Wisconsin State Flag | Getty Images Creative

This week marked the fifth anniversary of the Jan. 6 insurrection, in which supporters of President Trump stormed the U.S. Capitol, demanding that then-Vice President Pence overturn the will of the people. Efforts to impose accountability for those responsible and those involved have largely ended — except in Wisconsin. This means that Wisconsin has the opportunity, and the responsibility, to re-assert the rule of law, to ensure justice, and to bolster the foundations on which American democracy has been built over the past 250 years.

As we assess the state of our democracy in light of this somber anniversary, let’s start with the bad news: 

• The U.S. Supreme Court derailed efforts by states to enforce the 14th Amendment’s prohibition against insurrectionists serving in federal office, and then it invented an ahistorical and jaw-droppingly broad doctrine of presidential immunity to derail criminal prosecutions of Trump in state and federal courts alike. 
• Federal prosecutions of the violent mob in the Capitol were upended by Trump’s Department of Justice, and Trump issued sweeping federal pardons to every individual connected with Jan. 6, effectively encouraging them to keep it up. 
• State prosecutions of the fraudulent electors — those who executed an unprecedented effort to overturn the 2020 election by submitting to Congress (and other officials) paperwork that falsely declared Trump to have won seven key states that he in fact lost and thereby laying the groundwork for the Jan. 6 rioters to violently demand Pence validate their efforts — have faltered, often for reasons unrelated to the merits of those actions. 

But here in Wisconsin there are still grounds for hope. Hope that bad actors who deliberately took aim at our democracy will be held accountable. Hope that our institutions will stand up and protect our democracy from further meddling by those most directly responsible. And hope that those institutions will act promptly to prevent further damage. Every Wisconsinite should be watching the following accountability efforts — and urging our elected officials to use their authority to advance the rule of law and protect our democracy. 

First, the Wisconsin Supreme Court will soon determine the appropriate sanction for Michael Gableman’s ethical transgressions as he spearheaded a sham “investigation” of the 2020 election. Gableman, who once served on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, accepted this job despite his own assessment that he did not understand how elections work in Wisconsin. He wasted taxpayer funds, undermined government transparency laws, dealt dishonestly with his clients and the public, lied to and insulted courts, and tried to jail the elected mayors of Green Bay and Madison. In March 2023, Law Forward filed an omnibus ethics grievance, documenting Gableman’s myriad breaches of the ethics rules that bind all Wisconsin attorneys. Last summer, Gableman stipulated that he had no viable defense of his conduct and agreed with the Office of Lawyer Regulation to jointly recommend his law license be suspended for three years. (He is now trying to wriggle out of accountability by serially pushing justice after justice to recuse.) 

Wisconsin precedent is clear that, where a lawyer is charged with multiple ethical breaches, the proper sanction is determined by adding the sanctions for each breach together. The Court should apply established law, which demands revoking Gableman’s law license. Then the Office of Lawyer Regulation and the Court should act on our requests to hold Andrew Hitt (chairman of the Wisconsin fraudulent electors) and Jim Troupis (chief Wisconsin counsel to Trump’s 2020 campaign and ringleader of the fraudulent-elector scheme) accountable as well.

Second, the primary architects of the fraudulent-elector scheme, detailed in records  obtained through Law Forward’s groundbreaking civil suit, are also facing criminal prosecution in Dane County. Attorney General Josh Kaul’s case is narrowly focused only on three lawyers — two who were based here in Wisconsin, and one working for the Trump campaign in DC — who conceived and designed the scheme to overturn Wisconsin’s results and then convinced six other states to follow suit. Troupis, who himself was appointed to the Wisconsin bench by former-Gov. Scott Walker as a reward for his key role in the 2011 partisan gerrymander, has gone to great lengths to slow down this prosecution, which Kaul initiated in June 2024. He filed nine separate motions to dismiss the case. He accused the judge hearing preliminary motions of misconduct and insisted that the entire Dane County bench should be recused. And now he has appealed the denial of his misconduct allegations. This case, since assigned to a different Dane County judge, will proceed, and it is the best hope anywhere in the country to achieve accountability for the fraudulent-elector scheme. 

Third, on behalf of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign and two individual voters, Law Forward is suing Elon Musk and two advocacy organizations he controls for their brazen scheme of million-dollar giveaways to influence the 2025 Wisconsin Supreme Court election. This case is about ensuring that Wisconsin elections are decided by Wisconsin voters, not by out-of-state efforts to buy the results they want for us. We’re waiting for the trial court to decide preliminary motions, but, with another Wisconsin Supreme Court election imminently approaching, there is urgency to clarify that Wisconsin law forbids the shenanigans we saw last year, which contributed to the most expensive judicial race in American history. 

