>> Announcer: THE FOLLOWING
PROGRAM IS A PBS WISCONSIN
ORIGINAL PRODUCTION.
>>> NOW WITH ROE V. WADE
OVERTURNED, ACCESS TO ABORTION
IN WISCONSIN IS SUSPENDED.
TONIGHT WE EXPLORE WHAT HAPPENS
NOW AND THE CONFUSING LEGAL AND
MEDICAL LANDSCAPE.
THIS RULING LEAVES IN ITS WAKE.
IT'S "HERE AND NOW" FOR JULY 1.
?
>>> TODAY I AM ANNOUNCING THAT
WE'RE TAKING THIS FIGHT BACK TO
THE COURTS.
I'VE AUTHORIZED ATTORNEY GENERAL
JOSH KAUL TO FILE A LAWSUIT
TODAY THAT IS A DIRECT CHALLENGE
OF WISCONSIN'S 1849 CRIMINAL
ABORTION BAN.
AN OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF
WISCONSINITES SUPPORTED ROW --
ROE IN MAKING SURE ABORTIONS
REMAIN SAFE AND LEGAL IN
WISCONSIN.
>> TO IT THE RAMIFICATIONS IN
WISCONSIN IN THE WAKE OF THE
U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISION
OVERTURNING ROE V. WADE.
BECAUSE THE HIGH COURT SENT IT
BACK TO THE STATES, WISCONSIN
NOW REVERTS TO A STATUTE PASSED
IN 1849 THAT PROHIBITS ABORTION.
BUT THERE HAVE BEEN ADDITIONAL
AND CONFLICTING STATE ABORTION
LAWS PASSED SINCE THEN.
IN A MOMENT WE'LL HEAR FROM
ATTORNEY GENERAL JOSH KAUL WHO
SAYS THE 19th CENTURY BAN ON
ABORTION IS UNENFORCEABLE
BECAUSE OF DUELING LAWS ON THE
BOOKS.
>>> BUT FIRST NATHAN TAKES US
THROUGH THE BRO DEPRESSION OF
ABORTION -- PROGRESSION OF
ABORTION LAWS IN WISCONSIN.
>> Reporter: THE 1849 LAW
PROHIBITS ABORTION OUTRIGHT,
MAKING IT WHY -- ILLEGAL TO
PERFORM AN ABORTION AFTER A
MOTHER FEELS FETAL MOVEMENT,
UNLESS IT IS TO SAVE THE
MOTHER'S LIFE.
UNDER THAT LAW, ANY PERSON WHO
PERFORMS AN ABORTION COULD BE
GUILTY OF A FELONY.
AS THE CHANGES OVER THE YEARS,
IN 1858 A NEW LAW MADE IT A
FELONY TO ABORT AT ANY POINT
AFTER CONCEPTION.
MORE THAN 100 YEARS AFTER THAT,
THE U.S. SUPREME COURT RULED IN
ROE V. WADE.
THE 1973 CASE HELD THAT THE
CONSTITUTION PROTECTS A WOMAN'S
RIGHT TO AN ABORTION PRIOR TO
THE VIABILITY OF THE FETUS.
INTERESTEDE ROE THE DECISION TO
TERMINATE THE PREGNANCY WAS
SOLELY AT THE DISCRETION OF THE
WOMAN DURING THE FIRST THREE
MONTHS.
WISCONSIN'S POST-ROE LIMITS
INCLUDED A LAW PROHIBITING
ABORTIONS OF A 20 WEEKS EXCEPT
FOR THE LIFE OR HEALTH OF THE
MOTHER.
MORE UPDATES TO THE STATUTED
CONTINUED.
A SET OF LAWS FROM 2017 PUT
RESTRICTIONS INCLUDING A WAITING
PERIOD AND MANDATORY
ULTRASOUNDS.
[CHANTING]
>> Reporter: SO WHEN THE U.S.
SUPREME COURT STRUCK DOWN
ROLFED, THE -- ROE V. WADE, THE
DECISION LEFT THE OLD AND NEW
LAWS ON ON THE BOOKS IN
WISCONSIN.
>> HAVING BOTH THE OLD AND NEW
LAWS ON THE BOOKS MAKES THE 1849
LAW UNENFORCEABLE.
THAT'S ACCORDING TO WISCONSIN
ATTORNEY GENERAL JOSH KAUL.
HE'S FILED A LAWSUIT SEEKING TO
CLARIFY WHETHER THE 173 BAN IS
STILL IN PLACE.
JOSH KAUL JOINS US NOW FROM THE
CAPITOL.
THANKS VERY MUCH FOR BEING HERE.
