promising to retain its access while also open to examining new evidence suggesting it is unsafe.

Just last week, U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said he would direct the FDA to review abortion pill safety and potentially change its drug label, following the release of an anti-abortion white paper commissioned by far-right funders, whose analysis has been widely criticized by reproductive health scientists and is outflanked by hundreds of studies showing a very low rate of serious adverse events.

Significant for the South 

Hagstrom Miller called the current restrictions “politically motivated” and said overturning them would be especially significant for Virginia, which as the least restrictive state in the South, has seen an uptick in people traveling from elsewhere to receive care.

“They’re not related to the safety of the medication,” Hagstrom Miller said, of the current restrictions. “We just want to ensure that the most popular method for abortion in Virginia and beyond is protected no matter who sits at the White House and who sits in the FDA.”

Virginia is in the process of amending its state constitution to enshrine abortion and other reproductive health care procedures or medications. The constitutional amendment passed the legislature on party-line votes this year and must pass again next year before appearing on ballots for voters statewide. Its continued success or failure hinges on the outcome of the state’s competitive House of Delegates elections — where Democrats hold a slim majority.

While governors don’t have a say in constitutional amendments, the issue is a divergence between gubernatorial candidates Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears and Democratic challenger former Congresswoman Abigail Spanberger. This means that should the amendment fail and partisan control of the House shift, whoever is the next governor could advance or block potential future efforts to walk back Virginia’s current abortion access laws. 

“It’s really important that we protect that safe access to medication abortion no matter where people live — Virginia is playing a key role in the South right now,” Hagstrom Miller said.

An expert on the history of the abortion debate joined WPR's "Wisconsin Today" to discuss her new book on the anti-abortion movement's push for fetal personhood.

The post Wisconsin and other states have laws establishing fetal personhood. What could that mean for abortion access and IVF? appeared first on WPR.

Four of the Wisconsin 14 – from (l to r) Jeff Davis, Kai Gardner Mishlove, Pat McFarland and Thomas Lang – urged state lawmakers to extend postpartum Medicaid on March 18, 2025. (Courtesy of Builders)

Thomas Lang and Jeff Davis — conservative Catholics from Wisconsin — did the unexpected on a recent Tuesday: They asked some of their conservative legislators to extend a social safety net for pregnant women.

Both men support local crisis pregnancy centers and groups opposed to abortion, and they typically oppose expanding public services. Davis said he’s always been a conservative spender, having grown up with a Depression-era father.

But after participating in a civic engagement program about abortion a year ago, both said their empathy for pregnant women is better informed.

“My wife was a great sounding board for me being more empathetic towards women, because she was a very empathetic woman, and I kind of lost a little bit of that when she passed away,” Davis said, noting it’s been two years. “I didn’t have her level of compassion, and this helped me, seriously, to be more compassionate, and not just to women who are having an abortion, but just people in general.”

One year ago, 14 people around Wisconsin, dubbed the Wisconsin 14, were recruited by the civic engagement nonprofit Builders (formerly known as Starts With Us) to try to find common ground on reproductive health policy despite their deep divisions on abortion. For most of the participants, as the emotionally grueling Citizen Solutions sessions would reveal, their beliefs are rooted in personal trauma.

A year later, several of the participants who had severe disagreements have come back together to fight for their first consensus solution: extending postpartum Medicaid.

While the Wisconsin 14 ultimately could not agree on a single abortion-related policy, they were united on five policy proposals to make it easier and safer to give birth. Several of the participants returned to the Capitol in Madison last month to lobby their state legislators to pass Assembly Bill 97/Senate Bill 23, which like one of their proposals, would extend Medicaid coverage for women from 60 days to 12 months after giving birth if they do not already qualify for the state’s Medicaid program. Under current law, pregnant individuals in Wisconsin are eligible for Medicaid at a higher income threshold than those who are not pregnant: 306% instead of 100% of the federal poverty level. But they can lose that coverage 60 days after giving birth if their income increases beyond the non-pregnant eligibility threshold.

Reproductive health experts have identified postpartum Medicaid extension as the first step to maternal health equity, as States Newsroom has reported. According to a new study in the Journal of the American Medical Association, more than 80% of pregnancy-related deaths nationwide are preventable, and almost one-third of pregnancy-related deaths occurred after delivery.

Wisconsin and Arkansas are currently the only states cutting off postpartum Medicaid after 60 days, despite these being largely popular policies.