Beginning in 2011, Wisconsin became the country’s primary testing ground for the most radical anti-democratic ideas. From Act 10 to one of the strictest voter ID laws in the country, from subverting the separation of powers and steamrolling local control over local issues to hobbling the regulatory state and starving our public schools, Wisconsin’s gerrymandered Legislature adopted idea after idea hostile to democracy. With the end of the nation’s most extreme and durable partisan gerrymander in 2023 and a change in the makeup of the state Supreme Court, however, the tide in Wisconsin has ebbed somewhat. 

Now, improbably, Wisconsin is the place that democracy can best hold the line. We can create accountability for those who have abused power, have undermined elections, and have diminished the ideals and institutions of our self-government. That, in conjunction with Law Forward’s broad docket of work to defend free elections and to strengthen our democracy, sustains my hope.

Gov. Tim Walz announces he will step down from the 2026 gubernatorial election Monday, Jan. 5, 2026 at the Minnesota State Capitol. (Photo by Nicole Neri/Minnesota Reformer)

The moment Gov. Tim Walz was cooked was little remarked upon at the time, but in retrospect illustrates how he and his administration were sleeping through an enveloping crisis.

At the late 2024 budget forecast, he said disability and autism services were driving state government spending beyond expectations. When he was asked about potential fraud in the autism program — about which we’d reported an FBI investigation six months prior — he seemed unfamiliar. I traded texts with an incredulous reporter who was there and wound up publishing a column called, “Minnesota: an easy mark.” 

More recently, Walz faced the full force of the right-wing propaganda machine in the past two months. It was a frightening sight to behold, and a healthier democracy would never be host to such a parasitical malignancy.

Although restoring American democratic habits of mind to eviscerate that propaganda machine should be on our lengthy, long-term to-do list, the lesson here for me is that the most underrated tool in the political toolbox is … governing.

Deadly dull, I know, but the word governor even has the word “govern” in it: competently administering programs to help people who need it; ensuring Minnesota’s children are learning literacy and numeracy; and managing the state’s vast infrastructure assets. That’s the job.

Former St. Paul Mayor Melvin Carter, another one-time rising star in Minnesota politics, recently faced the same sort of governing reckoning as Walz, when Mayor Kaohly Her pulled off an upset November victory promising to make stuff work again. May Democratic elected officials everywhere take notice.

We live in perilous times, no question, but Minnesotans are right to expect a minimum level of competency in these matters of public administration. It’s especially important for the party of government, i.e., the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party, to pay attention to details, like whether a 3,000% increase in spending on the autism program is reasonable, especially when some of the providers had ties to Feeding Our Future.

Tim Walz is at heart a decent man, and he doesn’t deserve what’s been thrown at him in recent weeks — especially a despicable allegation leveled by the president of the United States and the odious propagandist Nick Shirley that Walz was involved in the assassination of former House Speaker Melissa Hortman.

He made some mistakes, but he’s not evil, unlike some of the loudest and most influential voices in American politics today, whose greed and lust for power are boundless.

Walz’s first term was marked by almost constant crisis, none of it his doing. He was a mostly steady hand, even as Republicans came to despise him during the pandemic and the aftermath of the police murder of George Floyd.

His second term comprised major legislative accomplishments — for which the credit mostly belongs to Hortman and the late Sen. Kari Dziedzic — as well as his (again, in retrospect) disastrous candidacy for vice president. All the while, thieves were stealing the people’s money with gusto.

Walz has served the community of Mankato, the people of Minnesota and his country.

And now he has saved us from what would have been a deeply divisive campaign, and which would have put the state of Minnesota under federal siege.

Unlike former President Joe Biden, who doomed his party and the country with his insistence on running for a second term, Walz is stepping aside before any more damage is done to his state and the DFL. He says he’ll focus all his energies on cleaning up the mess.

He deserves our thanks for that service and for making this decision.

Minnesota Reformer is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Minnesota Reformer maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor J. Patrick Coolican for questions: info@minnesotareformer.com.

Protesters supporting U.S. President Donald Trump break into the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

Five years ago today we were transfixed by the surreal spectacle of the attack on the U.S. Capitol. The violence and horror of that day was made more bearable when the insurrectionists were arrested and the election results they tried to overturn were certified.

But now they’re back, pardoned by President Donald Trump, released from prison and planning to parade triumphantly today through the streets of Washington, D.C. 

Among the people convicted and later pardoned by Trump, at least 33 have been arrested and charged with new crimes, according to the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. Their alleged continuing criminal behaviors include rape, illegal possession of weapons, firing on police officers, and, in the case of Chrisopher Moynihan, threatening to murder House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries. 