>> THANKS FOR HAVING ME.
>> WHY ACCORDING TO YOUR LAWSUIT
WOULD THE 1849 ABORTION BAN BE
UNENFORCEABLE?
>> WELL, FIRST I THINK IT'S
IMPORTANT JUST TO SAY WHERE WE
ARE, WHICH IS YOU KNOW, WE'RE A
WEEK AFTER ROE VS. WADE WAS
OVERRULED AND THE IMPACT IS THAT
WOMEN IN WISCONSIN TODAY ARE
LESS FREE, LESS EQUAL, AND LESS
SAFE THAN THEY WERE JUST A WEEK
AGO.
SO WE ARE DOING WHAT WE CAN TO
WORK TO RESTORE ACCESS TO SAFE
AND LEGAL ABORTION IN WISCONSIN.
NOW, OUR SUIT ARGUES THAT THE
18 -- MID 1800s BAN DOESN'T
COME INTO EFFECT EVEN THOUGH
IT'S STILL ON THE BOOKS FOR A
COUPLE REASONS.
THERE WERE A SERIES OF LAWS THAT
WERE PASSED MUCH MORE RECENTLY
THAT ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THAT
19th CENTURY BAN, SO FOR
EXAMPLE THE 19th SEN TRAY BAN
DOESN'T HAVE AN EXCEPTION EVEN
TO PROTECT THE HEALTH OF THE
MOTHER.
BUT THE NEW LEGISLATION DOES.
AND IT CAN'T BE SIMULTANEOUSLY
LEGAL AND ILLEGAL FOR A DOCTOR
TO PERFORM AN ABORTION THAT
PROTECTS THE HEALTH OF THE
MOTHER.
SO TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR
STATEUTES CONTINUE TO HAVE A
EFFECT IN MORE RECENT ONES, THE
OLD ONE CAN'T BE ENFORCED.
OLD STATUTE HAS GONE INTO DISUSE
BECAUSE IT WAS RARELY USED
BEFORE AND IT HASN'T BEEN USED
IN THE LAST 50 YEARS.
>> HAS THIS HAPPENED BEFORE
WHERE AN EARLIER LAW THAT
REMAINS ON THE BOOKS WAS
SUPERCEDED BY A LATER ONE?
>> THERE IS PRESS SENT FOR
LAWS -- PRECEDENT FOR LAWS TO BE
IMPLIEDBLY REPEALED.
IT'S NOT COMPLON.
BUT THIS IS NOT -- COMMON.
BUT THAT IS NOT A COMMON
SITUATION.
WE'RE IN A SITUATION WHERE THE
LEGISLATOR ACTED ABORTION WAS
PROTECTED.
THAT A RIGHT WAS TAKEN AWAY FROM
AMERICANS AFTER ALMOST 50 YEARS.
WE'RE IN UNCHARTED WATERS HERE.
BUT YOU KNOW, THAT SORTING
ISSUES OUT SO THEIRS CLARITY --
SO THERE'S CLARITY AS TO WHAT
THE LAW IS IS CRITICAL.
>> EVEN THOUGH THERE ARE
COMPETING ABORTION LAWS ON THE
BOOKS, IS IT AS OF TODAY
ILLEGAL?
PROVIDERS ARE CERTAINLY
PRACTICING THAT WAY WITH PLANNED
PARENTHOOD TURNING AWAY PEOPLE
IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING LAST
FRIDAY'S RULING.
BUT IS IT IMMEDIATELY ILLEGAL?
>> WELL, OUR ARGUMENT IS THAT
IT'S NOT BECAUSE THAT OL STATUTE
IS NOT IN EFFECT.
BUT PROVIDERS ARE OF COURSE --
THEY DON'T WANT TO TAKE A CHANCE
THAT WHAT THEY'LL BE DOING COULD
LEAD TO A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION.
SO THIS SUIT WILL HELP DETERMINE
EXACTLY WHAT THE STATE OF THE
LAW IS.
ONE OF THE REASONS IT'S SO
IMPORTANT TO GO FORWARD IS THAT
WISCONSIN PROVIDERS NEED TO HAVE
CLARITY ABOUT WHAT THE STATE OF
THE LAW IS.
THE BEST WAY TO GET THAT CLARITY
WOULD BE FOR OUR LEGISLATURE TO
COME INTO SESSION AND ACT
LEGISLATION AND HOPEFULLY
PROTECT REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM.
BUT HAVING THIS LITIGATION WILL
HOPEFULLY BEGIN THE PROCESS OF
PROVIDING CLARITY AS WE TRY TO
THINK ABOUT WHETHER AND HOW A
19th CENTURY LAW THAT WAS IN
PLACE WOULD APPLY TO 21ST
CENTURY MEDICINE.