“Last spring, 20,000 Wisconsinites from 70 counties across the state weighed in on the proposals during a public feedback period,” said Builders communications director Tori Larned in an email. “Nearly three-quarters (73%) of people favored extending Medicaid postpartum.”

This is the second year the proposal has been introduced in the legislature, and like last year it has received bipartisan support but severe opposition from House Speaker Robin Vos. The Republican has described the bill as an expansion of “welfare,” including last week, when the bill passed the Senate 32-1.

“My position has been fairly clear from the very beginning: I’ve never supported an expansion of welfare. I can’t imagine that I would ever support one,” Vos said at a press conference after the April 22 vote, according to the Wisconsin Examiner. “But we have to talk about it as a caucus.”

Vos’ office did not reply to a request for comment for this story.

In the past month, several among the Wisconsin 14 have lobbied their legislators in person, talked about the bill in public, and a few have or are currently writing op-eds. Larned told States Newsroom nearly every participant has called Vos’ office urging him to extend postpartum Medicaid to a full year. 

“[S]tagnation on this issue does not reflect the public will,” wrote Kateri Klingele Pinell and Kai Gardner Mishlove, two of the Wisconsin 14, who fundamentally disagreed on when abortion should be legal and accessible, in a recent Milwaukee Journal Sentinel op-ed. “Extended Medicaid coverage is crucial for the physical, emotional, and mental well-being of mothers and their children. Sixty days is insufficient to address the vast array of medical needs that arise during the postpartum period.”

They cited a 2024 Wisconsin Maternal Mortality Review Team report showing that between 2019 and 2020 the majority of pregnancy-related deaths were caused by cardiovascular conditions or hypertensive disorders or due to mental health conditions, including drug overdoses. They also noted that Black women and women from low-income households suffer worse maternal health outcomes. They cited an American Hospital Association report to argue that prolonging postpartum coverage would generate cost savings.

They ended the op-ed addressing Vos directly.

“We have faith that Speaker Vos and his colleagues in the Assembly will answer our call,” they wrote. “Vos has already expressed his desire to, ‘protect life while ensuring women receive necessary medical care.’ The passage of this bill offers him the opportunity to properly represent his constituents.”

Klingele Pinell is a clinical mental health professional who opposes abortion, but believes in expanding public health services, especially as someone who says she has relied on them as a young single mom. Gardner Mishlove is a grief doula and the executive directive of Jewish Social Services in Madison, which she said provides short- and long-term case-management and advocacy to vulnerable populations.

“We need to reassure moms and families that they will not lose coverage during this crucial time,” Gardner Mishlove told States Newsroom. “Can you imagine deciding to maintain a pregnancy and then realizing that you’re going to lose your health insurance 60 days after? Being a new mom, there’s a lot to deal with, a lot to juggle, and if that’s one less thing for you to juggle so that you can make sure that you maintain connection to your healthcare provider, to your behavioral health provider, for the health and wellness not only of yourself but your family, then that’s a huge burden that’s lifted from that mother, from the family, from the health care system.”

Bridging the divide 

In mid-March, four of the Wisconsin 14 joined a lobbying event co-sponsored by Main Street Alliance, where they urged state lawmakers to pass the postpartum Medicaid extension, focusing on more reluctant Assembly and Senate Republicans.

Davis, the 77-year-old widower, said it felt out of his comfort zone just to drive from his farm to the Capitol and navigate traffic and parking, but he felt it was important to do.

“I just kind of thought that maybe my input, because of being pro-life and being for the bill, would carry some weight,” Davis told States Newsroom.

Davis and Lang said they didn’t initially appreciate how difficult it would be to move the needle with some of the Republican legislators, especially after learning how much extending postpartum Medicaid is likely to cost the state.

The state has projected that an additional 5,020 women would have coverage per month under the bill, costing an estimated $18.5 million, including $7.3 million in state general purpose revenue with the rest coming from the federal government. As the Wisconsin Examiner has reported, if Wisconsin joined other states that have accepted the full federal Medicaid expansion, the cost for the postpartum coverage would be reduced to $15.1 million in all funds including $5.2 million in general purpose revenue. However, under the Trump administration, the federal Medicaid program as a whole is under threat. 

“We’re talking a drop in the bucket,” Lang said. “We’re talking about a small annual average number of pregnant women in Wisconsin, so the fiscal hawks really don’t have much to worry about, and more importantly we’re talking about getting women out of a corner. … Everybody agrees that no woman gets pregnant to have an abortion. It’s always something of a compulsion. So let’s get her out of the corner if we want her to have choice, right?”

