>> THE FOLLOWING PROGRAM IS A
PBS WISCONSIN ORIGINAL
PRODUCTION.
>> MILWAUKEE'S COMMON COUNCIL
PASSES A 2% SALES TAX, BUT NOT
WITHOUT PROTESTS.
I'M FREDERICA FREYBERG.
TONIGHT ON "HERE AND NOW," WE
HEAR FROM MILWAUKEE'S MAYOR AS
WELL AS A COMMON COUNCIL ALDER
ON THE BEGRUDGING PASSAGE OF THE
SALES TAX, A LAW EXPERT EXPLAINS
A RULING THAT FLIPS THE SCRIPT
ON WISCONSIN'S 1849 ABORTION
BAN, AND A SCHOOL DISTRICT TRIED
TO BAN A TRANS STUDENT FROM
USING THE GIRLS BATHROOM, A
FEDERAL JUDGE SAID THEY'RE
VIOLATING HER RIGHT.
IT'S "HERE AND NOW" FOR JULY
14th.
>> FUNDING FOR "HERE AND NOW" IS
PROVIDED BY THE FOCUS FUNDS
JOURNALISM AND FRIENDS OF PBS
WISCONSIN.
>> AND AS WE'VE ALL BEEN BRIEFED
BY THE BUDGET OFFICE IN GREAT
DETAIL, THE WOLF IS AT THE DOOR.
YOU CAN'T CHASE THE WOLF AWAY
ANYMORE AND WE ARE DEALING WITH
SOME SERIOUS CHALLENGES WHICH
HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED.
WE DID GET A SOLUTION.
THE STATE LEGISLATURE DID ENABLE
US TO ADOPT A LOCAL OPTION SALES
TAX OF 2%, WHICH RAISES REAL
REVENUE.
I MEAN, WE'RE TALKING $193
BILLION A YEAR PLUS AND
PRESUMABLY THAT WILL GROW AS THE
ECONOMY GROWS IN THE YEARS GOING
FORWARD.
>> CITY OF MILWAUKEE LEADERS ARE
BREATHING A SIGH OF RELIEF AFTER
THE COMMON COUNCIL THERE THIS
WEEK VOTED IN FAVOR OF AN
ADDITIONAL 2% SALES TAX TO STAVE
OFF DEEP SERVICE CUTS AND
LAY-OFFS DUE TOP MOUNTING
PENSION DEBT, BUT AS PART OF THE
NEGOTIATED SHARED REVENUE TO
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PACKAGE IN THE
STATE BUDGET, THE MILWAUKEE
SALES TAX CAME WITH POLICY
PROVISIONS THAT DEEPLY DIVIDE
THE CITY.
THINGS LIKE RETURNING POLICE
OFFICERS TO THE CITY SCHOOLS,
ELIMINATING FUNDING FOR
DIVERSITY PROGRAMS, AND
REQUIRING MINIMUM POLICE AND
FIRE STAFFING.
MILWAUKEE MAYOR CAVALIER JOHNSON
SAID IN TAKING THIS ACTION, THE
COUNCIL HAS PROTECTED MILWAUKEE
AND ITS RESIDENTS FROM
UNIMAGINABLE CUTS TO LIBRARY AND
PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES.
MAYOR JOHNSON JOINS US NOW.
THANKS VERY MUCH FOR DOING SO.
>> THANK YOU.
>> HOWTDZ IT FEEL TO HAVE -- HOW
DOES IT FEEL TO HAVE SIGNED THIS
INTO LAW TODAY?
>> IT FREELS FEELS GREAT.
IT WAS A PROBLEM FOUR DECADES IN
THE MAKING.
IT ELUDED MAYORS AND CITY
COUNCIL'S AND GOVERNORS AND
LEGISLATURES IN YEARS PAST, BUT
WORKING TOGETHER IN A
COLLABORATIVE, BIPARTISAN WAY,
WE WERE ABLE TO GET THIS DONE
AND PUT THE CITY ON A STRONGER
FINANCIAL FOOTING FOR NOW AND
FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE AND I
FEEL VERY CONGRATULATE FEUD TO
DELIVER THIS FOR THE CITIZENS OF
MILWAUKEE, FOR OUR DAILY
COMMUTERS, OUR VISITORS, AND
THERE ARE SEVERAL IN TOWN FOR
HARLEY-DAVIDSON'S ANNIVERSARY,
AND OTHER BUSINESSES THAT CALL
MILWAUKEE HOME.
>> DO YOU FEEL LIKE THERE'S ROOM
FOR MORE COLLABORATIVE WORK WITH
THE LEGISLATURE AFTER THIS?
>> I DO, I REALLY, REALLY DO.
ON A WHOLE HOST OF THINGS, BUT
PARTICULARLY ON SOMETHING THAT
THE CITY'S BEEN CHALLENGED WITH,
ESPECIALLY AS WE ENTERED INTO
AND ARE COMING OUT OF THE COVID
YEARS, AND THAT'S GUN VIOLENCE.
I NOW UNDERSTAND THAT THE
LEGISLATURE IS WHAT IT IS.