Some of the most violent offenders are back behind bars. But the most powerful proponents of the Big Lie, including Trump himself, the enablers who staff his administration and the Wisconsin Republicans who hatched the fake electors scheme to try to overturn the results of the 2020 election, continue to work to undermine our democracy. 

“We must continue to defeat election deniers and the threats they pose,” the Wisconsin-based progressive firm Law Forward declares on its website, in a section devoted to a timeline of the fake electors scheme. Law Forward brought the first class-action lawsuit against the fake electors, and forced the release of documents, text messages and other evidence showing how the plot unfolded, starting in Wisconsin. They present the timeline “as a call to action for every American to see how close our democracy came to toppling and how the freedom to vote must continue to be protected, not taken for granted.” 

For a few years it seemed as though we had dispelled the nightmare of Jan. 6. But the lawless, emboldened second Trump administration has dragged us back to that scary, dangerous time.

The brave work of people like Jeff Mandell, founder of Law Forward, and the other lawyers, judges and investigators who continue to struggle against the agents of authoritarianism trying to destroy American democracy is still making a difference. 

Last month, Dane County Judge John Hyland found probable cause to continue the trial of Wisconsin attorney James Troupis and Trump campaign aide Mike Roman, charged with felony forgery by Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul in connection with the fake electors scheme. Hyland  rejected Troupis’ desperate effort to scuttle the case by claiming another judge had a personal bias against him.

Wisconsin attorney Ken Cheseboro, the originator of the fake electors plot, is also facing felony charges.

As Trump and his gang openly defy the U.S. Constitution, pursue baseless, vindictive prosecutions of their political enemies, launch military actions without the consent of Congress, threaten to seize other countries and use their positions to enrich themselves while destroying the public welfare, it feels as through that dark moment on Jan. 6 when American democracy was under physical attack was just the beginning.

But as Mandell told me last year, a few months after Trump took office, “I think building a stronger, more resilient democracy in Wisconsin is its own form of resistance.”

“When things feel most shocking and unstable at the federal level,” at the state and local level, Mandell said, “we can show our institutions still work and provide some reassurance.” 

We need that reassurance today more than ever.

“We are slow to realize that democracy is a life and involves continual struggle,” said Robert M. La Follette, the great governor and senator from Wisconsin and founder of the Progressive movement. I’m grateful for the Wisconsinites today who, like La Follette, are committed to that life and willing to continue the struggle.

Judge Hannah Dugan leaves court in her federal trial, where she was convicted of a felony for obstructing immigration officers. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

According to the Eastern District of Wisconsin’s Interim U.S. Attorney Brad Schimel, freshly appointed to his position by President Donald Trump, the federal trial of Milwaukee Judge Hannah Dugan had nothing to do with politics. “There’s not a political aspect to it,” Schimel told reporters after Dugan’s felony conviction on charges she obstructed U.S. immigration agents as they tried to make an arrest inside the Milwaukee courthouse. “We weren’t trying to make an example out of anyone,” Schimel said. “This was necessary to hold Judge Dugan accountable because of the actions she took.”

Schimel didn’t say whether Dugan’s very public arrest and perp walk through the courthouse was also necessary, along with the social media posts by Trump’s FBI director Kash Patel and Attorney General Pam Bondi, crowing about the arrest and sharing photos of Dugan in handcuffs. 

There is no doubt that the Dugan case was highly political from the start. 

As a coalition of democracy and civic organizations in Wisconsin declared in a statement after the verdict, Dugan’s prosecution threatens the integrity of our justice system and “sends a troubling message about the consequences faced by judges who act to protect due process in their courtrooms.”

But Schimel is right about one thing: Dugan’s trial this week was mainly about “a single day — a single bad day — in a public courthouse.”

That narrow focus helped the prosecution win a conviction in a confusing mixed verdict. The jury found Dugan not guilty of a misdemeanor offense for concealing Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, the defendant she led out a side door while immigration agents waited near the main door of her courtroom to arrest him. At the same time, the jury found Dugan guilty of the more serious charge of obstructing the agents in their effort to make the arrest. The two charges are based on some of the same elements, and Dugan’s defense attorneys are now asking that her conviction be overturned on that basis.

An observer watching the trial from afar with no inside knowledge of the defense strategy might wonder why Dugan’s defense team didn’t enter a guilty plea on the misdemeanor charge and then strongly contest the felony obstruction charge as an outrageous overreach in a heavily politicized prosecution. That might have led to a more favorable mixed verdict, in which the jury found that Dugan was probably guilty of something, but that it did not rise to the level of a felony with a potential penalty of five years in prison.

