On Thursday, as the Wisconsin Supreme Court opened its new term with a solid 5‑2 liberal majority, Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin announced a fresh lawsuit challenging two state abortion restrictions. The suit was filed in Dane County Superior Court against District Attorney Ismael Ozanne, who is named as a representative of all Wisconsin prosecutors.
Legal claims focus on personal liberty
The organization contends that two statutes violate the state constitution’s guarantee of personal liberty. One law forces a 24‑hour waiting period between a person’s request for an abortion and the provision of the procedure. The other limits the provision of abortions to licensed physicians, effectively barring the use of telehealth for self‑administered medication abortions.
“This case asks our court to recognize that our constitutional freedom includes the ability to make deeply personal decisions about our reproductive health care without unnecessary government interference,” said Tanya Atkinson, president of Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, at a press briefing.
Planned Parenthood argues the rules are unnecessary barriers
Attorney Diane Welsh explained that the physician‑only requirement could expose anyone who assists a patient with medication abortions to criminal prosecution. “Anywhere in the state where an abortion would be provided, there could be criminal charges for a person who’s not a physician,” she said.
Both restrictions, Planned Parenthood argues, create illegal barriers to health‑care access. The organization maintains that the waiting period and the physician‑only rule are not medically required and serve only to limit a person’s ability to obtain timely care.
Background of Wisconsin’s abortion laws
Wisconsin’s abortion landscape has been in flux since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision overturning Roe v. Wade, returning authority over abortion regulation to the states. A 19th‑century statute that was interpreted as a total ban on abortions was struck down by the Wisconsin Supreme Court last year, allowing abortions to resume under certain restrictions.
In that ruling, the court found that the historic ban had been superseded by a series of later statutes that imposed specific limits. Advocates for abortion rights have long signaled intentions to challenge those remaining restrictions, and Thursday’s filing marks the first formal step.
Responses from opponents
Wisconsin Right to Life issued a statement calling the lawsuit an attempt to secure a “permanent constitutional shield” for abortion access. Samantha Craig, a spokesperson for the group, argued that the suit seeks to remove “the last few guardrails standing between a woman and the procedure table,” and suggested that the protections for informed consent and safety are being ignored in favor of Planned Parenthood’s interests.
Critics also point to the liberal composition of the state Supreme Court, noting that Justices Chris Taylor and Susan Crawford have prior ties to Planned Parenthood as former lobbyists or attorneys. Nonetheless, the court’s role is to interpret the state constitution, and the case will test how those personal‑liberty provisions are applied.
What’s at stake
If the lawsuit succeeds, Wisconsin could see the elimination of the mandatory waiting period and the physician‑only requirement, aligning the state’s abortion regulations with a broader view of personal liberty. Opponents fear that such changes could undermine safeguards meant to protect patients, while supporters argue that the restrictions constitute undue government intrusion into deeply personal medical decisions.
The case is expected to move through the state courts over the coming months, with the Wisconsin Supreme Court poised to issue a final ruling that could set a precedent for other states grappling with similar constitutional questions.
Original reporting: Wisconsin Watch — read the source article.