I'VE ALWAYS BEEN A POLITICAL
REALIST AS IT RELATES TO DEALING
WITH THE LEGISLATURE, SO THERE
WON'T BE SWEEPING LEGISLATION,
BUT THERE MUST BE THINGS ON THE
MARGINS THAT WE'RE ABLE TO WORK
ON, BECAUSE WHEN I GET UP AND I
GET PHONECALLS AND TEXT MESSAGES
FROM THE MILWAUKEE POLICE
DEPARTMENT ABOUT PEOPLE BEING
SHOT AND KILLED IN OUR CITY, AND
INCLUDING OUR KIDS, I THINK THAT
THAT PROBABLY ALSO TROUBLES
LEGISLATORS AS WELL, INCLUDING
REPUBLICAN LEGISLATORS, TOO, AND
I THINK THAT THERE'S SOMETHING
THAT ALL OF US CAN DO
COLLECTIVELY IN ORDER TO TAKE ON
THAT CHALLENGE THAT AFFECTS
CITIES IN THIS CITY AND IN THIS
STATE.
>> ON THE 2% SALES TAX, UP LET'S
LISTEN TO ONE OF THE THREE
COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT VOTED
AGAINST THE SALES TAX.
>> THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS, I
HAVE ASKED THAT WE PRIORITIZE
THOSE AMONG US WHO DO NOT EARN A
FAMILY SUSTAINING WAGE AND ARE
ON FIXED INCOMES, CONTRARY TO
THE NARRATIVE THAT HAS BEEN
FASHIONED, I LOVE MILWAUKEE.
I WOULD ARGUE THAT CHOOSING TO
REMAIN HERE KNOWING ALL OF THE
STATISTICS ONLY COMPOUNDS THAT
LOVE.
I DO NOT WANT TO SEE US FAIL.
I ALSO DO NOT WANT TO SAVE A
CITY BY SACRIFICING CITIZENS.
>> WHAT IS YOUR MESSAGE TO THOSE
WHO SAY THAT THIS NEW TAX, WHEN
ADDED TO THE EXISTING TAX AND
POTENTIALLY A NEW COUNTY TAX
WILL AMOUNT TO A 7.9% SALES TAX
IN MILWAUKEE.
IS THAT LEGITIMATE HARDSHIP FOR
LOW INCOME RESIDENTS AS SOME
PEOPLE ARE SUGGESTING?
>> FIRST, FREDERICA, LET ME JUST
SAY THAT I DON'T DOUBT THAT ANY
COUNCIL MEMBER, INCLUDING THOSE
THAT VOTED "NO" ON THIS HAD ANY
LESS LOVE OR DESIRE FOR THE CITY
OF MILWAUKEE THAN I DO OR THOSE
COUNCIL MEMBERS.
THEY'RE COLLEAGUES THAT VOTED
"YES" ON THIS, BUT WHAT I WILL
SAY IS THAT THE ACTION THAT THE
COUNCIL TOOK WAS EXTRAORDINARILY
IMPORTANTLY.
THOSE COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO VOTED
YEPTION ON "YES" ON THIS TOOK STEPS
TO CITIZENS WHO LIVE IN
CHALLENGED NEIGHBORHOODS THAT
THOSE IN LOW-INCOME
NEIGHBORHOODS DEPEND ON.
IT'S DISTRICTS LIKE THOSE WHERE
PEOPLE CALL THE POLICE THE MOST,
DISTRICTS LIKE THOSE WHERE FIRE
SERVICES AND MEDICAL SERVICES
PROVIDED BY OUR FIRE DEPARTMENT
ARE DEPENDED ON THE MOST.
IT'S DISTRICTS LIKE THOSE WHERE
LIBRARY SERVICES ARE DEPENDENT
ON THE MOST, AND SO THE ACTION
BY THE COUNCIL, PARTICULARLY
THOSE COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO VOTED
"YES" ON THE 2% SALES TAX
INCREASE, PUTS US IN A POSITION
WHERE WE'RE ABLE TO CONTINUE TO
PROVIDE THOSE SERVICES TO ALL OF
THOSE RESIDENTS, WHO ACTUALLY
NEED THEM IN NEIGHBORHOODS
ACROSS MILWAUKEE AND INCLUDING
IN LOW-INCOME DISTRICTS ACROSS
THE CITY.
>> SO THE COUNCIL INTRODUCED
LEGISLATION OPPOSING THE POLICY
PART OF THIS DEAL WITH THE
LEGISLATURE, INCLUDING LAWSUITS
TO BLOCK PROVISIONS LIKE
WHIMINATINGELIMINATING CERTAIN PROGRAMS IN
SCHOOLS.
DO YOU SUPPORT LISTING LITIGATION OVER
THOSE THINGS?
>> I BELIEVE THERE'S
OPPORTUNITIES FOR US TO WORK
TOGETHER, TO STILL GET THE
CITY'S VALUES IMPLEMENTED,
INSTILL WORK ON IMPLEMENTING
DIVERSEDIVERSITY, EQUITY AND INCLUSION
PROGRAMS IN MILWAUKEE, AND I
INTEND TO DO JUST THAT.