I’m no expert, but daily reports from the trial this week gave me the strong impression that things weren’t going well for Dugan as long as witnesses and lawyers focused on a blow-by-blow account of the events of April 18. Witness testimony described an agitated Dugan, whose colleague, Judge Kristela Cervera, testified — damagingly —  that she was uncomfortable with how Dugan managed the federal agents she was outraged to find hanging around outside her courtroom. 

It’s not surprising that the jury agreed with the prosecution that Dugan was not cooperative and that she wanted to get Flores-Ruiz out of her courtroom in a way that made an end-run around the unprecedented meddling of federal immigration enforcement inside the courthouse. Like other judges and courthouse staff, she was upset about the disruption caused by ICE agents stalking people who showed up to court.

But, as Dean Strang, a law professor at Loyola University Chicago School of Law and a long-time Wisconsin criminal defense lawyer, told me in April just before he joined the defense team and stopped talking about the case to the press, “Whatever you think of the actual conduct the complaint alleges, there is a real question about whether there’s even arguably any federal crime here.” 

The government’s behavior was “extraordinarily atypical” for a nonviolent, non-drug charge involving someone who is not a flight risk, Strang added.

The handcuffs, the public arrest at Dugan’s workplace, the media circus — none of it was normal, or justified. When Bondi and Patel began posting pictures of Dugan in handcuffs on social media to brag about it, “what is it they are trying to do?” Strang asked. His conclusion: “Humiliate and terrify, not just her but every other judge in the country.”

The Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, Voces de la Frontera, and Common Cause-Wisconsin agree with that assessment, writing in their statement reacting to the conviction that Dugan’s felony conviction threatens the integrity of our justice system as a whole, and undermines the functioning of the courts by scaring away defendants, witnesses and plaintiffs who are afraid they might be arrested if they show up to participate in legal proceedings.

But that big picture perspective was not a major feature of the defense’s closing arguments, which relied heavily on raising reasonable doubt about Dugan’s intentions and her actions during a stressful and chaotic day.

That’s frustrating because, contrary to Schimel’s assertions, the big picture, not the events of “a single bad day” is what was actually at stake in this case.

One of the most distressing aspects of the Dugan trial was the prosecution’s through-the-looking-glass invocation of the rule of law and the integrity of the courts.

The federal agents called to the stand, the prosecutors in the courtroom, and Schimel, in his summary of the case, made a big point about the “safety” of law enforcement officers. 

Repeatedly, we heard that immigration agents prefer to make arrests inside courthouses because they provide a “safe” environment in which to operate. 

In his comments on the verdict, Schimel emphasized that Dugan jeopardized the safety of federal officers by causing them to arrest Flores-Ruiz on the street instead of inside the courthouse: “The defendant’s actions provided an opportunity for a wanted subject to flee outside of that secure courthouse environment,” Schimel said.

This upside-down view of safety has become a regular MAGA talking point, with Republicans claiming that when citizens demand that masked agents identify themselves or make videos of ICE dragging people out of their cars, they are jeopardizing the safety of law enforcement officers — as opposed to trying to protect their neighbors’ safety in the face of violent attacks by anonymous thugs. 

Churches, day care centers and peaceful suburban neighborhoods are also “safe” environments for armed, masked federal agents. But their activities there are making our communities less safe. 

Assistant U.S. Attorney Kelly Brown Watzka, delivering the prosecution’s closing argument, told the jury it must draw a line against judges interfering with law enforcement, or else “there is only chaos,” and that “chaos is what the rule of law is intended to prevent.”

But chaos is what we have now, with federal agents terrorizing communities, dragging people out of courthouses and private residences, deporting them without due process and punishing those who stand in their way in an attempt to defend civil society.

The real questions raised by Dugan’s case are whether we believe the “safety” of the agents making those dubious arrests matters more than the safety of our communities, and whether we want the courts to be able to regulate the conduct in their own courthouses as a check on the government’s exercise of raw power.

Wisconsin politicians denounce the "billionaire loophole" that makes state elections so expensive, but they're still raising tons of cash. | Getty Images

Two high-profile candidates for governor of Wisconsin, Republican U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany and Democratic former Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes, have denounced the unlimited flow of cash into state political campaigns. Then, practically in the same breath, both men announced their plans to raise tens of millions of dollars, signalling to their less well funded primary opponents that they might as well get out of the way.

In an interview with PBS Wisconsin on Dec. 5, Tiffany criticized “that pass-through loophole, I call it the ‘billionaire loophole,’” in Wisconsin law, adding, “there’s just so much money that comes into Wisconsin.” 