>> STILL, COULD A D.A. INTENT ON
PROSECUTING A CASE UNDER THE
1849 LAW DO SO NOW?
>> WELL, MY OFFICE CAN'T STOP
THEM FROM DOING SO.
THEY CAN CHOOSE TO USE THEIR
RESOURCES HOWEVER THEY WANT.
I WOULD DISCOURAGE THEM FROM
DOING THAT BECAUSE I'D MUCH
RATHER SEE THEM USING THEIR
LIMITED RESOURCES TO PROSECUTE
SERIOUS OFFENSES LIKE HOMICIDES
OR SEXUAL ASSAULTS OR DRUG
TRAFFICKING.
BUT WHETHER THEY CAN OR NOT WILL
ULTIMATELY DEPEND ON WHAT
HAPPENS WITH OUR SUIT, BECAUSE
IF THE LAW CAN'T BE ENFORCED, IF
WE RECEIVE THAT RULING IN THE
SUIT, THEN THERE WOULD BE NO
BASIS FOR ENFORCEMENT.
BUT IF THE SUPREME COURT FINDS
THAT IT CAN BE ENFORCED, THEN
IT'S UP TO THE D.A.s WHETHER
THEY PROSECUTE CASES.
>> WHAT'S YOUR SENSE AS TO HOW
FAST ANY KIND OF RULING MIGHT BE
MADE ON THIS?
>> I THINK IT'S LIKELY TO BE A
MATTER OF MONTHS.
YOU KNOW, THIS IS A LEGAL
DISPUTE FUNDAMENTALLY, NOT A
DISPUTE ABOUT UNDERLYING FACTS.
AND SO I THINK A COURT CAN RULE
RELATIVELY QUICKLY.
BUT THERE WILL BE BRIEFING.
THERE WILL BE ARGUMENTS BEFORE
THE COURT.
AND THEN AFTER THE CIRCUIT COURT
RULES, THERE'S LIKELY GOING TO
BE APPEALS AS WELL.
SO WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE
CLARITY IMMEDIATELY.
IT'S GOING TO TAKE A BIT OF
TIME.
BUT I WANT TO MOVE THROUGH THE
COURT SYSTEM AS QUICKLY AS
POSSIBLE.
IN THE MEANTIME, I HAVE CALLED
AND CONTINUE TO CALL ON THE
LEGISLATOR TO COME INTO SESSION
AND HELP PROVIDE SOME CLARITY SO
DOCTORS AND NURSES AND WOMEN IN
WISCONSIN HAVE A BETTER
UNDERSTANDING, A CLEARER PICTURE
OF WHAT THE LAW IS.
>> SO WE SHOULD TELL OUR VIEWERS
THAT WE DID INVITE REPUBLICAN
LEGISLATIVE LEADERS TO APPEAR
TONIGHT.
NEITHER OF THEM RESPONDED.
BUT HERE IS WHAT SPEAKER VOSS
SAID ABOUT YOUR LAWSUIT.
HE SAID, QUOTE, IT'S SAD THAT
REVERSE AND KAUL WANT TO BREAK
THE LAW INSTEAD OF WORK WITH THE
LEGISLATURE.
I'M CONFIDENT OUR COURTS WILL
SEE THROUGH THEIR TACTICS, HE
SAYS, AND UPHOLD THE LAW.
WHAT IS YOUR RESPONSE TO SPEAKER
VOSS' STATEMENT?
>> WELL, FIRST, PART OF THE
ISSUE IS WE HAVE INCONSISTENT
LAWS.
AND WHICH SETS OF THOSE LAWS
APPLY IS ONE OF THE THINGS WE
WANT TOY SOLVE THROUGH THE
COURTS.
BUT WE ARE HAPPY TO WORK WITH
LEGISLATIVE LEADERS.
YOU KNOW, THE GOVERNOR CALLED
THE SPECIAL SESSION AND MOST
REPUBLICAN LAWMAKERS DIDN'T EVEN
SHOW UP FOR THAT SPECIAL
SESSION.
THEY GAVELED IN AND GAVELED OUT
AND THEN JUST A FEW DAYS LATER,
WE WERE LEFT IN THIS STATE OF
LEGAL UNCERTAINTY BECAUSE ROE
WAS OVERTURNED AND WE STILL
HAVEN'T HEARD FROM OUR
LEGISLATORS.
THIS IS A HUGE DEVELOPMENT IN
WISCONSIN THAT'S IMPACTING MANY
PEOPLE'S LIVES.
