Who: All pro-life Wisconsin citizens! Sponsored by Pro-Life Wisconsin,Wisconsin Family Action, Wisconsin Right to Life
What: (PLEASE NOTE TIME CHANGE!) 12 noon – 1:00 p.m. - Rally outside at King Street Entrance to State Capitol. Pro-life leaders and authors of AB 305/SB 260, AB 310/SB 237, and AB 311/SB 238, as available, will speak.
1:00 p.m.- 2:00 p.m. - Visit legislative offices urging legislators to put the bills on the floor.
When: Tuesday, Jan. 12, 2016, 12 noon – 2 p.m. (TIME CHANGE)
Where: King Street Entrance to the State Capitol, Madison, WI
Why: There are three strong pro-life bills in our state legislature that need to pass before this legislative session ends.
Assembly Bill 305/Senate Bill 260 bans the sale and use of the body parts of aborted babies in Wisconsin.
Assembly Bill 310/Senate Bill 237 redirects money from the Title X grant program away from Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin.
Assembly Bill 311/Senate Bill 238 prohibits family planning organizations, including Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, from overbilling the state for drugs it purchases and dispenses through a Medicaid program.
Media Contacts:
Matt Sande – Pro-Life Wisconsin – msande@prolifewisconsin.org – 262-352-0890
Julaine Appling – Wisconsin Family Action – jkappling@wifamilyaction.org –608-334-6435
Heather Weininger – Wisconsin Right to Life – hweininger@wrtl.org – 414-778-5780
Wisconsin pro-life state legislator have introduced a pro-life bill to ban abortions after 20 weeks based on the scientific research showing unborn babies feel substantial pain in abortions. Governor Scott Walker, who will be seeking the Republican nomination for president, has pledged to sign it into law.continue at LifeNews
“I believe we have a duty and a moral obligation to protect these children from the horrific procedures used to snuff out their lives. The barbaric and painful mutilation of little children is something that no humane and compassionate society should tolerate,” Rep. Jesse Kremer, R-Kewaskum, said in a statement about his bill.
He added: “Simply put, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act will preserve and protect Wisconsin’s innocent, unborn babies who can feel pain. The call to preserve precious, human life transcends party lines. Thus, I hope to see bi-partisan support for this vital measure to protect Wisconsin’s unborn from needless pain and suffering.”
MADISON - State Republican legislators on Thursday circulated legislation for co-sponsorship that prohibits abortion at or beyond 20 weeks based on the preborn child’s capacity to feel pain at that gestational age. The Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (LRB 0401/1) includes an exception to the prohibition for a “medical emergency,” as broadly defined in Wisconsin Statutes.continue at Pro-Life Wisconsin
“Pro-Life Wisconsin supports banning abortion based on the preborn child’s ability to feel pain, but it is utter hypocrisy for proponents of the bill to decry the horror of dismembering a child through a dilation and evacuation abortion and then carve out an exception for babies whose mother’s lives may be endangered, as if those babies somehow don’t feel pain,” said Matt Sande, Pro-Life Wisconsin Legislative Director. “We urge legislators to refrain from co-sponsoring this bill until the medical emergency exception is fully removed.”
There are no situations where abortion, defined as the direct and intentional killing of an unborn child, is medically necessary to save the life of the mother. Over 900 pro-life doctors and medical researchers have signed the Dublin Declaration, a document stating that abortion is never medically necessary to save a mother's life. Even abortionists agree that abortion is not necessary to save a woman's life. Former abortionist Dr. Bernard Nathanson, who himself performed over 30,000 abortions, said “if women with heart and liver transplants can be carried successfully through pregnancy, we can no longer conceive of any medical condition which would legitimize abortion. In short, we have slowly evolved to an unshakable posture of no exceptions…[W]orkable, morally acceptable legislation proscribing abortion can have no exceptions written into it – not even medical ones.” (Bernadell Technical Bulletin, April 1991)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Keynote speaker Michelle Malkin spoke passionately about the pro-life issue, saying, "This is a life or death matter. If we can't get this right, we can't get anything right." Thanks Marquette Students for Life for the picture!via WRTL
WRTLThe enactment of Sonya's Law is a great victory for women and babies. Kudos to Gov. Scott Walker for signing it!.