“You can cry about it or you can compete,” Tiffany continued. “We choose to compete … We’re hoping to raise $40 million.”

As Baylor Spears reports, Tiffany actually voted for the “billionaire loophole” he now criticizes back when he was serving in the state Senate in 2015. 

Mandela Barnes, in a recent campaign stop in Madison, told Spears and other reporters that he has raised a “strong haul,” in the first week of his campaign, and that he intends to raise a staggering $50 million by the end of the race. He added that he doesn’t like the role of money in politics. “It’s not a good sign,” he said, and his future goal is “to get big money out of politics” and enact “campaign and ethics reform.”

Back in 2015, when Republicans were ramming through the “billionaire loophole,” Barnes opposed it, saying at the time that it would allow “shady special interest money and allow for more corruption to go undetected and unprosecuted.”

Jay Heck, executive director of Common Cause Wisconsin, remembers that moment well. Under former Republican Gov. Scott Walker, Republican legislative majorities passed the law eviscerating campaign finance limits along with other measures getting rid of the nonpartisan Government Accountability Board and eliminating the John Doe procedure that was used to criminally prosecute leaders of both political parties for campaign finance crimes in the infamous caucus scandal of the early 2000’s.

The 2015 law doubled the amount individuals could give to candidates. More importantly, it eliminated all limits on state party contributions to candidates and allowed coordination between candidates and outside groups that make issue ads supporting the campaigns. Donors were able to give as much as they wanted to political parties, which then funneled that money to candidates, creating the billionaire loophole to which Tiffany belatedly objects. The 2015 law cleared the way for outsiders like Elon Musk to pour limitless cash into state races to try to affect the outcome.

“The Republicans did that in 2015 because they were convinced that they would have a great financial advantage since they generally raised more money from donors and special interests,” says Heck. “Of course, what they didn’t anticipate was [former Wisconsin Democratic Party chair] Ben Wikler and the Democratic Party’s ability to take that big hole in the law and use it to raise massive amounts of money.”

Recently, Democrats in Wisconsin have been beating Republicans in the fundraising arms race. In 2025, in the most expensive judicial election in U.S. history, Susan Crawford, the candidate for the Wisconsin Supreme Court supported by the Democratic Party, raised $28.3 million compared with Republican-supported Brad Schimel, who raised $15.1 million. Outside special interests accounted for most of the spending on the race, with Musk alone putting in nearly $20 million through his political action committees and millions more laundered through the state Republican Party for Schimel, while the Democratic Party of Wisconsin funneled $10 million to Crawford.

The lesson of the 2015 law, says Heck, is, “be careful what you wish for.”

That certainly applies to Republicans, who lost the two most expensive state Supreme Court races in history as well as the last two record-breaking gubernatorial races won by Gov. Tony Evers with $93 million in total spending in 2018 and $164 million in 2022. 

But it also applies to Democrats, who cannot count on continually bringing in more money than Republicans.

More importantly, when it costs tens of millions of dollars to win state elections, regular voters’ voices are drowned out by billionaires, who are not investing in candidates just out of the goodness of their hearts.

Heck believes that change will only come when voters demand reform, most likely because a big scandal clearly illustrates that politicians are doing favors for their donors in exchange for campaign cash.

“It’s going to require a bipartisan coming-together to establish some limits,” Heck says. 

Even as the U.S. Supreme Court has opened the floodgate for campaign spending with the Citizens United decision, which in 2010 struck down a federal ban on political donations from corporations, and McCutcheon v. FEC, which in 2014 found that annual caps on total political donations from one person are unconstitutional, states have the ability to impose limits. 

A report by the National Conference of State Legislatures shows Wisconsin is one of only 11 states that allow unlimited candidate contributions by state parties and among the top 10 for the highest limits on PAC contributions to candidates. Minnesota, Michigan, Illinois and most other states limit how much political parties can accept, which reduces the Elon Musk effect. Plus, “We are one of few states that allows so-called coordination between political candidates and outside groups,” Heck says.

The problem is that candidates, while acknowledging that massive amounts of money fueling their campaigns is a bad look, don’t want to unilaterally disarm. 

But now, as the Trump administration drags the country to new levels of overt corruption, it could be a good time for a campaign that ties together billionaires’ destructive influence on society and the fact that they are buying our democracy. 

“There has to be public disgust with the amount of money being spent,” says Heck. “If a candidate put corruption front and center, it might get a lot of traction.”