AND WISCONSINITES DESERVE TO
HAVE THEIR LEGISLATORS STEP UP,
HEAR FROM THEM ON THESE ISSUES,
DEBATE THESE ISSUES, AND I HOPE
ACT TO PROTECT ACCESS TO SAFE
AND LEGAL ABORTION.
>> SO JUST BRIEFLY, IF YOU
WORKED WITH THE LEGISLATURE AT
THIS POINT, EVEN AFTER THAT
SPECIAL SESSION, WHAT WOULD YOU
SEEK?
>> WELL, I WOULD WANT THEM TO
RESTORE ACCESS TO SAFE AND LEGAL
ABORTION IN WISCONSIN.
YOU KNOW, THE SITUATION THAT WE
HAD IN WISCONSIN PRIOR TO ROE
BEING OVERTURNED WAS ACTUALLY A
FAIRLY RESTRICTIVE SET OF RULES.
A LOT OF THE LAWS THAT ARE IN
PLACE WERE SIGNED BY GOVERNOR
WALKER.
AND RETURNING TO THAT KIND OF
SITUATION, WHERE WOMEN WHO NEED
TO OBTAIN ABORTIONS ARE ABLE TO
GET THEM AND ARE SAFE DOING SO.
IT'S CRITICAL TO PROTECTING THE
HEALTH AND SAFETY OF WISCONSIN
WOMEN.
WE KNOW THAT WHEN ABORTION IS
ILLEGAL, IT DOESN'T STOP
ABORTION FROM HAPPENING.
WHAT IT STOPS IS SAFE AND LEGAL
ABORTION FROM HAPPENS.
WE'VE -- HAPPENING.
WE'VE GOT TO GET BACK TO
PROTECTING PEOPLE'S REPRODUCTIVE
FREEDOM.
>> THANKS VERY MUCH.
>> THANKS FOR HAVING ME.
>>> SHORTLY AFTER THE HIGH COURT
OVERTURNED ROE V. WADE, GOVERNOR
EVERS ANNOUNCED HE WOULD GRANT
CLEMENCY TO ANYONE CHARGED UNDER
THE ABORTION BAN AND WOULD NOT
APITTSBURG STATE PROSECUTORS WHO
AGREED TO ENFORCE THE LAW.
OUR NEXT GUEST IS A SITTING
DISTRICT ATTORNEY.
WHAT WILL HE DO?
TIM GRUENKE IS THE D.A. IN
LA CROSSE COUNTY.
HE JOINS US NOW AND THANKS VERY
MUCH FOR BEING HERE.
>> GLAD TO BE HERE.
>> SO YOU HAVE SAID THAT YOU
DON'T AGREE WITH THE OVERTURNING
OF ROE V. WADE.
BUT WOULD BE OBLIGED TO
PROSECUTE ABORTION CASES UNDER
THE LAW.
WHY?
>> I THINK THAT IN THE EXECUTIVE
BRANCH, OUR FUNCTION IS TO
ENFORCE THE LAWS.
AND THERE ARE MANY LAWS THAT THE
LEGISLATURE PASSES THAT I MIGHT
HAVE A DISAGREEMENT WITH OR I
THINK ARE UNWISE OR SOMETIMES
MIGHT BE ACTUALLY MORE HARMFUL
THAN GOOD.
I CAN PRIORITIZE MY CASES.
I CAN DEEMPHASIZES SOME OF THE
LOST.
WE COME UP WITH CREATIVE
SOLUTIONS LIKE THE DIVERSION
AGREEMENTS OR ORDINANCE
VIOLATIONS, BUT I NEVER SET UP
ANY LAW THAT I WOULD NEVER
PROSECUTE A LAW.
I THINK OUR JOB IS TO ENFORCE
LAWS AS PROSECUTORS.
SO IF THE LAW WERE PASSED, IF
THE LAW WERE HELD BY THE COURTS,
I HAVE TO PROSECUTE IT JUST LIKE
ANY OTHER CASE.
I WOULD LOOK AT THE FACTS.
I WOULD DETERMINE IF IT'S A GOOD
CASE.
I WOULD DETERMINE IF WE COULD
PROVE IT.
WOULD A JURY CONVICT AND
QUESTIONS LIKE THAT.
BUT I WOULD NEVER SAY ABOUT ANY
CRIME THAT I WOULD NEVER
PROSECUTE OR THAT I WOULD ALWAYS
PROSECUTE IT.
>> WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT
D.A.s WHO STATE THEY WILL OR
WILL NOT CHARGE CERTAIN TYPES OF
CASES LIKE THE DANE COUNTY D.A.
WHO PLEDGES NOT TO PROSECUTE
ABORTION CASES?
>> I UNDERSTAND THE SENTIMENT.
I ALSO THINK THAT WOMEN SHOULD
HAVE THE RIGHT TO CONTROL THEIR
OWN BODIES AND I -- I'M UPSET
THAT THE ROACHEDZ -- ROE VS.
WADE WAS OVERTURNED, BUT MY
PERSONAL FEELINGS JUST DON'T
PLAY IN IT.
WHEN THE LEGISLATURE PASS AS
LAWR THAT'S SUPPOSED TO REFLECT
THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE N AS THE
D.A. I'M SUPPOSEES TO REPRESENT
ALL PEOPLE OF LA CROSSE COUNTY
AND NOT TAKE MY PERSONAL VIEWS
IN IT.
I DON'T AGREE WHEN PROSECUTORS
WON'T ENFORCE GUN RESTRICTIONS
BECAUSE THEY'RE SECOND AMENDMENT
FANS I OR THEY WON'T PROSECUTE
SEXUAL ASSAULT CASES BECAUSE
THEY HAVE A DIFFERENT IDEA OF
THE LAW.
I DON'T THINK THE D.A. SHOULD BE
IN THE BUSINESS OF NOT BROTHERS
CUTING LAWS PASSED BY
LEGISLATURE.
>> AS A DISTRICT ATTORNEY WHO
WOULD HAVE IF DRESS --
DISCRETION, WOULD YOU
PRACTICALLY, CHOE, RIGHT NOW
BE -- THOUGH, RIGHT NOW BE ABLE
TO TAKE A CASE TO COURT?
>> PRACICALLY I DON'T KNOW THAT
IT'S POSSIBLE RIGHT NOW.
IN WISCONSIN THERE'S TWO
ABORTION STATUTES THAT SOMEWHAT
CONFLICT WITH EACH OTHER.
ONE IN 1849 AND WITHIN IN 1985.
THEY HAVE DIFFERENT PENALTIES
AND DIFFERENT EXCEPTIONS.
THEY HAVE DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS.
SO AT THIS POINT I'M NOT SURE IF
LEGISLATURE INTENDS -- WHAT ONE
THE LEGISLATURE INTEND US TO
FOLLOW.
SO IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO GET
A CASE, FIGURE OUT WHICH LAW
APPLY, AND PRACTICALLY GO
FORWARD AND PROSECUTE THAT CASE
UNTIL THE COURTS MAKE A RULING
OR IF ATTORNEYS LAWSUIT IS
SUCCESSFUL OR THE LEGISLATURE
PASS AS LAW THAT'S CLEARER AND
REFLECTS THE INTENT OF WISCONSIN
PEOPLE, I THINK IT WOULD BE HARD
PRACTICALLY TO ENFORCE THE LAWS
ON THE BOOKS NOW.
>> SO YOU WERE WITH JOSH KAUL
SAYING IT'S UNENFORCEABLE AT
THIS TIME, IS THAT THE SAME
THING?
>> I THINK IT'S PRACTICALLY
UN
ENFORCEABLE.
WHEN THE CASE COMES IN IT MAY BE
DIFFERENT.
BUT AT THIS . I'M NOT SURE
HOW -- AT THIS POINT I'M NOT
SURE HOW DISTRICT ATTORNEYS
UNDERSTAND WHICH TWO LAWS ARE
SUPPOSED TO BE ENFORCED WHEN
THEY'RE PROHIBITING THE SAME
CONDUCT BUT DIFFERENT
DEFINITIONS AND PENALTIES AND
SEEM TO HAVE DIFFERENT INTENT.
>> IF THE COURTS AS A RESULT OF
JOSH KAUL'S LAWSUIT UPHOLD
COMPLETE BANS ON ABORTIONS IN
WISCONSIN, HOW DO THE CASES COME
IN FOR CHARGING?
WHO REFERS THEM?
WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE?
>> THERE'S ANOTHER QUESTION THAT
PRACTICALLY I'M NOT SURE THAT
THAT WOULD BECOME AN ISSUE
BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THE
ABILITY TO GO INTO DOCTOR'S
OFFICES, HEALTHCARES IS
OBVIOUSLY CONFIDENTIAL.
WE DON'T SEND OVER INVESTIGATORS
TO HOSPITALS AND EVEN IF WE DID,
I DON'T THINK THEY'D GAVE US ANY
INFORMATION.
SO I'M NOT YEAR ON HOW A CASE
WOULD EVEN COME TO US.