I'M SUPPORTING EFFORTS TO GET
OUR INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS
TEAM TO GO BACK TO THE
LEGISLATURE TO START TO WORK
TOWARDS THE REPEAL OF THE POLICY
PROVISIONS THAT WERE THERE THAT,
QUITE FRANKLY, I DON'T THINK HAD
ANY PLACE BEING IN THE BILL.
THEY DIDN'T NEED TO BE THERE.
I WISH IT WERE SIMPLY AN
UP-AND-DOWN VOTE ON THE CITY'S
FINANCES WHICH, OF COURSE, WAS
NOT AN ISSUE THAT WAS
SPECIFICALLY RELATED ONLY TO THE
CITY OF MILWAUKEE.
COMMUNITIES ACROSS THE ENTIRE
STATE OF WISCONSIN HAD AN ISSUE
WITH FUNDING COMING BACK FROM
THE STATE OF WISCONSIN, SO IT'S
MY DESIRE, AGAIN, TO CONTINUE TO
MAKE THAT WE WORK TO DELIVER
DIVERSITY, EQUITY AND INCLUSION
PROGRAMS IN MILWAUKEE AND I
THINK THERE ARE WAYS FOR US TO
GO ABOUT IT EVEN NOW.
>> WHAT DO YOU STY SAY TO PEOPLE WHO
SAID THAT YOU NEGOTIATED A BAD
DEAL?
>> I SAY THAT THEY'RE WRONG.
THEY SIMPLY ARE.
LOOK.
THIS WAS A BIG, DIFFICULT,
COMPLEX, BUT ULTIMATELY TRIUMPH
FOR THE CITY OF MILWAUKEE, AND
THE REPUBLICANS IN THE
LEGISLATURE, THEY KNEW THAT THE
ONLY WAY THAT THEY'D BE ABLE TO
SEE THE POLICIES THAT THEY
WANTED TO IMPLEMENT IN MILWAUKEE
ON ALL OF THESE ISSUES COME TO
FRUITION WAS TO ATTACH IT TO
SOMETHING THAT THE CITY NEEDED,
AND AFTER FOUR DEKING OF
STAGNATION DECADES OF STAGNATION
AND REVENUES COMING BACK TO
MILWAUKEE AND OUR FISCAL CLICHE
INCHING CLOSER AND CLOSER, THE
OPPORTUNITY WAS RIPE FOR THEM TO
DO THAT.
SO, YES, THERE ARE NEGATIVE
THINGS THAT THEY ATTACHED TO THE
BILL AND THAT I FOUGHT AGAINST
AND HAVE A STRONG AVERSION TO,
BUT WE HAVE TO REMEMBER THAT WE
WERE ALSO ABLE TO GET THE
REPUBLICANS TO MOVE CONSIDERABLY
FROM THEIR POSITION, MORE THAN
20 YEARS, PROBABLY 30 YEARS OF
NOT ADDING A TAX FOR THE CITY OF
MILWAUKEE.
SO THERE'S COMPROMISE ON BOTH
SIDES.
WE GOT SOMETHING DONE THAT WAS
EXTRAORDINARY FOR MILWAUKEE AND
SETS THE CITY UP FOR SUCCESS IN
THE FUTURE.
>> MAYOR CAVALIER JOHNSON,
THANKS VERY MUCH.
>> THANK YOU, FREDERICA.
>> THE ALDER WHO CALLED THIS A
BAD DEAL NONETHELESS VOTED FOR
THE 2% SALES TAX.
MILWAUKEE ALDERMAN RUSSELL
STAMPER JOINS US NOW.
THANK YOU FOR BEING WITH US.
>> OF COURSE.
THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.
>> WHY DID YOU CALL THIS
NEGOTIATED SHARED REVENUE DEAL A
BAD DEAL FOR MILWAUKEE?
>> YES.
WELL, MAINLY BECAUSE OF THE
PROVISIONS THAT COMES ALONG WITH
IT.
THERE'S NO -- MAKE NO MISTAKE
ABOUT IT, THE CITY OF MILWAUKEE
DOES NEED MONEY.
WE HAVE A HUGE FINANCIAL GAP OF
APPROXIMATELY ABOUT $183
MILLION, AND SUSPECTED TO BE IN
UPWARDS OF $190 MILLION BY 2025,
BUT WHAT WE WERE EXPECTING OR
WHAT WE WOULD HAVE APPRECIATED
WAS A CLEAN BILL, A BILL THAT
JUST ALLOWS US TO RAISE THE
SALES TAX TO 2% AND ALSO RECEIVE
OUR FAIR SHARE OF SHARED
REVENUE.
HOWEVER, I DON'T KNOW WHAT
HAPPENED DURING THE
NEGOTIATIONS, I DON'T KNOW WHAT
THOSE GUYS AT THE STATE LEVEL
ARE THINKING, BUT THEY PROVIDED
OR ADDED ALL THESE PROVISIONS
THAT ARE GOING TO HURT
MILWAUKEE, PARTICULARLY THE
BLACK AND BROWN COMMUNITY.