Getty Images

As a practicing OB-GYN in Wisconsin, I see firsthand how many of my patients rely on contraception to protect their health, manage painful conditions, and plan their futures. When a woman sits across from me in the exam room, she’s not thinking about politics. She’s thinking about how to survive her work day without severe cramps, how to manage her bleeding so she can attend class without mishap, or how to avoid threatening her life with another high-risk pregnancy. 

These situations are only a few of the reasons why the news about abandoned U.S.–funded contraceptives overseas is so alarming. This action blatantly reflects the same disregard for women’s health that now shapes national policy. And that disregard lands directly on women’s bodies. 

Under the Trump administration, the U.S. government ordered the destruction of nearly $10 million worth of U.S.–funded contraceptives, based on the false claim that birth control is an “abortifacient.” This claim is absolutely nonsensical. Contraception doesn’t end a pregnancy — it prevents one. Unfortunately, ideology, and not medicine, guided that decision, leaving lifesaving, taxpayer‑funded medicine stalled in warehouses instead of reaching women who need it. 

The full picture is even more disturbing. Several days ago, a new report found that the Trump administration left 20 of 24 U.S.–funded contraceptive shipments to waste away in Belgian warehouses. These were fully paid-for, taxpayer-funded supplies — IUDs, implants, pills, and other reproductive health essentials — intended for women in 13 countries. This is simply appalling. 

And if you think that kind of extremism stops at the water’s edge, think again. 

Back home, I see the fallout of the same ideology driving national attacks on contraception and women. 

Already, there are over 300,000 women of reproductive age in Wisconsin in need of contraception, and attacks are making this gap even worse. 

And these gaps carry real health risks, because contraception does more than prevent pregnancy — it treats endometriosis, PCOS, severe bleeding and anemia, and it reduces the risk of reproductive cancers. 

Rural clinics that once offered contraception and family-planning visits have declined in number, a trend worsened by federal policy shifts that weaken the reproductive-health safety net and leave too many women without reliable nearby options for care.

And now, with health-insurance costs already skyrocketing for many families — and monthly bills set to jump even higher if those tax credits expire — the ACA’s no-cost contraception guarantee slips further out of reach. Road block after road block after road block. 

Fortunately, Wisconsin has leaders who understand the stakes. 

Sen. Tammy Baldwin’s leadership on the “Right to Contraception Act” reflects a truth every OB‑GYN knows: contraception saves lives. Contraception reduces maternal deaths, prevents unintended pregnancies, treats reproductive-health conditions, and empowers women to build stable lives. Baldwin fights to protect contraception — what Wisconsin women rely on every day — not because it’s politically convenient, but because she understands it’s a medical necessity. 

U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan co-sponsored the “Saving Lives and Taxpayer Dollars Act” — legislation designed to stop exactly what we’re seeing in Belgium. The bill requires that U.S.–funded food and medical supplies – like the contraception sitting in Brussels at this moment – reach the people they were purchased for, instead of being left to rot or destroyed for ideological reasons. In Washington, where too many have decided contraception is a cultural wedge rather than essential health care, Pocan’s voice matters. 

The women I see in my exam room aren’t looking for a political fight. They’re looking for care that lets them stay healthy, stay safe, and stay in control of their lives — something contraception makes possible every day. 

Jeopardizing contraception — whether through wasteful negligence abroad or political interference here at home — is harmful, cruel and simply unjust. 

We in Wisconsin cannot afford to look the other way. We need leaders who will defend the right to contraception, not undermine it. 

The stakes are simple: either we protect access to basic health care, or we allow ideology to decide who gets care — and who doesn’t. 

For the women in my clinic — and for women everywhere — contraception is essential care that strengthens their health and safeguards their freedom.

Christine Neumann Ortiz, executive director of Voces de la Frontera, speaks at a press conference on the Wisconsin Supreme Court case challenging the legality of Wisconsin law enforcement agencies' cooperation agreements with ICE | Photo via Voces de la Frontera Facebook video

In Wisconsin we have been watching in horror as President Donald Trump’s lawless immigration crackdown terrorizes communities in our neighboring states of Minnesota and Illinois. 

Here at home, so far, things are mostly quiet. Farmers in western Wisconsin report no ICE raids on the dairies where 60% to 90% of workers are immigrants without legal status. There have been a few high-profile arrests and deportations in Milwaukee, Madison and Manitowoc, but nothing like the scenes of chaos in the streets of Chicago and Minneapolis, where masked federal agents are aiming guns at civilians, smashing out car windows and dragging parents from their children, hustling them off to detention centers to be fast-tracked out of the country without due process.