Sonya's Law requires women be given the opportunity to see their unborn children through ultrasound 24 hours prior to an abortion and requiring abortionists to have hospital admitting privileges. Sonya's Law was Wisconsin Right to Life's top legislative priority for this legislative session.
As expected, the law has been challenged by opponents of the new law. Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, Affliliated Medical Services and Wisconsin ACLU are challenging the law in federal court.
A court hearing will be held on July 17. We'll keep you posted!
Today, Governor Scott Walker signed Senate Bill 206 (Sonya’s Law) into law. This important new law requires that women seeking abortions in Wisconsin be given the opportunity to see their unborn children through ultrasound.continue at LifeSite
Just hours before Walker signed the law, the Planned Parenthood abortion business announced it would file a lawsuit seeking to stop women from seeing these ultrasounds.
“We thank Governor Walker for signing this important piece of legislation into law,” said Wisconsin Right to Life legislative director Armacost. “Sonya’s Law will empower women to make truly informed decisions regarding how they will proceed with their pregnancies and will protect the lives of women who experience complications after their abortions.”
“The announcement of an impending lawsuit is no surprise to anyone,” said Susan Armacost, Legislative Director of Wisconsin Right to Life. “It appears that the court challenge will focus on the hospital admitting privileges requirement. Apparently, Wisconsin’s abortion clinics don’t believe their abortionists need to have hospital privileges at a hospital located within 30 miles of their clinic….or anywhere at all. Currently, when a woman experiences hemorrhaging or other life-threatening complications after an abortion in Wisconsin, the clinic puts her in an ambulance and sends her to a hospital ALONE where she is left to her own devices to explain her medical issues to the emergency room staff. The abortionist who performed the abortion is nowhere to be seen. This deplorable situation must change.”
Wisconsin Right to Life today is hailing State Assembly passage of three major pieces of legislation that will empower women who enter Wisconsin's abortion clinics and will protect babies and taxpayers.
Senate Bill 206 (Sonya's Law) Under the leadership of Representative Pat Strachota (R-West Bend), SB 206 received Assembly approval. Sonya's Law would give every baby the opportunity for his mother to see him through ultrasound and experience his heartbeat before she makes a decision about her pregnancy. In addition, this legislation will require that an abortionist have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the abortion clinic.
The legislation was named after a young Milwaukee mother of two children who became pregnant with her third child. Sonya considered having an abortion. After seeing an advertisement for a free ultrasound, Sonya was able to see her baby and immediately made an emotional connection with him. Sonya's son will be born in July.
Sonya's Law now heads to the desk of Governor Scott Walker, who plans to sign the legislation into law.
AB 216 (The Health Care Conscience Act) Under the leadership of Assembly author Representative Andre Jacque (R-Green Bay, the Assembly passed AB 216. This important legislation prohibits the use of public funds to pay for abortion coverage for public employees and exempts certain religious organizations, religious employers and religious institutions of higher learning from the current state mandate to provide insurance coverage for abortion-inducing drugs. Assembly Bill 216 now goes to the State Senate for approval at a later date.This is a BIG one for religious freedom. I'm sure we'll see WCC announce their approval? The WCC did press releases for the other two bills mentioned here, but a rather noticeable silence on AB 216.
AB 217 (The Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act) Led by Assembly author Steve Kestell (R-Elkhart Lake), AB 217 received Assembly approval. The legislation reads, "No person shall intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion with knowledge that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion on account of the sex of the unborn child." Sex- selection abortion is used to prevent the birth of a child solely based on the gender of the unborn child. The victims of these abortions are overwhelmingly female who face the ultimate form of discrimination – they cannot be allowed to live simply because they are girls. The United States is the only industrialized country that has not banned abortions based solely on the sex of a child. Assembly Bill 217 will be voted on by the State Senate at a later date.
"Wisconsin Right to Life is deeply appreciative to Representatives Pat Strachota, Andre Jacque and Steve Kestell for their outstanding leadership on these important bills," said Susan Armacost, Legislative Director of Wisconsin Right to Life. "We also thank those Assembly Representatives who understood the importance of these bills and voted for their passage. The big winners yesterday were Wisconsin's women, babies and taxpayers."