AND IF IT DID, I'M NOT SURE WHAT
INFORMATION WE'D BE ABLE TO
GATHER AND SO I THINK IT'S
PRACTICALLY VERY DIFFERENT TO
ENFORCE THIS -- DIFFICULT TO
ENFORCE THIS BAN, EVEN THOUGH
PEOPLE THINK IT'S A CHANGE.
IT'S NOT SURE MUCH IS GOING TO
CHANGE IN MOST COUNTIES IN
WISCONSIN.
>> SO YOU ARE STANDING BY TO
FIND SOME CLARITY AROUND THESE
LAWS.
>> I WOULD URGE THE LEGISLATURE
TO DO WHAT I THINK A LOT OF
PEOPLE WANTED, WHEN ROE VS. WADE
WAS OVERTURNED, WAS BURN A
BALLOT TO THE STATES -- RETURN
THE BALLOTS TO THE STATES.
AND FIND OUT WHAT WISCONSIN
REALLY WANTS.
DO WE WANT EXCEPTIONS, A CERTAIN
TIME PERIOD, HOW ARE WE DEFINING
THE -- FINANCIAL HEALTH, HEALTH,
EMOTIONAL HEALTH.
THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT
NEED TO BE FIXED AND I WOULD
THINK THE LEGISLATURE WANT TO
WELCOME THAT AND HAVE THAT
DISCUSSION AND GIVE US SOME
CLARET ON WHAT IT IS WE'RE
SUPPOSED TO BE PROSECUTING.
>> TIM GRUENKE, D.A., THANKS
VERY MUCH.
>> THANK YOU.
>>> WITH THE LAWS IN LIMBO,
WISCONSIN PHYSICIANS ARE
CONTENDING WITH WHAT THIS MEANS
FOR PATIENT CARE.
MARISA SAT DOWN WITH DR. AMY
DOMEYER, LEGISLATIVE CHAIR OF
THE WISCONSIN SECTION OF THE
AMERICAN COLLEGE OF
OPINDUSTRIESES AND GIN --
OBSTETRICIANS AND
GUANTANAMOCOLOGISTS.
>> WHAT WAS -- GYNECOLOGISTS.
>> WHAT WAS YOUR REACTION AND
YOUR PATIENTS WHEN THIS CAME
DOWN?
>> THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE AT
WISCONSIN A.C.O.G. HAVE BEEN
PREPARING FOR.
WE'VE BEEN HAVING CONVERSATIONS
WITHIN OUR STATE AMONGST OTHER
PHYSICIAN GROUPS TRYING TO
ANTICIPATE THIS MOMENT AND
PREPARE THE BEST WE CAN TO TAKE
THE BEST AND SAFEST CARE OF OUR
PATIENTS, GIVEN THE CURRENT
POLITICAL LANDSCAPE OR THE
CURRENT CHANGE IN WISCONSIN LAW
REFLECTED BASED ON THE JUDICIAL
DECISION.
AMERICAN COLLEGE OF OB GINs
VIEWS ABORTION, AS ESSENTIALLY
HEALTHCARE FOR OUR PATIENTS.
AND SO KNOWING THAT OUR QLEETION
WHO ARE CARING FOR -- COLLEAGUES
WHO ARE CARING FOR PATIENTS
EVERY DAY WHO ARE NEEDING THESE
SERVICES, IT'S DEVASTATING.
>> SO NOW THAT THE RIGHT TO
ACCESS AN ABORTION HAS BEEN
OVERTURNED, WHERE DOES THAT
LEAVE PHYSICIANS IN TERMS OF
PATIENT CARE?
>> YEAH.
SO I WOULD SAY, NUMBER ONE,
WE'RE FOLLOWING VERY CLOSELY THE
LEGAL LANDSCAPE IN THE STATE OF
WISCONSIN.
I'M SURE YOU'RE AWARE OF THE
LAWSUIT THAT WAS PLACED
YESTERDAY BY GOVERNOR EVERS AND
ATTORNEY GENERAL KAUL.
SO I THINK ALL OF US ARE
WATCHING TO SEE HOW THAT MAY
IMPACT OUR ABILITY TO CARE FOR
PATIENTS.
THE CONDITIONS IN THE LAW
INCLUDE ONE FOR AN EXEMPTION FOR
THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER.
AND WHERE THE LIFE OF THE
PREGNANT PERSON, RATHER.
AND THE CHALLENGE IS THAT THIS
LAW, WHICH WAS WRITTEN IN 1849,
BEFORE ULTRASOUND, BEFORE ANY OF
THE DIAGNOSTIC TOOLS THAT WE
HAVE TODAY, DOESN'T GIVE US
CLARIFICATION OF WHAT THAT
MEANS.
AND SO THE CHALLENGE FOR US AS
PROVIDERS IS TRYING TO INTERPRET
WHAT THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER
MEANS.
HOW SICK DOES A PATIENT HAVE TO
GET BEFORE I CAN PROVIDE
SERVICES THAT I KNOW ARE SAFE
AND EFFECTIVE?
AND SO I THINK THAT AND WHERE WE
ARE AT IN TERMS OF OUR STATE
PROFESSIONAL SOCIETY OF OB/GYNS
AS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO
BEST PROVIDE THE SAFEST CARE FOR
OUR PATIENTS, SO THAT WE AREN'T
WAITING UNTIL A PATIENT CANNOT
BE PULLED BACK.
I THINK THERE MAY BE THIS
MISCONCEPTION THAT, OH, THE LIFE
OF THE MOTHER.
WELL, WE CAN JUST DECIDE AT SOME
POINT THAT SHE'S SICK ENOUGH AND
THEN PROVIDE TREATMENT AND ALL
IS WELL.
PATIENTS THAT ARE ALLOWED TO GET
SICK ENOUGH ARE IN THE ICU.
THEY MAY HAVE TO HAVE THEIR
UTERUS REMOVED FOR LIFESAVING
CARE.
SO IT ISN'T SO EASY IN TERMS OF
MEDICAL DECISION MAKING TO
PROVIDE A QUICK FIX ONCE A
PERSON HAS GOTTEN THAT FAR --
THAT FAR ILL.
AND PRIOR TO THIS DECISION, IF
IT GOT TO THAT POINT, IT WAS
BECAUSE A PATIENT CHOSE TO BE
THERE.
IT WAS BECAUSE THE PATIENT FELT
STRONG ENOUGH ABOUT THAT
PREGNANCY AND CONTINUING THAT
THEY ACCEPTED THE RISK OF SEVERE
ILLNESS OR POTENTIAL DEATH.
AND NOW WITH THIS LAW, THAT
WON'T BE THE CASE.
>> IF A SITUATION RIGHT NOW
WITHOUT THE LAW BEING CLEARED
UP, PRESENTED ITSELF, THAT A
PREGNANCY WOULD NEED TO BE
TERMINATED, IS THAT SOMETHING
THAT PHYSICIANS LIKE YOURSELF
ARE GOING TO DO IF NEEDED FOR
THE MOTHER?
>> YEAH.
I THINK HONESTLY RIGHT NOW,
WE'RE STILL SORTING 3 OUT.
SO THE ANSWER IS I HOPE YES,
BECAUSE OF THE LIFE OF THE
MOTHER IS AT RISK.
I HOPE ANY OB/GYN WOULD
RECOGNIZE THAT AND QUICKLY REACH
OUT TO PARTNERS AT OTHER
HOSPITALS TO GET APPROVAL SO
THAT THIS CAN MOVE FORWARD SO
PATIENTS' LIVES ARE SAVED.
THAT SAID, I WOULD IMAGINE GIVEN
THE CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR
PHYSICIANS THAT ANY DOCTOR IN
THAT SITUATION WOULD FEEL
SCARED.
YOU KNOW, IT'S A FELONY
CONVICTION.
>> I GOT KIDS AT HOME.
I'M DOING YOUR PAP SMEERGS.
I'M NOT -- PAP SMEARS.
I'M NO A FELON.
SO THAT'S SCARY.
>> WHAT THE LAW IS CLEARED UP OR
ATTEMPTED TO BE CLEARED UP, ARE
THERE LAWS THAT CAN CAPTURE WHAT
IT USED TO BE A CONVERSATION
BETWEEN A PATIENT AND THE
PHYSICIAN?
>> I THINK IN GENERAL, AS
DOCTORS, AS OB/GYNS, WE ARE VERY
RESISTANT TO GOVERNMENT
INTRUSION ON DOCTOR/PATIENT
RELATIONSHIPS.
SO LEGISLATING MEDICAL CARE
PRESENTS A DANGER IN US BEING
ABLE TO PROVIDE AGAIN, THE BEST
AND SAFEST CARE FOR OUR
PATIENTS.
>> WE'RE GOING LEAVE IT THERE
FOR TODAY.
DR. DOMEYER, THANK YOU SO MUCH
FOR JOINING US.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR HAVING
ME.
>> YOU CAN SEE THE EXTENDED
VERSION OF THAT INTERVIEW ON OUR
WEB PAGE.
>>> PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF
WISCONSIN SUSPENDED ITS ABORTION
SERVICES IMMEDIATELY UPON THE
SUPREME COURT DECISION
OVERTURNING ROE V. WADE.