Gardner Mishlove and Patricia McFarland — whose politics and abortion views veer widely left from Davis’ and Lang’s — said they tried to find common ground with more conservative legislators. 

“[We’re] trying to end the divide, to find ways to talk to each other about basic human issues, so that you are not just pro-birth, but if you’re pro life, you really want the family to thrive,” said McFarland, who had a traumatic illegal abortion before Roe v. Wade enshrined federal abortion rights in 1973 and is now an abortion-rights activist. “You want that baby to be born and to have all the care they deserve.”

The fate of the bill remains uncertain, but the Wisconsin 14 have not given up on it.

Jacob VandenPlas, a dad, farmer, agricultural educator and veteran from Door County, has some of the most nuanced politics and abortion views among the 14.

VandenPlas ran for Congress as a Libertarian in 2022 and is considering a future run for governor as an independent or for Wisconsin state Senate as a Republican. He said he believes abortion should be broadly legal through the first trimester and then restricted with exceptions for health and rape. VandenPlas said he’s been calling different legislators about the postpartum Medicaid bill; lobbying his representative, Republican Rep. Joel Kitchens, at the gym; and is currently working on an op-ed. He pitches it from a Libertarian angle.

“This is our future generation, and the constriction on the pocketbooks of the American people and how much the government has robbed from us makes it very difficult to start families,” VandenPlas said. “We’re talking the cost of housing and everything else. It’s very, very important to be able to help the future mothers and future families of our state.”

“Most importantly,” he continued. “This is one of the single best ways that we can address abortion. If you want to start limiting those numbers, we have to start addressing the reasons why women are choosing abortion, and this is one of them. We can save babies’ lives by extending postpartum care, and we can save the lives of mothers.”

Builders head of programs Ashley Phillips said the organization has not given up on trying to pursue abortion consensus solutions in other states, as abortion restrictions continue to broadly impact reproductive health care, including for those who want to have babies but have a shortage of health care options. She said Builders is conducting listening sessions in Texas, the next likely state for their third Citizens Solutions initiative. But this time participants will determine the policy area, she said.

“One thing I have learned is that this work is messy, it’s complicated, it’s hard, and in the moment, it often doesn’t feel great,” Phillips said. “And then I saw a subset of those people this weekend in Wisconsin, and the joy was back, and the belief that they could do something despite having a lot of discomfort around that issue of abortion.”

The Wisconsin Supreme Court chambers. (Henry Redman/Wisconsin Examiner)

An outside investigation found that last year’s leak of the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s order accepting a case challenging the state’s 1849 abortion law was “likely deliberate,” but was unable to determine its source. 

Last June, Wisconsin Watch published a story detailing the contents of the Court’s draft order agreeing to hear Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin v. Urmanski, the lawsuit challenging the validity of the abortion law. After the leak, all seven members of the Court condemned the order’s release, and the investigation began in August. 

According to a report released Wednesday, investigators interviewed 62 people and reviewed computer records in an effort to find the leak’s source. Despite the inconclusive findings, the report includes a number of recommendations for improving the Supreme Court’s security. 

The draft order was written on June 13 and Wisconsin Watch published its report on June 26. Investigators interviewed the 28 people who had “immediate access” to the draft. They included the seven justices, judicial assistants, law clerks and Supreme Court commissioners, as well as 18 people whose key card data shows they entered the justices’ chambers during that time period, interns and other office staff. 

Investigators requested computer usage data to determine what websites office staff visited during that time frame. The report states, however, that computer usage data from June 13 to 25 is missing. 

“The lack of complete website visitation logs for the period between June 13, 2024 and June 26, 2024 significantly hampered the ability to thoroughly examine the circumstances surrounding the leak,” the report states. “The issue underscores the importance of proper data management, retention, and verification procedures especially when such information is crucial for ongoing investigations.”

No evidence was found during the investigation that would show the leak was caused by an external breach of the Court’s network, according to the report. 

But the report also states that justices and Court staff often send confidential information to the justices’ personal email accounts and leave confidential documents unattended in printer trays. Unauthorized individuals have at times been able to access restricted floors in the Court’s Madison offices, the investigators also found. 

To improve the Supreme Court’s security, the report recommends a number of policy changes. Those include establishing better protocols for the handling of paper copies of confidential documents; stopping the justices’ use of personal email accounts; improving retention of computer history data; and using digital watermarks on confidential documents to ensure “the document remains traceable throughout its lifecycle.”