Contact: Susan Armacost, Legislative Director
414-778-5780 toll free: 877-855-5007
sarmacost@wrtl.org
 |
| "Sonya" |
The Wisconsin state senate approved a bill this morning that would allow women considering an abortion a chance to see an ultrasound of their baby beforehand. In other states with similar laws on the books, abortions have declined as women choose life for their baby.continue at LifeNews
After the vote, Wisconsin Right to Life hailed passage of Senate Bill 206 (Sonya’s Law) in the State Senate.
“Wisconsin Right to Life is deeply appreciative to Senator Mary Lazich for her tremendous leadership on this issue and to the members of the State Senate who voted for this important legislation,” said Susan Armacost, Legislative Director for Wisconsin Right to Life.
Will Sonya’s Law force women to have a specific type of ultrasound?Or maybe I'm not understanding what the "options" are.
No. It is up to the woman to choose the type of ultrasound she prefers, after all options are explained to her. The actual language in the law states:
“…perform an obstetric ultrasound on the pregnant woman, using whichever transducer the woman chooses after the options have been explained to her.”
continue at Wisconsin Christian NewsPersonhood is Planned Parenthood’s worst nightmare. It would mean an end to one of its biggest money-makers, abortion, and it would present a serious challenge to the culture of death they promote. Personhood would enshrine the dignity of human life -- every human life -- into our state constitution. It would legally protect the unborn from the moment of conception against any violent attack, surgical, chemical, or experimental.
So the question arises, why has Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin been almost completely silent about the Wisconsin Personhood Amendment? Why haven’t they come out fighting violently against it?
The answer is simple: They don’t have to because one of Wisconsin’s biggest pro-life groups is doing the dirty work for them. Regrettably, I speak of Wisconsin Right to Life. Wisconsin Right to Life has attacked personhood at every opportunity, using vilifying rhetoric on a regular basis.
According to Wisconsin Right to Life, personhood is dangerous, risky, and actually threatens the pro-life cause. (Perhaps their most deplorable argument against personhood is that it is too expensive. Since when has cost ever been a factor in doing what is right?) These statements are patently absurd. We have explained over and over why WRL’s accusations are legally baseless (and the state legislature’s top non-partisan legal advisors agree), yet they continue to attack the cause of personhood with the very same arguments. Do they really think pro-life champions Senator Glenn Grothman and Representative Andre Jacque -- co-authors of the Wisconsin Personhood Amendment -- would introduce legislation that would harm unborn children?
If you analyze Wisconsin Right to Life’s criticisms of personhood, they boil down to one thing -- fear. WRL is afraid like the armies of Israel before the giant Goliath. They are afraid of the implications of personhood, they are afraid of the financial cost, they are afraid of losing donors, of facing backlash, and they are afraid of countless other hypothetical scenarios which may or may not happen. So they choose the safer, less controversial route of regulating abortion.
Republican U.S. Senate candidate Tommy Thompson said Monday he supported a woman's right to abortion in cases of rape.JS
Thompson made his statement in response to comments from U.S. Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) on rape and abortion.
Akin, who is running for U.S. Senate in Missouri, told a local television there that in cases of "legitimate" rape, women's bodies have some way to prevent pregnancies and lessen the need for abortion.
Akin has not explained what he meant by that remark, apologizing later for "misspeaking." But doctors have reacted by unequivocally stating that Akin is wrong and that rape is as likely to lead to pregnancy as consensual sex.
And get this, did you know that one of the leaders of Planned Parenthood agreed with the body shut down during rape theory? I didn't get the name, but Rush was interviewing someone from Feminists for Life. I don't usually listen but I caught it in the car on my lunch break. She gave the name of a Planned Parenthood leader who supported the same theory.The argument was most recently – and perhaps most fully – articulated by National Right to Life president John Wilke in a 1999 essay titled “Rape Pregnancies Are Rare.” Wilke made a pretty similar case to Akin: That the “physical trauma” of rape has a way of preventing pregnancy.“To get and stay pregnant a woman’s body must produce a very sophisticated mix of hormones,” Wilke wrote. “There’s no greater emotional trauma that can be experienced by a woman than an assault rape. This can radically upset her possibility of ovulation, fertilization, implantation and even nurturing of a pregnancy.”
