The Wisconsin Assembly passed a bill to protect against lawsuits intended to discourage news coverage and quiet speech, as well as measures requiring schools to adopt policies on appropriate communications between staff and students and establishing a definition of antisemitism during a Tuesday floor session.

Assembly lawmakers plan to meet again on Wednesday and Thursday to vote on legislation with the intention of wrapping their work up this legislative session by the end of the week. Lawmakers did not complete votes on every bill they had scheduled before recessing for the State of the State address in the evening. 

Anti-SLAPP legislation passes

AB 701, to protect people from Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP), passed on a voice vote. It now goes to the Senate for consideration. 

Rep. Jim Piwowarczyk (R-Hubertus), who is the co-founder of the right-wing publication Wisconsin Right Now, said the bill would strengthen protections for free speech and civic participation and ensure that citizens aren’t silenced through “abusive litigation.” 

“The bill creates a clear, efficient process for courts to quickly dismiss lawsuits that target protected speech or participation in government proceedings. It requires a prompt hearing and stays constant discovery while the motion is pending. It also allows prevailing parties to recover attorney fees,” Piwowarczyk said. “These protections help prevent the chilling effect prolonged and expensive litigation can have on free expression.”

The bill is based on model legislation developed by the nonprofit Uniform Law Commission. 

“It’s a legal tactic … designed to punish someone through stressful, time consuming and expensive litigation,” Rep. Andrew Hysell (D-Sun Prairie) said about SLAPP legislation on the floor, adding that these types of lawsuits target people “simply because they choose to exercise their First Amendment rights to speak.” 

“It’s overdue that an anti-SLAPP statute be added to Wisconsin laws. We need to protect our citizens’ First Amendment rights and protect those rights from legal retribution,” Hysell said. 

School communication policies

Lawmakers concurred in SB 673 in a 92-7 vote. It would require public school districts and private schools to adopt policies related to appropriate communications between staff and students. The bill will now go to Gov. Tony Evers for consideration. 

Schools would need to adopt new policies by Sept. 1, 2026 under the bill. 

The bill is one of several that lawmakers introduced in reaction to a November report from the CapTimes that found over 200 investigations into teacher licenses due to allegations of sexual misconduct or grooming from 2018 to 2023.

Rep. Amanda Nedweski (R-Pleasant Prairie) said the bill would protect staff and students. The bill includes requirements that the policies include standards for appropriate content and appropriate methods of communication as well as training in identifying, preventing and reporting grooming and professional boundary violations.

The bill, Nedweski said, will protect students from “potentially predatory behavior with clear proactive protections, while also protecting well-intentioned employees who work every day with integrity and professionalism — protecting them from finding themselves in compromising situations where a misunderstanding or a false allegation could cause serious reputational harm.” 

The bill also requires that policies include consequences for employees or volunteers who violate the rules.

Private schools were included through an amendment to the bill. 

“As a parent of two public school kids, we should be doing whatever we can to make sure that our kids are safe in schools,” Rep. Mike Bare (D-Verona). said. “One of the most troubling things we heard in the series of legislative hearings on this topic is that kids who were in private schools are less safe than those who are in public schools. That’s because educators in private schools are not required to be licensed.” 

Antisemitism definition

AB 446 passed 66-33 with 11 Democrats joining Republicans in favor. The controversial bill would codify the definition for antisemitism adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance in 2016. It states that antisemitism is “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

The bill would require local and state governmental agencies to consider the IHRA definition and its examples when investigating allegations of racial, religious or ethnic discrimination.

Rep. Supreme Moore Omokunde (D-Milwaukee) said he was concerned that the bill would infringe on people’s First Amendment rights. 

“Many Jewish and Muslim work groups have come together to use this definition to establish a framework to help understand what antisemitism is,” Moore Omokunde said. But, he added, the intention was not for the definition to be codified into law.

Moore Omokunde said he is worried that the bill could be used to punish people for speaking out against  the actions of the Israeli government.

Rep. Lisa Subeck (D-Madison), who is Jewish, said she was frustrated with the opposition to the bill. 

“Antisemitism is real. We hear again and again, particularly since October 7th, that when acts of antisemitism occur, they’re not really antisemitic,” Subeck said. “I don’t spend a lot of time when somebody tells me about an act of homophobia, I don’t debate whether it was really homophobic. When somebody who has been a victim of bias, discrimination and worse, tells me what happens to them, I believe it.”

Subeck said the bill is the Legislature’s opportunity to take a “firm stand” against antisemitism.

The bill is now in the Senate.

The Assembly also passed a bill that would prohibit people from serving as a state Supreme Court justice or as a judge of a court of record after the age of 75; AB 640 passed on a 54-45 vote along party lines. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Rep. Lisa Subeck (D-Madison) is proposing that Wisconsin require crisis pregnancy centers to get express written permission before releasing a person’s private health information. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

Rep. Lisa Subeck (D-Madison) is proposing that Wisconsin require crisis pregnancy centers to get express written permission before releasing a person’s private health information. Those who have given permission would also be able to withdraw their permission at any time under the bill. 

“Many people assume that when they seek care for pregnancy or other reproductive health services that that information is protected, just like any other medical records under HIPAA, and while that is true at your doctor’s office or at the hospital, it’s not always true when you visit other providers,” Subeck said at a press conference Thursday.

Concerns about information being gathered about women’s reproductive health, including by crisis pregnancy centers, have surged in the years since Roe v. Wade was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, especially in states where abortion has been criminalized. 

A 2022 TIME Magazine report found that crisis pregnancy centers have been collecting information including sexual and reproductive histories, test results, ultrasound photos, and information shared during consultations, parenting classes, or counseling sessions, from women they interact with through telephone and online chats. They are not required to follow federal health data privacy laws. The report led to U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren requesting an examination of the practices by crisis pregnancy centers.

The bill, coauthored by Sen. LaTonya Johnson (D-Milwaukee), would also require centers to disclose in “plain language” that they are not a HIPAA-covered entity for the purpose of federal privacy regulations as well as disclosing any data breach that exposes individual digital health information.

Subeck said the centers can “look and feel an awful lot like a traditional medical clinic,” noting that they might offer ultrasounds, pregnancy tests and claim to have counselors on staff. However, she said “many of these centers are not licensed medical providers, and therefore they are not covered by HIPAA privacy protections.”

Subeck said that changes in reproductive health laws have raised concerns about the misuse of health related information and data. She said the bill would not close unregulated pregnancy centers, limit the services they can provide or limit speech. Rather, she said, it “simply sets some basic privacy expectations and protections for unsuspecting individuals.”

Subeck noted that lawmakers in other states, including Pennsylvania, have introduced similar measures, though none have become law.

Subeck said the violations of the provisions in the bill would be treated as “unfair and deceptive practices” under existing state law.

Laura Hanks, an OB-GYN and legislative chair for American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said at the press conference that the bill shouldn’t be political.

“It’s about privacy, honesty and safe, medically accurate care. Unregulated pregnancy centers often look like clinics, but they aren’t held to the basic medical privacy rules,” Hanks said. “This means they lack regulation, medical oversight or standard confidentiality rules. Too many people are walking in and assuming their health care information is protected when it isn’t. This bill sets commonsense guardrails.”

The headline on this report has been revised for clarity. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE