Hello, all right, welcome back everybody.
All right well good afternoon.
I'm attorney general Josh Call, I'm joined here by Michelle Vasquez with Planned Parenthood
and as you all are aware the Wisconsin State Supreme Court just heard arguments in Call
V or Manski, the case that we filed shortly after Roe v. Wade was overturned.
The challenge is the enforceability of a law that originally was enacted in Wisconsin
in 1849 that many people contended was a ban, a broadband on abortions in the state.
Now we wanted to come here to say a few words and answer any questions that you have following
argument today.
First following the overturning of Roe as I mentioned Wisconsin families faced substantial
uncertainty and women in Wisconsin faced danger to their health and even to their lives.
That's why Governor Ebers and I stood up and filed suit shortly after Roe was overturned
to clarify that this law that goes back to before the Civil War doesn't apply in cases
involving consensual abortions.
In December of 2023 a state circuit court judge ruled that the law does not apply in
consensual abortion cases and that was a win for freedom, for equality and for women's
health.
Now the district attorney who appealed that decision, D.A. or Manski joined us actually
in seeking review of this case in the state Supreme Court ultimately leading to today's
argument.
I want to thank the attorneys who have worked so hard on this case for your outstanding
work and I want to reassure the people of the state of Wisconsin that at the Department
of Justice we are going to continue fighting for your freedom including your freedom to
make your own reproductive health care decisions without government interference.
So as I mentioned Michelle Vasquez and I are here happy to answer any questions that you
have.
Well we've felt confident about our arguments throughout this process.
I said that when we initially filed the lawsuit and we remain confident we've got strong
statutory arguments both based on the black decision that was discussed today at argument
as well as our implied repeal argument but you never know what's going to happen with
a court decision until you get the ruling so we're going to await the outcome from the
court.
The state Supreme Court rules that the 19th century Wisconsin law does not actually prohibit
consensual abortion.
What does that mean for planning parents with separate law suit which is arguing that an
abortion ban under that law violates the state constitution?
Thanks for that question.
So if I'm understanding your question correctly I just want to make sure if the state Supreme
Court in call versus or Manski ultimately rules that Wisconsin statute 940-04 does in fact
apply to consensual medical abortions the Planned Parenthood Wisconsin case is still
alive right 940-04 is the statute being challenged in Planned Parenthood Wisconsin's case and
the arguments in that case really go to the constitution of the state constitution.
So today's arguments were really more constrained to a statutory construction argument whereas
the Planned Parenthood case gets to whether or not an abortion ban under 940-04 or any
other similar statute could withstand Wisconsin's constitutional protections.
If the state Supreme Court finds that the law in question does not actually prohibit
abortion that's done with a pregnant woman's consent, any Planned Parenthood's law seems
still alive.
I think it will really just depend on the timing of that decision so if the court essentially
upholds right the circuit court's decision your question is would this court still review?
Would the state Supreme Court still review Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin's law suit
and I think really it will just depend on that court's decision and the timing of when
that comes out and what they say about its sort of applicability to the pending lawsuit
under Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin versus Ermansky which is a case they did accept
this term. There's no briefing schedule or argument schedule but I anticipate that
will be coming out sometime soonish because we're in the midst of their term.
Judge, when I'm throwing the argument it's Justice Crosby made a lot of comments about
the damage done to women, children that were raped, cases, incest, et cetera.
But do those arguments merit coming into the by repeal and the legal technicalities that
are at the heart of this case are those actually relevant when you're talking about the marriage?
There are a few things I would say so first of all in any case the factual context in
which a case is being argued is relevant because one of the things we think about is how legislatures
may have interpreted statutes and what they thought things to mean.
What we had in Wisconsin was about a 15 month period when women were denied access to reproductive
healthcare in this state because of concern that prosecutions would result.
It had a lot of impacts on the lives of Wisconsinites. In some cases where there were planned
pregnancies people were terrified about what might happen if there was a complication that
they weren't expecting. We also know that people had to have medical
care delayed in certain cases because that law was in place. Fortunately we appear to have avoided
the worst possible outcomes in Wisconsin but there has been reporting recently on some
cases in Texas for example where delayed care led to women losing their lives because
of restrictive abortion bans that were in place. So when you look at what the statutes
say and the context in which they were passed we know that Wisconsin law that was passed
a similar provision was interpreted in black the black decision as not applying to abortions.