Today presidential candidate Rick Santorum endorsed the Wisconsin Personhood Amendment, legislation that would amend the Wisconsin Constitution to apply personhood rights to preborn children at all stages of development. Introduced by Representative Andre Jacque (R-Bellevue) last October, Assembly Joint Resolution (AJR) 77 seeks to extend the inalienable right to life found in the Wisconsin Constitution to all preborn children from the beginning of their lives.continue at Pro-Life Wisconsin
“I support the efforts of Wisconsin to protect the unborn through a state Constitutional Amendment,” said Santorum. “As our founders declared, our Creator endowed us with inalienable rights - of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Protecting the unborn is the starting point for preserving the American dream and opportunity for all."
Anyway, I want to talk about something else on this sad anniversary: not the pro-abortion rights brigade, but we abortion Abolitionists, we politically-minded pro-lifers. The other side has often accused us of being sheep, willing to support anyone who talks a good talk about abortion, regardless of whether they actually do anything to protect innocent life under the law. I’ve started to wonder whether there may be some truth to the charge.
The NRLC website is a mess. If there were internet laws, it would be sent to the design gulag.
The NRLC, the much healthier AUL, and the Catholic dioceses of Jackson and Biloxi all declined to support Personhood this past fall
Following up on Personhood, some of the reasons given for opposing it (by state orgs, as the national arms remain silent) appear to this non-lawyer to be abject nonsense.It's a little long but this article is essential reading for anyone serious about the pro-life movement.
IsthmusPolls consistently show that the percentage of Americans opposed to abortion in all circumstances hovers around 20%. Similarly, about a fifth of the population believes abortion should always be legal. The group that really matters, however, is the 50% to 60% who believe abortion should be legal sometimes.
Power to unborn people! Wisconsin Personhood!
"Sometimes" means different things to different people. Some in the "sometimes" crowd believe abortion should be legal only in the early stages of pregnancy. Others believe it should be legal only in cases of rape, incest or if the mother's health is in danger.
No matter what the definition, "sometimes" is what will keep abortion legal in the U.S. It's what kept Mississippians — perhaps the most religious and socially conservative people in the nation — from embracing a recent law that would have banned all abortion and possibly some forms of birth control, such as the morning after pill. For better or worse, even Bible Belters prefer a society in which they can control the consequences of unprotected sex.
"Sometimes" is what keeps Wisconsin Right to Life, the largest anti-abortion group in the state, from supporting a Mississippi-style "personhood" amendment to the state constitution. In fact, according to the organization's website, preventing the drafting of such a law is one of the group's top priorities. It lists a variety of legally dubious excuses for the counterintuitive stance, including that such an amendment would invalidate the 19th-century statute — currently moot because of Roe v. Wade — that would make abortion illegal in Wisconsin if the Supreme Court ever overturned Roe.
Wisconsin Right to Life's position may seem hypocritical, but it is not surprising given the group's self-description as "Wisconsin's most effective pro-life organization." The slogan is meant to contrast it with its more principled (read: less effective) relative, Pro-Life Wisconsin, a Christian anti-abortion group. In addition to opposing virtually all forms of birth control and abortion in all circumstances, Pro-Life Wisconsin strongly supports a personhood amendment and dismisses as nonsense claims that the law would put other pro-life statutes in jeopardy.
While Wisconsin Right to Life's legal defense may be nonsense, its political intuition is probably correct. If you oppose abortion, the last thing you want to do is put such a policy to a vote. If Mississippians aren't ready to define "life at fertilization," Wisconsinites sure as hell aren't. [I would argue that passing a Marriage Amendment 60-40% is a pretty good sign. In fact, I would say the popular vote itself would be easier, although convincing country club GOPs to push is through with WRTL opposition is proving to be more difficult. And yet to be seen is if the bishops will passively oppose it like they did in Mississippi; note that some Catholic bishops are among some of Personhood's largest opponents. ]
Of course, some true believers are going to try anyway. Here, state Rep. Andre Jacque, a freshman legislator (of course) from Green Bay, slightly altered the language of the Mississippi initiative and has tried to interest colleagues. He gained six co-sponsors, which amounts to a tenth of the Assembly GOP caucus. Besides naiveté, I can't imagine what motivated any of his colleagues to sign, except perhaps gambling debts.
The Wisconsin Legislative Council (WLC), a non-partisan service agency that provides legal services to the Wisconsin Legislature, drafted a memo for State Representative Andre Jacque addressing the implications of the Wisconsin Personhood Amendment (Assembly Joint Resolution [AJR] 77) on Wisconsin’s pre-Roe v. Wade criminal abortion ban (Wis. Stats. 940.04). Representative Jacque, author of the personhood amendment, released the WLC memo to his fellow legislators this morning along with his own memo summarizing their conclusions.Photo
Wisconsin Right to Life’s central argument against introduction and passage of a personhood constitutional amendment is that it would overturn by “implied repeal” Wisconsin’s pre-Roe criminal abortion statute. The WLC concludes the opposite.
Citing United States and Wisconsin Supreme Court case law, the WLC memo states that it is unlikely that 940.04 would be vacated in its entirety by implied repeal. If anything were to be impliedly repealed (and that’s a big if), it would be only those sections of 940.04 that may conflict with the equality provision in the amendment – for example, the life-of-the-mother exception and the differing penalties for killing a quick versus non-quick child. And removing these inequitable sections would only strengthen 940.04!
Rep. Jacque states in his memo that, “I therefore agree with the WLC when it states in its memo that ‘the statute appears to complement rather than conflict with the proposed constitutional amendment, insofar as the amendment expands the inherent right to life recognized in the Wisconsin Constitution to unborn persons and the statute provides a basis for criminal liability for harm to such persons.’”
Given the WLC’s conclusion, Pro-Life Wisconsin hopes that Wisconsin Right to Life will promptly remove its opposition to the Wisconsin Personhood Amendment. It is clear that AJR 77 would not harm Wisconsin Statutes 940.04 by “implied repeal” or otherwise. Accordingly, concerns over 940.04 should not stand in the way of supporting PLW’s personhood amendment.
Please click here to view AJR 77, and please go to PersonhoodWisconsin.com for more information on the Wisconsin Personhood Amendment campaign.
Equal rights for unborn proposed
By Annysa JohnsonA freshman lawmaker is proposing to change Wisconsin's Constitution to grant equal rights to the unborn as part of a national push to reframe the abortion debate, a strategy that has failed in at least two states and has divided abortion opponents in Wisconsin and elsewhere.State Rep. Andre Jacque (R-Bellevue) introduced the so-called personhood amendment in November. He says it's needed to protect the state's decades-old abortion ban still on the books - one of just a few around the country - in the event of legal challenges if Roe v. Wade, the landmark decision nullifying such statutes, is overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.The measure is supported so far by a handful of Republican lawmakers and the Catholic-based anti-abortion group Pro-Life Wisconsin, which helped to draft it.But critics are lining up in opposition, including physicians, social workers and Pro-Life Wisconsin's larger ally in the anti-abortion movement, Wisconsin Right to Life.Critics say such bills would have wide-ranging legal and societal repercussions;outlawing certain types of birth control; in vitro fertilization; embryonic stem cell research and abortion in all cases, including when the mother's life is in danger, an exception that exists in the current statute.Jacque, who is Catholic and was endorsed by both anti-abortion groups, said he introduced the measure in part because of his religious beliefs. But the state's Catholic bishops are not rushing to back him up.Bishops around the country have rejected or stood neutral on similar measures, and John Huebscher of the Wisconsin Catholic Conference said it has not yet made a decision on whether it will weigh in.Said Huebscher: "We're still assessing the bill and the arguments."
Pro-Life WisconsinRep. Craig has responded to Wisconsin Right to Life with a legislative memo of his own on why a life-of-the-mother exception in a partial-birth abortion ban is morally unacceptable, medically dangerous and legally unnecessary. Read Rep. Craig’s memo in its entirety here [PDF]. Read Pro-Life Wisconsin’s position on why abortion cannot be permitted in cases of rape, incest or life of the mother here.