One of the most disturbing things about this campaign of terror is that it seems to be directed by the president’s whim. In a Thanksgiving post full of invective and schoolyard insults directed at Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar, Trump denounced the Somali community he claimed was “completely taking over the great State of Minnesota.” One week later, CBS News confirmed that ICE operations were underway targeting Somali immigrants in the Twin Cities.

Since we can’t count on the federal government to stay inside the bounds of reason or the law, it is critical that local and state leaders stand up to the racist, unconstitutional and unAmerican assault on immigrants. 

It was good news when, on Wednesday, the Wisconsin Supreme Court accepted a case filed by the state chapter of the ACLU on behalf of the immigrant rights group Voces de la Frontera, contending that Wisconsin law enforcement agencies do not have the authority to make arrests or keep people in jail on detainers based solely on ICE’s administrative warrants.

Tim Muth, the ACLU of Wisconsin’s senior staff attorney, said hundreds of people throughout the state are being illegally held for days.

“It is extremely important for the Wisconsin Supreme Court to determine whether any law enforcement in Wisconsin has the legal authority to put or keep people in jail when they have not committed a crime and when no judge has issued an arrest warrant,” Wisconsin immigration attorney Grant Sovern wrote in an email to the Examiner. “Anyone in Wisconsin would want dangerous people to be kept from the public. But ICE is currently making no determinations about dangerousness or the likelihood to show up for a hearing if a summons is issued. A summons is a perfectly rational and legal way to address a civil legal question like someone’s immigration status. Jailing people before any independent adjudicator determines someone to be dangerous is against the Constitution and not the Wisconsin way.”

At a press conference Wednesday, Christine Neumann-Ortiz, executive director of Voces, told the story of a landscaper in Green Bay who was picked up for driving without a license (immigrants without legal status are barred by a 2007 state law from obtaining driver’s licenses). He was sent to county jail and then handed over to ICE. “He was a grandfather, very active in his church,” Neumann-Ortiz said, describing him as “someone who does not represent any kind of threat to society at all” and who, on the contrary, is a pillar of his community and beloved by his family. 

Voces helped fight the deportation in a case that is still working its way through the courts. “At least he’s out and together with his family,” Neumann-Ortiz said. “But that’s an example of how people can be impacted by this.” 

As it scrambles to meet arbitrary deportation quotas, ICE sends detainers even for people who have never been convicted of a crime and have only minor charges pending in Wisconsin courts. 

Voces has been fighting at the local level since the first Trump administration for local law enforcement to refuse to collaborate with ICE unless there is a judicial warrant for someone, meaning that person is being sought in connection with a serious crime. As a result of Voces’ efforts, that is now the standard in Milwaukee County. The state Supreme Court case is an effort to establish the same standard statewide.

Neumann-Ortiz said she’s grateful the Supreme Court justices recognized the urgency of the issue in agreeing to take the case on an expedited basis, “given the current level of abuse that we’re seeing happen, and which will only escalate.”

And, she added, “We certainly very much anticipate Milwaukee being one of the cities that will be targeted for militarized occupation with these aggressive sweeps.”

Whether or not Wisconsin communities can protect people from the kind of violence we’ve been seeing in other states depends on the courageous actions of state and local officials, advocates and informed community members. It begins with recognizing that the Trump administration’s actions are wrong and then standing up.

At the press conference, a reporter asked about ICE’s assertion that the agency doesn’t have room for everyone in its detention facilities and therefore needs space in county jails. Muth responded: “Detain fewer people.”

Neumann-Ortiz added some clarifying context. “They are profiling people, they are just grabbing people without any probable cause. So it’s a very racist program that is using violence against people and is trying to hijack, through bribery and through threats, local law enforcement to be part of this mass deportation machinery,” she said. 

“We’re seeing, at the local level, community come together,” she added, “to reject these efforts to undermine local law enforcement — which is supposed to play a public safety role — into just this arm of deportation driven by xenophobia and racism. And which is making a lot of money for the for-profit prison industry.”

This year, communities across the state have pushed back on 287g partnership agreements between local law enforcement and ICE that turn sheriff’s departments into an arm of the federal immigration agency. Palmyra, Ozaukee and Kenosha counties rejected ICE’s offers of money to transform their sheriffs into agents of federal immigration enforcement.

The Kenosha sheriff’s office made its decision not to participate after the ACLU and Voces had already named it in the Supreme Court lawsuit, along with Walworth, Brown, Sauk and Marathon counties. Palmyra also reversed a decision to accept a large payment from ICE to participate, responding to public outrage.

“Resistance is happening, it’s successful, it’s building community,” Neumann-Ortiz said. “But we do need state protections to uphold our rights.”