>> SO AHEAD OF THE VOTE TO THAT,
YOU COMPARED WISCONSIN ACT 12,
THE NEW SHARED REVENUE LAW, AS
IT AFFECTS MILWAUKEE TO JIM CROW
LAWS AND RED LINING.
Q. .>> YES.
>> AND FURTHER CALLED
LEGISLATORS WHO SUPPORTED THE
BILL MILWAUKEE'S ENEMIES.
WHY DO YOU THINK THAT?
>> WELL, IT'S CLEAR THAT THEY
ARE NOT TRYING TO HELP US.
THEY HAVEN'T BEEN FOR THE LAST
THREE DECADES, AND WHEN THEY PUT
THIS BILL TOGETHER, IN ORDER FOR
US TO RECEIVE THE MONEY THAT WE
NEED DESPERATELY, THEY TOOK
ADVANTAGE OF THAT AND ADDED
PROVISIONS THAT WILL HURT A CITY
THAT IS THE WORST TOP THREE
WORST IN THE CURRENTLY FOR THE
AFRICAN-AMERICANS, SO TO ME,
THAT WAS A DIRECT HIT TO NOT
HELP US FROG AND PROGRESS AND ALSO HURTS
OUR ABILITY TO GOVERN AND HELP
THE PEOPLE THAT ARE MOST IN
NEED.
SO JUST HISTORICALLY, LAWS AND
CODES AND DIFFERENT METHODS HAVE
BEEN PUT IN PLACE TO KEEP BLACK
PEOPLE DOWN, TO HURT BLACK
PEOPLE, TO NOT LET THEM
PROGRESS, AND WITH THESE
PROVISIONS IN PLACE, WHEN WE
WERE MAKING SIGNIFICANT PROGRESS
WITH MANY DIFFERENT POSITIONS
AND PROGRAMS TO HELP THE PEOPLE
THAT NEED IT THE MOST, WHICH ARE
AFRICAN-AMERICANS AND BROWN
PEOPLE, THEY DECIDED, HEY, YOU
CAN'T DO THAT ANYMORE.
NO MORE EQUITY, OPPORTUNITY, NO
MORE EQUAL OPPORTUNITY, HEY, YOU
GUYS HAVE TO GOVERN BASED ON
WHAT WE TELL YOU, AND HERE'S THE
MONEY, HERE'S WHAT THE MONEY HAS
TO BE USED FOR.
SO TO ME, THAT'S UNFAIR.
TO ME, THAT DOES NOT SHOW A
WORKING RELATIONSHIP.
>> YOU SAID THAT MILWAUKEE NEEDS
TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF WHAT YOU
KNOW YOU HAVE TO DO.
WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO DO?
>> WELL, WE HAVE TO COME
TOGETHER AS ALDERMEN, AS COUNTY
SUPERVISORS, AS EXECUTIVE
BRANCHES AND LEADERSHIP, WE HAVE
TO COME TOGETHER AND FIND
DIFFERENT WAYS TO SUPPORT OUR
COMMUNITY.
IT'S GOING TO BE A GREATER
EFFORT.
WE'RE GOING TO NEED PEOPLE TO
COME TOGETHER, PARTICULARLY
BLACK PEOPLE TO UNITE AND COME
TOGETHER AND WORK TOWARDS
IMPROVING OUR COMMUNITY, OUR
CONDITIONS MORE THAN WE EVER
HAVE.
SO WE'VE DONE IT IN THE PAST.
THAT WAS WHAT I WAS REFERRING TO
AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO WORK
A LITTLE BIT HARDER, PUT MORE
EFFORT INTO THE COMMUNITY AND
GET PEOPLE MORE ON BOARD WITH
WHAT THE STATE IS TRYING TO DO
SO THAT WE CAN OVERCOME AND BE
SUCCESSFUL AS A CITY.
>> WHAT DO YOU SAY TO ANY OF
YOUR CONSTITUENTS WHO SAY THAT
THIS WILL HURT THEM FINANCIALLY?
>> YEAH.
SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE
HAVE IN PLACE THAT I WILL BE
FIGHTING FOR, AND THIS GOES BACK
TO US WORKING TOGETHER AND
TRYING TO FIND ALTERNATIVE WAYS
TO HELP THE PEOPLE ARE WE WANT
TO PUT IN STIPENDS FOR LOW
INCOME AND ON PEOPLE THAT ARE ON
FIXED INCOMES.
SO WE HAVE SOMETHING THAT WE
ENACTED IN THE PAST AND WE'RE
GOING TO LOOK FORWARD TO
BRINGING THAT FORWARD.
I THINK IT'S CALLED THE UB1 THAT
PREVIOUS ALDERMAN HAD PUT FORTH
AND WE'RE GOING TO LOOK FORWARD
TO INTRODUCING THAT FOR A
CERTAIN AMOUNT OF STIPEND OR
CERTAIN AMOUNT OF FAMILIES ON A
ANNUAL BASIS IN THE CITY OF
MILWAUKEE, BUT TO THE FAMILIES,
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PROVIDE
MORE OPPORTUNITIES FOR THEM.