Excerpt from Rep. Craig’s memo:
Legal opinions predictably vary on the legal need for a “life of the mother” exception in this bill; however, it is clear that the pro-life and medical communities understand that this 2-3 day procedure is never medically necessary to save the life of the mother. In my communications with attorneys, I found that including the life of the mother exception is, at best, unneeded and omitting it is, at worst, uncharted legal territory. The U.S. Supreme Court did not address whether a “life of the mother exception” was constitutionally necessary in Gonzales v. Carhart. Speaking to the omission of a health of the mother exception in the federal ban, Justice Kennedy stated:
The conclusion that the Act does not impose an undue burden is supported by other considerations. Alternatives are available to the prohibited procedure. As we have noted, the Act does not proscribe D & E. One District Court found D & E to have extremely low rates of medical complications. Planned Parenthood, supra, at 1000, 112 S.Ct. 2791. Another indicated D & E was “generally the safest method of abortion during the second trimester.” Carhart, 331 F.Supp.2d, at 1031; see also Nat. Abortion Federation, supra, at 467-468 (explaining that “[e]xperts testifying for both sides” agreed D & E was safe). In addition the Act’s prohibition only applies to the delivery of “a living fetus.” 18 U.S.C. § 1531(b)(1)(A) (2000 ed., Supp. IV). If the intact D & E procedure is truly necessary in some circumstances, it appears likely an injection that kills the fetus is an alternative under the Act that allows the doctor to perform the procedure. 2
As expected, Wisconsin Right to Life has been vindicated in John Doe proceedings initiated by a complaint to the District Attorney's Office related to recall elections.In further news, WRTL issues a memo bullying pro-life legislators into submitting to their ideology.
"We knew we had done nothing illegal, nor did we ever intend to do anything illegal," stated Barbara Lyons, Executive Director of Wisconsin Right to Life. "Wisconsin Right to Life is and always has been a revered organization that works within the law to correct a grave injustice in the law."
"Our concern going forward is future unfounded complaints against Wisconsin Right to Life or other citizen groups. If the prosecutor had decided in favor of the complainants, ordinary campaigning, such as paying a television station to run ads, would have been outlawed. Wisconsin Right to Life is relieved that complainants’ extreme interpretation of the law has been rejected," continued Lyons.
TO: State LegislatorsNational Right to Life also pushes for subversive exceptions in good pro-life legislation. If you want more information on why these are unnecessary check out this link. Or if you want to know why partial birth abortions are still performed here in Wisconsin, you can thank Wisconsin Right to Life.
FROM: Susan Armacost, Legislative Director Wisconsin Right to Life
RE: LRB-3150/1, as currently worded, has constitutional problems
Rep. David Craig is circulating LRB-3150/1, a bill to ban partial-birth abortions, for co-sponsors. This proposal has serious constitutional problems because it does not have a life of the mother exception.
Wisconsin Right to Life refers you to 2007-2008 AB 710, passed by the Assembly by a 59-38 vote, which contains the virtually exact wording of the federal partial-birth abortion ban including a life of the mother exception. The federal law was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2007. Wisconsin Right to Life and its attorney have communicated this problem to Rep. Craig.
Should you decide to co-sponsor Rep. Craig’s measure, please know that it must be amended to add a life of the mother exception to meet constitutional standards.
Pro-Life WisconsinThe below article on Wisconsin's Personhood Amendment was on the front page of the Wisconsin State Journal on Wednesday, November 23. Among other news coverage including TV and radio, LifeSiteNews has covered personhood, as has UW-Madison's Badger Herald.
Anti-abortion lawmakers propose constitutional amendment to extend personhood to embryos
Many Wisconsin abortion foes are cheering the introduction of legislation that would amend the state constitution to extend personhood to the moment an egg is fertilized, although the state's two largest anti-abortion groups are at odds over the approach.
The legislation is patterned after a similar measure that Mississippi voters rejected earlier this month.
Critics say such measures would outlaw all abortions, including in cases of rape and incest, and ban all forms of hormonal contraception, including birth control pills and intrauterine devices (IUDs).
Wisconsin's "personhood" amendment, introduced last week by Rep. Andre Jacque, R-Bellevue, would define the terms "people" and "person" in the constitution to include "every human being at any stage of development."
Also, the phrase "all people are born equally free and independent" would be changed to "all people are equally free and independent." This would eliminate the need to be "born" to have certain inherent rights, such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Matt Sande, lobbyist for Pro-Life Wisconsin, which backs the legislation and is working closely with Jacque, said the amendment "undoubtedly" would outlaw all forms of surgical and chemical abortion. On other issues, "we don't know exactly what it would mean, but our intent is to protect the preborn child at any stage of development from any violent attack, whether chemical, surgical or experimental," he said.
Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin has concluded the proposed language would ban hormonal contraception, said Nicole Safar, public policy director. "This is way out of touch with Wisconsin values," she said.
Rep. Chris Taylor[and Planned Parenthood lobbyist], D-Madison, said the legislation is a continuation of the Republican Party's "extreme social agenda," adding it's also "anti-business and anti-jobs" because of its potential impact on Wisconsin's bio-medical and embryonic stem cell research sectors.
"This kind of punitive resolution causes researchers to go elsewhere," she said.
But Rep. Jeremy Thiesfeldt, R-Fond du Lac, one of six Assembly co-sponsors, said he and his colleagues are fulfilling "one of the basic roles of government, which is to protect those who can't protect themselves."
In a twist, Wisconsin Right to Life, the largest anti-abortion group in the state, has come out forcefully against the personhood amendment strategy, calling it "just plain wrong for Wisconsin."
Click here to read more.
Many Wisconsin abortion foes are cheering the introduction of legislation that would amend the state constitution to extend personhood to the moment an egg is fertilized, although the state's two largest anti-abortion groups are at odds over the approach.The legislation is patterned after a similar measure that Mississippi voters rejected earlier this month.Critics say such measures would outlaw all abortions, including in cases of rape and incest, and ban all forms of hormonal contraception, including birth control pills and intrauterine devices (IUDs).Wisconsin's "personhood" amendment, introduced last week by Rep. Andre Jacque, R-Bellevue, would define the terms "people" and "person" in the constitution to include "every human being at any stage of development."Matt Sande, lobbyist for Pro-Life Wisconsin, which backs the legislation and is working closely with Jacque, said the amendment "undoubtedly" would outlaw all forms of surgical and chemical abortion. On other issues, "we don't know exactly what it would mean, but our intent is to protect the preborn child at any stage of development from any violent attack, whether chemical, surgical or experimental," he said.Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin has concluded the proposed language would ban hormonal contraception, said Nicole Safar, public policy director. "This is way out of touch with Wisconsin values," she said.In a twist, Wisconsin Right to Life, the largest anti-abortion group in the state, has come out forcefully against the personhood amendment strategy, calling it "just plain wrong for Wisconsin."
It will be interesting to see if WRTL ever brings up the whole might infringe on contraceptive rights argument. The whole hypothetical argument that we end up worse off than we are today that has no legal precedent isn't convincing anybody on either side in this state so far. National Right to Life has a vested interest. If things get "bad" I would expect them to start sending more people in to scare people away from voting for it. This state passed the marriage amendment 60-40... the hardest part of the battle is likely getting it on the ballot with pro-abort Republicans eager to be "sensible."TO: State lawmakers
FROM: Susan Armacost, Legislative Director
RE: Please do not co-sponsor or support personhood bill (LRB 2859/1)
Wisconsin Right to Life has been forthright in our opposition to legislation to declare unborn children persons under the State Constitution. We appreciate the fact the author and the organizations that support his legislation want to protect the lives of unborn children. However, the personhood proposal is not only unnecessary, it would also put efforts to protect Wisconsin unborn children at extreme risk.
In a few weeks, we will be presenting you with an extensive legal white paper pointing out the pitfalls of the personhood legislation. The white paper will be signed by numerous constitutional legal experts on the state and national levels.
In the meantime, we would like to make the following points:
A prominent Wisconsin attorney who works with Wisconsin Right to Life was quoted out of context by supporters of the personhood bill, giving the impression that this attorney does not support Wisconsin Right to Life's position on personhood. This is inaccurate.
The impression was given by supporters of the personhood bill that a different constitutional expert who works with Wisconsin Right to Life has changed his mind on the personhood issue. This is also inaccurate.
Wisconsin Right to Life and its multiple legal advisors disagree with the legal analyses circulated to date by supporters of the personhood bill. The Wisconsin Right to Life legal white paper that will be sent to you will be signed by numerous legal experts and will outline the legal concerns with the personhood legislation.
We continue to ask legislators not to co-sponsor or support this legislation.
Thank you.