Audrey Skwierawski, the director of state courts, said in a statement that the Supreme Court would use the report’s recommendations to improve its processes.

“Integrity is the lifeblood of our court system, and we take threats to that integrity very seriously,” Skwierawski said. “Our responsibility now is to respond to and learn from the challenges identified through the investigation. This report gives us an important opportunity to strengthen the systems that support our courts and the public we serve.”

She added that her office is establishing a “Judicial Operations Integrity Task Force” to review the recommendations and proposing ways to prevent similar incidents in the future.

Wisconsin Watch partners with Gigafact to produce fact briefs — bite-sized fact checks of trending claims. Read our methodology to learn how we check claims.

Yes.

Brad Schimel, the conservative candidate in Wisconsin’s April 1 Supreme Court election, has supported Wisconsin’s 1849 abortion law but also says voters should decide abortion questions.

The liberal candidate, Susan Crawford, claimed Schimel “wants to bring back” the law, which bans abortion except to protect the mother’s life.

Wisconsin abortions were halted, due to uncertainty over the 1849 law, after the U.S. Supreme Court reversed Roe v. Wade in 2022, but resumed in 2023 after a judge’s ruling. 

The Wisconsin Supreme Court is deciding whether the 1849 law became valid with Roe’s reversal, said Marquette University law professor Chad Oldfather.

Schimel has campaigned supporting the law, asking “what is flawed” about it. He recalled in 2012 supporting an argument to maintain the law, to make abortion illegal if Roe were overturned.

Schimel said Feb. 18 Wisconsinites should decide “by referendum or through their elected legislature on what they want the law to say” on abortion.

This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.

Sources

• Judge Crawford for Wisconsin: Laurel
• Wisconsin Watch: Does Wisconsin’s 1849 abortion law allow abortion only for women who are in danger of dying?
• Marquette University law professor Chad Oldfather: Email
• New York Times: One of 2025’s Biggest Battles Over Abortion Rights Has Already Begun
• Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Susan Crawford and Brad Schimel bring opposing views on abortion to the Wisconsin Supreme Court race
• Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Democrats blast Schimel for signing onto anti-abortion legal paper
• Partial transcript: Brad Schimel remarks
• Team Schimel: Will of the People

Has Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate Brad Schimel supported Wisconsin’s 1849 abortion law? is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Wisconsin Watch partners with Gigafact to produce fact briefs — bite-sized fact checks of trending claims. Read our methodology to learn how we check claims.

Yes.

Wisconsin taxpayers paid $1.6 million to Planned Parenthood and others who sued over a 2013 state law that was ruled an unconstitutional restriction on abortion access.

In a new attack, the Wisconsin Democratic Party blamed conservative Brad Schimel for the costs, but he didn’t become state attorney general until 2015. 

Schimel faces liberal Susan Crawford in the April 1 state Supreme Court election.

The law would have required doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of where an abortion was done. 

After Planned Parenthood sued, federal judge William Conley in Madison temporarily blocked the law, then in 2015 ruled it unconstitutional.

Schimel appealed, arguing the restriction was reasonable. A three-judge federal appeals court in Chicago upheld Conley. Schimel asked the U.S. Supreme Court to take the case, but it refused.

Conley ordered the $1.6 million payment.

Federal law enables plaintiffs to sue for legal fees in successful civil rights cases.

This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.

Sources

• Wisconsin Democratic Party: BradSchimel.org
• Wisconsin Legislative Council: 2013 Wisconsin Act 37
• U.S. District Court: Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin v. J.B. Van Hollen — Complaint
• U.S. District Court: Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin v. J.B. Van Hollen — Opinion
• U.S. District Court: Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin v. J.B. Van Hollen — Judgment
• U.S. Court of Appeals: Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin v. Brad Schimel — Appeal
• U.S. Court of Appeals: Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin v. Brad Schimel — Decision
• U.S. Supreme Court: Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin v. Brad Schimel — Petition
• U.S. Supreme Court: Order List
• U.S. District Court: Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin v. J.B. Van Hollen — Amended Judgment
• Wisconsin Blue Book: Brad Schimel attorney general tenure
• Mother Jones: Red States Are Paying Planned Parenthood Millions for Suing Them

Did Wisconsin taxpayers pay $1.6 million over an abortion restriction law that was ruled unconstitutional? is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.