In response to a far-reaching anti-abortion
bill passed by the Wisconsin state legislature, doctors in Wisconsin stopped
providing abortion services in May 1998 and most women were forced to cross
state lines to access legal abortion. After the first week, some doctors
and clinics were able to make private "deals" with local District attorneys,
but are nonetheless taking considerable risk. The law, designated as a
"partial birth" abortion ban, is so broadly worded that doctors risk life
imprisonment for the most common abortion procedures -- even in the first
trimester!
The Wisconsin law declares that a fetus
is a human being from the time of conception, and described abortion as
a procedure meant to "kill a child". The vague wording of the law could
be applied to most abortion procedures. There is no exception for the health
of the woman. The exception to save the woman's life requires that "there
is no other medical procedure that would suffice for that purpose". Even
if an abortion was the best medical choice to save a woman's life,
a doctor could not choose it if there was any alternative, even
a less effective one. The law is called the "1997 Wisconsin Act 219".
What is the current status of that law?
The law is being enforced in Wisconsin. When the bill was signed into law by Governor Tommy Thompson, abortion providers filed an emergency brief asking the courts to issue a temporary restraining order, which would block enforcement of the law while its constitutionality was being challenged.
The first judge to rule on a temporary restraining order allowed the law to remain in effect. U.S. District Judge John C. Shabazz wrote that fetuses would be "unnecessarily killed" if the anti-abortion law was not enforced.
After the district judge ruled, abortion providers appealed to the federal circuit court and asked for a temporary restraining order. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit also rejected a restraining order. The court ruled that the plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate that the statute would cause the kind of irreparable harm required for a restraining order.
The constitutionality of the law will be
tested in a Federal trial scheduled to begin June 10. Judge Shabazz will
preside.
How does this law ban all abortions?
The Center for Reproductive Law & Policy filed the emergency motion in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. They concluded that Wisconsin abortion providers would face life imprisonment for all common abortion procedures. Their motion argued:
"There is no mention of viability, trimester, gestation or stage of pregnancy in the Wisconsin law. Federal and state courts have consistently found that these bills do not define any specific type of procedure, nor do they discuss stage of pregnancy -- gestation, trimesters or viability. Designed to drive physicians away from providing services, these vaguely worded bills are criminal statutes with severe penalties".
Courts have blocked similar abortion bans
in other states. In regard to a similar law passed in Arkansas, the court
said "the act applies at any stage of gestation"..."it prohibits the safest
and most common abortion procedures"..."doctors will most likely stop performing
abortions".
Who can sue a doctor for performing abortions?
The woman receiving the abortion, the parent
or parents of a minor, the "father of the aborted child".
What could happen to doctors who are found guilty?
After doctors refused to perform abortions
statewide and patients were referred to Illinois clinics, several District
Attorneys began negotiating with the clinics. They promised only to prosecute
abortions performed after the first trimester. Some doctors resumed performing
first trimester abortions based on these promises due to the extreme hardship
being suffered by their patients. These "promises" from the district attorneys
leave the doctors vulnerable to prosecution in the future, particularly
if a new district attorney comes into office.
The vote in favor of this abortion ban
was bi-partisan and overwhelming. Only 17 Democrats and 4 Republicans voted
against the bill; 78 state legislators voted for it. NOW-endorsed Congressional
candidate Tammy Baldwin voted
against the bill and remains outspoken about her position.
How does this affect my state?
Every state will be affected by similar federal legislation that has been passed by Newt Gingrich's Congress. President Clinton has vetoed the bill, but a vote on overriding the President's veto is expected between now and November. The vote will be very close, perhaps one or two members will swing the vote.
Approximately 28 states have passed abortion
bans in the last three years; seven additional states could pass bans this
year. Twelve of these bans have been blocked by federal or state court
judges.
The following comments were released to the press on May 15, 1998:
"With this stealth attack on abortion rights, state legislators and Governor Tommy Thompson have sent Wisconsin back to pre-Roe days of interstate travel and back alleys", said NOW President Patricia Ireland. "When we've argued that these bans, which supposedly prohibit a specific late-term procedure, are really back door attempts to ban abortion altogether, we've been treated like Chicken Little alarmists. Well, the sky just fell on Wisconsin women!"
"Don't think for a minute that this threat
is limited to Wisconsin. If the Senate doesn't uphold Clinton's veto of
the federal abortion procedures ban, women in every state may very well
find themselves in the same position as women in Wisconsin. Tell your Senators
to uphold the President's veto of H.R.
1122, the so-called Partial Birth Abortion Ban."
1998 Likely (states likely to pass bans in 1998)