WE HAVE TO GET THEM MORE
ENGAGED.
HOLD THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY
ACCOUNTABLE.
THEY ALL CAME AND TESTIFIED IN
FAVOR OF THE 2%.
EVERYONE THAT I SPOKE WITH, EVEN
THE ONES THAT ARE IN FAVOR, KNOW
ABOUT THE POISON PILLS AND THE
PROVISIONS THAT WERE PUT IN
PLACE, SO EVERYBODY IS IN
AGREEMENT THAT THESE POLICIES
WILL HURT OUR ABILITY TO GOVERN
AND HURT OUR ABILITY TO HELP
BLACK AND BROWN PEOPLE, BUT THEY
ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT WE ARE IN A
FINANCIAL SITUATION WHERE WE
SERIOUSLY NEED SOME MONEY.
SO THAT'S WHERE I'M COMING FROM
AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO HELP
PEOPLE THAT NEED IT THE MOST.
>> ALL RIGHT.
WE LEAVE IT THERE, ALDERMAN
RENAISSANCE FESTIVALRUSSELL STAMPER.
>> APPRECIATE IT.
>> COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
ALLOWS INCREASING THE EXISTING
SALES TAX.
TURNING TO EDUCATION, A FEDERAL
JUDGE ISSUED A PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION AGAINST A MUKWONAGO
AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT THIS WEEK
FOR A POLICY THAT STATES
STUDENTS CAN ONLY USE THE
BATHROOM ACCORDING TO EACH
STUDENT'S ORIGINAL SEX ASSIGNED
AT BIRTH.
THE CATALYST FOR THE POLICY
AROSE FROM AN 11-YEAR OLD TRANS
GIRL IN THE DISTRICT AND A
SUDDEN BACKLASH FROM OTHER
PARENTS.
MARISA WOJCIK HAS THE STORY.
>> I GOT A PHONECALL FROM THE
SCHOOL LETTING ME KNOW THAT
THERE WAS PARENTS INQUIRING
ABOUT MY CHILD.
>> THIS IS JANE DOE NUMBER TWO.
HER DAUGHTER, JANE DOE NUMBER
ONE.
>> WANTING TO KNOW IF MY CHILD
WAS A BOY, WANTING TO KNOW ABOUT
THE GENITALIA IN MY CHILD'S
PANTS, LIKE ASKING QUESTIONS
THAT ARE REALLY INAPPROPRIATE.
>> THE COURT IS USING PSEUDONYM
TO PREVENT FURTHER HARASSMENT.
HER CHILD IS AN 11-YEAR-OLD GIRL
AT THE MUKWONAGO AREA SCHOOL
DISTRICT.
HER DAUGHTER WAS ALSO ASSIGNED
MALE AT BIRTH BUT STARTED
IDENTIFYING AND LIVING AS A GIRL
AT HOME SINCE THE AGE OF THREE.
>> IT'S JUST WHO SHE IS AND IT'S
WHO SHE'S BEEN SINCE SHE WAS
REALLY LITTLE AND SHE LIVED AS A
GIRL AT HOME AND AT SCHOOL TRIED
REALLY HARD TO JUST BE WHO
EVERYONE WAS EXPECTING HER TO
BE.
AND SHE CAME HOME FROM SCHOOL
ONE DAY AND SAID, "I CAN'T DO
THIS ANYMORE.
I CAN'T CONTINUE TO LIVE MY LIFE
AS THIS BOY.
IT'S NOT WHO I AM "HERE AND
NOW."
>> DESPITE YEARS OF HER DAUGHTER
USING THE GIRLS BATHROOM AT
SCHOOL, SUDDENLY IT WAS AN
ISSUE.
A MAY SCHOOL BOARD MEETING TOOK
PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE MATTER.
>> AND THEY MOVED IT FROM THE
NORMAL AREA AT THE DISTRICT
OFFICE TO THE HIGH SCHOOL
GYMNASIUM.
THEY WERE EXPECTING A LOT OF
PEOPLE TO SHOW UP, THEY CALLED
THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, PARENTS
CAME IN AND THEY WERE
ESSENTIALLY SAYING I'M NOT OKAY
WITH THIS, YOU DON'T GET TO DO
THIS, WHAT ABOUT MY KIDS.
>> DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A BOY AND
A GIRL.
>> OUR DAUGHTER'S RIGHTS NEED TO
BE VEHEMENTLY PROTECTED FROM
THIS FALSE IDEOLOGY THAT
CHILDREN CAN PICK THEIR GENDER.
I'M HERE TO SAY THAT THE FEMALE
SEX BELONGS IN THE FEMALE
BATHROOMS AND LOCKER ROOMS AND
MALE IN THE MALE LOCKER ROOMS
AND BATH ROOMS.
>> MY DAUGHTER DOES NOT VIOLATE
YOUR RIGHTS.