We've argued that that same logic applies here and that also there was implied repeal
and in assessing the intent of the legislature and passing other statutes that context is
relevant. Now ultimately this is a question of what the statute means and I think that
there are clear statutory grounds regardless of the context here for both finding that the
black decision applies here and also that the statute was impliedly repealed but it doesn't
mean that those circumstances are irrelevant either.
Could you explain a little bit about Justice Hagridone's argument that those new statutes
existed just in the context of Roe and J.C. and that's I think that's that.
Yeah I mean well first you know I won't re-argue the case here I think that our team did an
excellent job with that as did the other attorneys in the argument but look the doctrines that
we have in place there's no caveat to what was the U.S. Supreme Court ruling at the time
there's a clear doctrine for when there's implied repeal we've argued that this meets
it and if you look there's comprehensive regulation of lawful abortion in Wisconsin and there are
statutes that set out what can't be done and it's implied therefore what what can lawfully
be done in Wisconsin and you can't simultaneously have that with this broad abortion ban that's
what the case law says and and there's no again there's no carve out for there was a
U.S. Supreme Court decision now the fact that there was a right in place for about 50 years
in Wisconsin does speak to whether all of a sudden we're supposed to go back to a draconian
ban but that's a a different issue in the case.
Does Planned Parenthood and Wisconsin plan to expand abortion services to additional clinics
beyond the three clinics that are already offering the procedures?
I mean absolutely expansion of abortion access has been something that Planned Parenthood
of Wisconsin has been fighting for for a very long time this case helped restore or did
restore abortion access in this state post row and it was absolutely crucial to ending
that 15 month long time period where people in the state couldn't get the health care
that they needed our other our case in Planned Parenthood versus Ermansky seeks to really
protect that that right and then depending on how the court might decide that case you
know we examine other statutes there's Wisconsin has a very very restrictive statutory scheme
that makes it really challenging to provide access across the state things like a telemedicine
ban a to visit requirement same physician requirement physician only those are just
a few of the regulations that make expansion extraordinarily challenging but it's something
that as an organization we're absolutely committed to.
Yeah and I'll just add you know we just had a state legislative election and there are
now relatively narrow majorities for Republicans in the state legislature you know one topic
that I hope to see that the legislature take up is some of these laws that pertain to abortion
access in Wisconsin I think it is very clear that Wisconsinites have overwhelmingly support
having safe access to abortion in the state it's been true and it's been indicated by
election results that we've had by exit polls that we've seen by other polls so you know
for those legislators in these districts that are very moderate where those districts could
go either way you know I think we ought to ask those folks do they support some common
sense changes that will protect access to abortion care in Wisconsin.
Just under the field to have oral arguments finally today after a very lengthy legal process
almost two years you know going to file this suit to meet along the other hand this is
still an issue so we can closely examine at the national level and have a president-elect
won't present in the past.
Yeah well first of all the legal process is not fast I think we can all agree on that so
we knew that the process would take time we tried to make that clear when this case
was originally filed and you know our prediction has held up it has taken some time but obviously
making sure we get this right is critical nobody wanted to see nobody on our team at
least or at Planned Parenthood wanted to see access denied for 15 months but ultimately
ensuring that we get sound decisions that protect access for the long term is critical
so it's been good to see that in place we've fortunately with the circuit court ruling
had access restored in the state and we're going to keep working to make sure it's restored
hopefully through the Supreme Court decision and then ultimately this is going to be an
issue for the legislature because as we all know court decisions can shift we saw that
with Roe followed by Dobbs the the surest way of protecting access is for the new legislature
that's going to be coming into session to pass laws that protect access to safe and
legal abortion in Wisconsin.
Do you think all the leaders of the Senate do anything when Donald Trump won one of the
Wisconsin needs to be the one to support a national portion of it or are they afraid
of a sleeper question when Trump won?
Well if you look at the state results first of all Democrats picked up I believe it's
four seats in the state Senate and ten in the assembly you know and it's a very closely
divided legislature and I think Wisconsinites are clear about where they stand on these
issues and I think to respect the will of the voters you know Donald Trump repeatedly
said that this is a state's issue now and so it is up to our state legislators to take
action on these issues.
I can say generally and I'll let Planned Parenthood should probably weigh in on this
too but ultimately that's going to be a determination that the court will make if it weighs in
on the constitutionality you know the framework in Wisconsin law that we have in place for
protection of bodily autonomy is a different framework than the row framework and you know
we've played out our arguments for what that should be and we're happy to get you our briefing
on that but I know that Planned Parenthood has thoughts on that as well.
Yeah I mean I think that if the court ultimately finds that there's a state constitutional protection
to bodily autonomy which of course then includes the rights to choose whether or not to continue
a pregnancy certainly for its part Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin would be examining
all of the restrictions I mentioned you know as well as potentially restrictions related
to gestational age however that's that's not the case before the court right now the case
before the court is does Wisconsin's constitution protect the right to bodily autonomy.
Those questions I think are first subsequent cases potentially or as Attorney General
called just said the state the state legislature I don't think the court needs to reach a question
of gestational age in the case before right now because Wisconsin does have a pretty comprehensive
and robust statutory scheme related to when abortions can be performed be performed and
up till you know what what time and gestation great well that's that's really ultimately
a question that it will we'll wait and see you know how things play out to see what the
answer might be you know we want to have certainty in the law and consistency in the law there's
a doctrine sorry decisis that is meant to uphold that basic approach but I think anybody
can look at what has happened with court decisions and see that there were particular results
that then were overruled and and wrote to Dobbs is is one of many examples of that so
you know I'm always reluctant to predict how any court might rule because courts surprise
us sometimes but you know there's there's no question that the court's decisions can
change over time as their membership changes whatever happens in this case the issue I don't
think is going to be permanently resolved in Wisconsin certainly this will provide important
clarity and I think well at least for a time period address at least what current Wisconsin
law says but you know there's the last legislative session there was a 14 week ban that was introduced
and and that was the more moderate proposal within the Republican caucus so I think that
there is going to remain political debate about this issue there there certainly could be legal
challenges that being said I don't want to understate the importance of this I mean
we again we had 15 months with no access in Wisconsin because of the circuit court's decision
we were able to return to basic access that's a huge shift but that doesn't mean that there
aren't still other issues at play I think the only thing I would add is just a little bit
of reassurance for patients across the state of Wisconsin when when cases like this an
abortion generally is in the news it can create some confusion and concern about what is currently
legal abortion is legal right now in Wisconsin PPWI resumed care last September following
the Dane County circuit courts ruling and then in Sheboygan in December following the
final ruling so I just really want to reiterate that Planned Parenthood's doors are open and for
for all sexual reproductive health care needs but also for abortion access unless and until
this court says otherwise if you call earlier you said you go through state legislature
implement some common sense changes to post-row regulations on abortion that are ineffective
in Wisconsin what would you consider common sense changes what are some of the important
things in law and civil rights in Wisconsin yeah well there there's a whole statutory
scheme in place and I think taking a look at that is is important and and frankly learning
some of the lessons from developments that have happened both medically as well as in you know
with with with the 15 months of of access being denied and learning from them so one thing I
certainly would like to see is a change to the underlying statutory structure to make clear
that access to safe and legal abortion is protected for a period of pregnancy and then
I also think making sure that the laws that are in place are not unnecessarily burdening
the ability of women to obtain reproductive health care is key as well you know those
are those are discussions that need to happen with input from medical experts and others
who have expertise in these areas but this is an area that that we know is impacting
the lives of Wisconsinites and I think that you know because of the significance of this
issue our legislature owes it to Wisconsin voters to to address it and to to continue
working to make progress right now our focus is on restoring the basic access in Wisconsin
which again was lost that's going to be a topic where there will be a debate I think
over time but fundamentally we want to make sure that that this is a decision that is
made by women in consultation with the people who they think they should be consulting with
whether it's their their doctor or their their spiritual advisor or priest their spouse whoever
it is these decisions should be made by the women who are making them not by the government
and the other thing is there are so many different types of circumstances that can arise that
may lead us to different outcomes in different cases so those are I think important discussions
to have but right now our focus is on addressing the the basic issue and ensuring that access
is protected I don't think that we can have simple bright line rules when it comes to
these issues I think we've got to make sure that we are not unduly burdening people's
ability to access reproductive health care again there are going to be a lot of circumstances
that arise fundamentally I think the approach we should have is one that's based on protecting
the ability of women to make these reproductive health care decisions without the government
interfering with their ability to do so.
All right thank you all for being here we appreciate it.