Health care providers march for abortion rights at a Madison rally in October 2022. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

The Wisconsin State Senate passed SB 553 on Tuesday, Nov. 18, in their last floor session of the year. This bill, purportedly written to define abortion, is actually a covert attempt to exclude abortion from the broader scope of reproductive healthcare. 

Anti-abortion legislators pushing this bill are attempting to play to their religious base who voted them into office to promote an anti-abortion agenda. This is a failing strategy, however, when we’ve seen in countless elections around the country that abortion access is a winning issue, including in Wisconsin. 

The bigger problem, though, is how proponents of the bill are describing it as a way to allow physicians to safely provide care and clarify abortion restrictions, by excluding medical procedures intended to save a person’s life, such as C-sections, the removal of dead embryos, and treatment for ectopic pregnancy, to name a few, from the definition of “abortion.”

Lawmakers are misleading people into thinking that this bill will further define the nuances of care that physicians provide and actually allow, rather than restrict, the provision of care. 

This could not be farther from the truth. We have too many examples nationwide of physicians practicing in states hostile to reproductive rights who are unsure about what care is legal to provide, ultimately leading to unnecessary delays in caring for pregnant people. It is telling that physicians who provide miscarriage and abortion care were not called on to write the text of this legislation. 

Nationally, we have already seen pregnant people die preventable deaths while waiting for essential care for early pregnancy complications because lawmakers stirred confusion and meddled in healthcare decisions. This bill will amplify those dangers in our state, where 13.2 people out of 100,000 die in pregnancy, childbirth, or 42 days after termination of a pregnancy. A study by researchers at the University of Washington and Massachusetts General Hospital showed that these trends, across race, have been worsening in Wisconsin since 2010. 

Black birthing people in Wisconsin account for a disproportionate amount of the disparities in maternal mortality. Adding these racial and systemic inequities to a bill that will delay care for folks across the board, it’s nearly guaranteed that certain groups will have a greater share of these poor outcomes.

As a family medicine and obstetrics physician, I care for folks across the entire spectrum of pregnancy — including miscarriage and abortion. I want to emphasize the similarities in those two scenarios and how they significantly overlap. 

The procedure performed for abortion is identical to the procedure performed for a miscarriage. When a person has a miscarriage or an abortion in the first trimester, generally, a procedure called a “manual vacuum aspiration” or “MVA” can be performed to remove the pregnancy contents. For miscarriages or abortions that occur later in pregnancy, the procedure involves dilating the cervix and removing the pregnancy via a procedure called a dilation and curettage (D&C) or dilation and evacuation (D&E), based on gestational age. 

Additionally, when managing a miscarriage with medications, physicians use mifepristone and misoprostol — medications that lawmakers and anti-abortion activists are actively seeking to restrict because they’re used identically in first-trimester abortions. 

That is the underlying, root issue here: amplifying and reinforcing stigma and criminalization around abortion. 

Carving out the definition of abortion doesn’t actually create medical clarity for providers; instead, it creates a stigmatizing health care space where patients have to disclose and justify why they need certain essential health care. People deserve care and compassion, not judgment or punishment. 

Whether due to miscarriage, abortion, or self-managed abortion, pregnancy loss is not a crime. People should not fear jail time for getting the health care they need. SB 553 aims to differentiate abortion based on intent — a dystopian concept where politicians are in the private space of a doctor’s office. Wisconsinites currently have an opportunity to combat this stigma and call out politicians who are actively harming patients and the patient/provider relationship. 

In my practice already I have seen patients who are hesitant to disclose their pregnancy history for fear that sharing a history of needing abortion care could get them in trouble. Imagine how that influences future decisions to engage with health care providers around miscarriage, abortion and pregnancy complications. 

Wisconsin already heavily regulates how medications for miscarriage are prescribed, including a mandatory in-person dispensing requirement. Those of us who offer this care should not need to feel we must pit our medical expertise against legal jargon when it comes to providing normal, essential care. We need people to be able to trust their health care providers, and we need politicians to stop making laws that pigeonhole physicians into even narrower definitions of care. 

Now that this dangerous bill has been passed in the Senate, it will next head to the Assembly before ultimately landing on Gov. Tony Evers’ desk. In his seven years in office Evers has consistently vetoed anti-abortion legislation, and he has vowed to veto any bill that would limit access to abortion, including SB 553. 

As a physician, it’s devastating to rely on a single individual to preserve my ability to practice safe and necessary health care for countless people and families across the state without political interference. 

There is no other type of health care that is regulated in the unique, stigmatizing, harmful way that abortion care is. Our state politicians need to understand that health care decisions should remain between a patient and their trusted provider. SB 553 ignores that and should not become law.