NOTHING ABOUT MY DAUGHTER BEING
IN THE BATHROOM, IN THE
BUILDING, NOTHING VIOLATES YOUR
CHILD'S RIGHTS BECAUSE MY CHILD
EXISTS.
>> A MAY SCHOOL BOARD MEETING
TOOK IMPLEMENT ON THE MATTER.
A JUNE SCHOOL BOARD MEETING
PASSED A POLICY STATING STUDENTS
MUST USE THE BATHROOM ACCORDING
TO EACH STUDENT'S ORIGINAL
SPACE-X ASSIGNED AT BIRTH.
>> I WAS AT THE BOARD MEETING
AND LISTENING TO ALL OF THESE
AND I JUST CRIED.
I COULD NOT BELIEVE THAT THIS IS
WHAT THEY WERE DOING.
>> SHE SOUGHT SUPPORT FROM AN
ATTORNEY WHO HAS BEEN THROUGH
THIS BEFORE.
IN WHEN I SAYS ACRE V KENOSHA
UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, HE
REPRESENTED A TRANS BOY WHO WAS
PREVENTED FROM USING THE BOYS
BATHROOM.
>> WE THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT
TO TAKE ACTION TO MAKE SURE THAT
THAT PRECEDENT WAS UPHELD AND
THAT OUR CLIENT COULD EXERCISE
THOSE RIGHTS THAT THE COURT HAS
SAID SHE HAS.
>> THE DISTRICT CONTENDS THE
SAFETY AND PRIVACY OF THE OTHER
STUDENTS USING THE BATHROOM
JUSTIFIES THEIR POLICY.
>> AB ASTRONAUT MARK ABSTRACT IDEA THAT SOMEBODY
ELSE'S PRIVACY IS BEING
THREATENED IS NOT ENOUGH TO
JUSTIFY THAT.
WE ALL USE THE BATHROOMS EVERY
DAY IN PUBLIC PLACES WHERE THERE
ARE OTHER PEOPLE IN THE BATHROOM
AND THAT'S YOUR PRIVACY INTEREST
THAT WE HAVE ISN'T MORE OR LESS
IMPLICATED BASED ON THE PERSON
IN THE STALL NEXTDOOR BEING
TRANSGENDER.
THERE HASN'T BEEN ANY THREAT TO
THE SAFETY OR PRIVACY OF OTHER
STUDENTS.
THE THREAT HAS BEEN TO THE
SAFETY AND PRIVACY OF OUR
CLIENT.
>> IN A BRIEF, THE DISTRICT
ARGUES THE MOTHER AND DAUGHTER
HAVE NOT AVAILED THEMSELVES OF
LESS DRASTIC SOLUTIONS TO
EFFECTIVELY ADDRESS THE PRESENT
SITUATION.
THEY STATED BOARD POLICY 5514
REQUIRES A TEAM OF DISTRICT
STAFF TO CONSIDER EXCEPTIONS OR
ACCOMMODATIONS TO THIS
REQUIREMENT ON A CASE-BY-CASE
BASIS.
THE ALTERNATIVE TO THE STUDENT
HAVING TO USE THE BOYS BATHROOM
WAS OFFERING A GENDER NEUTRAL
BATHROOM.
>> OFFERING A GENDER NEUTRAL
ALTERNATIVE IF YOU AGREE
REQUIRING THE TRANS STUDENT TO
USE IT OR USE A BATHROOM IS NOT
CORRESPONDING TO THEIR GENDER
IDENTITY DOESN'T MAKE THE POLICY
NON-DISCRIMINATORY.
YOU'RE STILL REQUIRING SOMETHING
OF THAT TRANSGENDER STUDENT THAT
YOU AREN'T REQUIRING OF ANY
OTHER STUDENT.
>> YOU'RE ENDANGERING A CHILD
EVERY TIME YOU TRY TO FORCE HER
INTO A DIFFERENT BATHROOM
BECAUSE YOU'RE SINGING HER OUT.
YOU'RE TELLING EVERYBODY SHE'S
DIFFERENT, AND THAT PUTS A
TARGET ON HER BACK.
>> THE DISTRICT ALSO SAID THEY
VEE IN THE MEANTIMELY REFUTE ANY
DISCRIMINATION AND STRONGLY
DISAGREE WITH THE BASELESS
ASSERTION THAT THE POLICY WILL
CAUSE HER IRREPARABLY RAHM
EMMANUEL HARM. HARM.
>> OUR CHILD HAS BEEN FACING
HARASSMENT AT SCHOOL SINCE ALL
OF THIS STARTED AT SPRING.
>> SHE HAS THIS CONSTANT WORRY
OF WHO IS WATCHING ME TODAY, WHO
IS GOING TO FOLLOW ME TODAY.
SHE'S VOICED CONCERN ABOUT IF
KIDS ARE GOING TO HURT HER IN
THE BATHROOM.
SHE'S CONCERNED ABOUT PEOPLE
PULLING HER OUT OF A REST ROOM
OR PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, PUSHING HER
INTO THE REST ROOM SHE SHOULDN'T
BE USING.
>> ON JULY 11, FEDERAL JUDGE
LYNN ADELMAN RULED IN FAVOR OF
THE STUDENT AND GRANTED AN
INJUNCTION AGAINST THE SCHOOL
POLICY.
THE DISTRICTS DECLINED TO BE
INTERVIEWED.
IN A STATEMENT, THEY WROTE, THE
DISTRICT WILL CONTINUE TO DEFEND
OUR POLICY AND MOVE FORWARD WITH
AN APPEAL OF THIS INJUNCTION.
>> I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO
KEEP IN MIND THAT WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT A KID.
>> SHE'S AN AMAZING KID.
SHE IS FUNNY AND SHE'S SILLY AND
SHE LIKES TO DRAW.
SHE'S INQUISITIVE AND SHE LOVES
SCIENCE AND SHE'S REALLY
INVOLVED IN S.T.E.M. THINGS.
SHE LIKES DOING GIRLY THINGS AND
GLITTER AND SEQUINS AND SHE'S
JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER 11-YEAR
OLD KID, EVERY OTHER 11-YEAR-OLD
GIRL OUT THERE.
>> REPORTING FROM MUKWONAGO, I'M
MARISA WOJCIK.
>> ABORTION BAN OUTLAWS KILLING
FETUSES BUT DOES NOT APPLY TO
CONSENSUAL MEDICAL ABORTIONS.
THAT WAS THE RULING OF A DANE
COUNTY JUDGE ALLOWING A LAWSUIT
CHALLENGING THE BAN TO PROCEED.
THE JUDGE SAID THE LEGAL
LANGUAGE IN THE BAN DOES NOT USE
THE TERM "ABORTION," SO THE LAW
ONLY PROHIBITS ATTACKING A WOMAN
IN AN ATTEMPT TO KILL HER UNBORN
CHILD.
QUOTE, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS
AN 1849 ABORTION BAN IN
WISCONSIN, THE JUDGE WROTE.
HERE TO UNPACK THE LEGAL
LANGUAGE AND IMPLICATIONS,
EMERITUS PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL
SCIENCE AND AFFILIATE FACULTY
MEMBER OF THE UW LAW SCHOOL,
HOWARD SCHWEBER.
THANK YOU FOR BEING WITH US.
>> MY PLEASURE.
THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.
>> SO WHAT WAS YOUR REACTION TO
THE CIRCUIT COURT RULING THAT
SAID THERE IS, QUOTE, NO SUCH
THING AS AN 1849 ABORTION BAN?
>> IT'S A VERY SHARP POINT, AND
ONE THAT I THINK HAD BEEN
LARGELY OVERLOOKED.
TO BACK UP, THERE ARE
LONGSTANDING STATUTES AND
COMMON-LAW PRINCIPLES THAT SAY,
FOR EXAMPLE, IF THERE'S A CAR
ACCIDENT IN WHICH A FETUS IS
DESTROYED, THAT CAN BE A CRIME,
EVEN IF ABORTION IS LEGAL IN
THAT PARTICULAR STATE.
IF SOMEONE DELIBERATELY ATTACKS
A PREGNANT WOMAN, THIS IS THE
INSTANCE THAT THE JUDGE REFERRED
TO, WITH THE INTENTION OF
CAUSING A MISCARRIAGE, THAT'S
BEEN A CRIME BOTH UNDER STATUTE
AND ENGLISH COMMON-LAW FOR A
LONG TIME BECAUSE IT'S AN INJURY
TO THE WOMAN BUT HAS NOTHING TO
DO WITH THE QUESTION OF
VOLUNTARY ABORTION.
SO WHILE I THINK THAT SOME
VIEWERS, IT MIGHT SEEM STRIENG
TO STRANGE TO DRAW THIS ENGLISH
LAW GOES BACK FOREVER THAT YOU
CAN HAVE LEGAL CLAIMS HAVING TO
DO WITH THE DESTRUCTION OF A
FETUS WITHOUT NECESSARILY HAVING
A LAW HAVING ANYTHING TO SAY
ABOUT VOLUNTARY ABORTION AND
THAT'S THE DISTINCTION THE JUDGE
DREW, AND I THINK SHE'S RIGHT.
IN 1849 IN PARTICULAR, WHEN WE
WERE MUCH CLOSER TO OUR
COMMON-LAW ROOTS IN THE WAY THAT
WE THOUGHT ABOUT THESE
CATEGORIES, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN
UNSURPRISING TO MAKE THIS
DISTINCTION BETWEEN A TORTIOUS
ACT OR A WRONGFUL ACT THAT
CAUSES A MISCARRIAGE VERSUS AN
ABORTION.
THESE ARE JUST TWO VERY DISTINCT
AND DIFFERENT THINGS.
>> SO TO NON-LAWYERS, THOUGH, IT
SEEMS SURPRISING BECAUSE THAT'S
NOT THE ARGUMENT THAT JOSH KAUL
LAWSUIT IS USING TO OVERTURN THE
1849 LAW.
RIGHT?
>> RIGHT.
WHICH IS INTERESTING.
AS I SAY, IT WAS A SHARP POINT
AND IT TOOK MANY PEOPLE BY
SURPRISE, PARTLY BECAUSE WE ARE
SO UNUSED TO THINKING IN 19th
CENTURY LEGAL CATEGORIES.
THIS IS ONE OF THE PROBLEMS WITH
APPEALS TO HISTORY, WHETHER IT'S
SUPREME COURT JUSTICE TALKING
ABOUT ORIGINALISM OR SOMEONE
TALKING ABOUT A 19th CENTURY
LAW.
YOU HAVE TO PUT YOURSELF IN THE
MIND FRAME AND THE UNDERSTANDING
OF THAT PERIOD AND LEGAL
UNDERSTANDINGS IN PARTICULAR
WERE VERY DIFFERENT BACK THEN.
SO KAUL TRIES TO PUT THIS IN
MODERN TERMS.
IT WAS A LAW OVERRULED BY THE
ENACTMENT OF A LATER LAW.
I SUSPECTS, TO BE HONEST, THAT
IN HIS OFFICE, IT JUST DIDN'T
OCCUR TO ANYONE TO GO BACK TO
COMMON-LAW PRINCIPLE UNDER THE
1849 LAW, SAYING WHAT WAS THAT
PRINCIPLE ABOUT.
ATES CRIME PO PUNCH SOMEONE IN
THE NOSE.
IT IS NOT AS A CRIME TO PUNCH
YOURSELF IN THE NOSE.
I KNOW THAT SOUNDS LIKE A SILLY
ANALOGY, BUT IN THOSE KIND OF
BASIC LEGAL CATEGORICAL TERMS,
THAT'S THE DISTINCTION WE'RE
DRAWING HERE.
>> HOW DOES THE KAUL CASE GO
FORWARD IN LIGHT OF THIS RULING?
>> WELL, FIRST OF ALL, THIS
RULING WILL BE APPEALED, SO AT
THIS POINT, ALL OF THE ACTIONS
ON THIS RULING AND THE APPEAL
UNDERS ITS LAW, BUT THE CASE
WILL GO FORWARD AND RESULT,
ASSUMING THE RULING STANDS, IN A
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, WHICH IS A
STATEMENT BY THE COURT THAT,
LOOK, THIS IS THE RULE, THAT
DOCTORS, FOR EXAMPLE, CANNOT BE
PROSECUTED FOR PERFORMING
ABORTIONS UNLESS THOSE ABORTIONS
ARE IN VIOLATION OF THE 1980s
LAW.
IN OTHER WORDS, UNLESS THEY'RE
POST-VIABILITY, AND WE WOULD
AFFECT WISCONSIN BE RESTORED TO
THE FRAMEWORK THAT WAS
ESTABLISHED IN THE CASE CALLED
CASEY, WHICH IS ONE OF THE --
CASEY AND ROE, THE TWO BIG
ABORTION CASES.
EFFECTIVELY THE WISCONSIN
STATUTE IMPOSED THE CASEY
FRAMEWORK, AND UNLESS AND UNTIL
THE LEGISLATURE CHANGES IT,
THAT'S WHERE WE WOULD BE.
SO ONE WAY TO THINK ABOUT THIS
IS THAT THE SUPREME COURT IN
DOBBS OVERRULED ROE, SO THERE'S
NO NATIONAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT
TO ABORTION BUT THEY SAID STATES
CAN ESTABLISH RIGHTS TO ABORTION
AS THEY SEE FIT, AND THE EFFECT
OF THIS RULING IS WHAT WISCONSIN
DID IN THE 1980s IS THE LAW IN
WISCONSIN UNTIL SOMEONE CHANGES
IT.
>> WHAT DOES THE TIME LINE LOOK
FOR THIS CASE NOW IN DANE COUNTY
TO GET TO THE SUPREME COURT
WHERE DEMOCRATS, OF COURSE,
WANTED TO LAND AFTER THE AUGUST
1st INVESTITURE OF LIBERAL
JANET PROTASIEWICZ?
WHAT DOES THE TIME LINE LOOK
LIKE?
>> THERE'S THE NORMAL TIME LINE
AND AN EXPEDITED TIME LINE.
UNDER NEITHER SITUATION CAN I
IMAGINE THIS CASE REACHING THE
SUPREME COURT BEFORE AUGUST
1st.
>> PROFESSOR HOWARD SCHWEBER,
THANKS FOR JOINING US.
>> MY PLEASURE.
>> FOR MORE ON THIS AND OTHER
ISSUES FACING WISCONSIN, VISIT
OUR WEBSITE AT PBS WISCONSIN
DOT-ORG AND THEN CLICK ON THE
NEWS TAB.
THAT'S OUR PROGRAM FOR TONIGHT.
I'M FREDERICA FREYBERG.
HAVE A GOOD WEEKENDS.
(CLOSED CAPTIONING PROVIDED BY
RIVERSIDE CAPTIONING COMPANY)