THE PROVIDER HAS PATIENT
NAVIGATORS TO HELP PEOPLE FIND
OUT-OF-STATE OPTIONS, LIKE THOSE
ACROSS THE BORDER IN ILLINOIS,
WHERE ABORTION REMAINS LEGAL.
WE ECONOMIC IN WITH JULIE UHAL
OF PRIND OF ILLINOIS WHO
MANAGE -- PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF
ILLINOIS WHO MANAGES ITS
PROGRAM.
THANKS SO MUCH FOR BEING HERE.
>> VERY FOR HAVING ME ON TODAY.
>> WHAT KIND OF INFLUX HAS
PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF ILLINOIS
SEEN FROM BOARDING STATES LIKE
WISCONSIN?
>> THANKS FOR ASKING THAT.
WE'RE PREPARING FOR THIS MOMENT
FOR A REALLY LONG TIME.
AND PROJECTIONS HAVE SHOWN THAT
WE'RE ANTICIPATING SEEING UP TO
20 TO 30,000 ADDITIONAL PATIENTS
FROM OTHER STATES.
IT WILL TAKE A LONG TIME TO SEE
EXACT NUMBERS AND TRENDS.
IT'S ONLY BEEN A WEEK.
FEELS LIKE FIVE YEARS SINCE THE
DECISION CAME DOWN.
BUT I CAN SURE THAT OUR CALL
VOLUME DOUBLED ON FRIDAY AND
SATURDAY, INCLUDING FROM
WISCONSIN PATIENTS WHO LIKE YOU
SAID MAY HAVE BEEN AT THE CLINIC
FOR AN APPOINTMENT LAST FRIDAY
AND WERE FORCED TO RESCHEDULE
THAT AND IT CREATED A LOT OF
CHAOS AND CONFUSION.
>> INDEED.
YOU'RE SECURING ACCESS FOR
EVERYONE OR SAFE PROGRAM.
DID YOU STAND THIS UP JUST FOR
THIS EVENTUALITY OR HAS IT BEEN
LONG STANDING?
>> IT WAS FOR THIS EVENTUALITY.
WE'VE SEEN THE WRITING ON THE
WALLS FOR YEARS NOW, KNOWING
THAT YOU KNOW, FAR RIGHT
CONSERVATIVES HAVE BEEN PLANNING
TO OVERTURN ABORTION ACCESS IN
THIS COUNTRY.
SO THE PROGRAM OFFICIALLY
STARTED IN 2019.
>> SO PLANNED PARENTHOOD HAS
PATIENT NAVIGATORS TO HELP WITH
OUT-OF-STATE ABORTION CARE.
HOW DOES THAT WORK EXACTLY?
>> SO A PATIENT NAVIGATOR IS
KIND OF LIKE A CASE MANAGER,
KIND OF LIKE THE TRAVEL AGENT.
AND THEIR JOB IS SPECIFICALLY TO
WORK WITH PATIENTS WHO FACE
LOGISTICAL BARRIERS TO ACCESS
ABORTION CARE.
AND AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, THAT'S
GOING TO BECOME MORE COMPLICATED
AND DIFFICULT AS THEY'RE FORCED
TO TRAVEL FURTHER.
IT GENDS PATIENT BY PATIENT WHAT
SORT OF ASSISTANCE THEY NEED.
SOMETIMES IT'S SUBSIDY,
SOMETIMES IT'S HOTEL, CHILD
CARE, FOOD VOUCHERS AND GOOD
VOUCHER.
WE TRY TO ASSIST ANY OF THOSE
NEEDS THEY MIGHT BE FACING.
>> I READ THAT ANTIABORTION
GROUPS ARE DRAFTING MODEL
LEGISLATION TO ALLOW PRIVATE
CITIZENS THE RIGHT TO SUE FOR
ANYONE TERMINATING A PREGNANCY
OUT OF STATE.
WHAT'S YOUR REACTION TO THAT?
>> I'M DISAPPOINTED BUT NOT
SURPRISED.
I THINK THAT THEY HAVE BEEN
TESTING EVERY OUTLET THEY CAN IN
ORDER TO CRIMINALIZE FOLKS FOR
ACCESSING THAT HEALTHCARE THAT
THEY NEED.
BUT YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT GOING TO
STOP AND WE'RE COMMITTED TO
HELPING PEOPLE ACCESS THAT CARE
HOWEVER WE CAN.
>> HOW IS SAFETY ENSURED FOR
WOMEN WHO MIGHT TRAVEL FROM
THEIR HOME STATES FOR AN
ABORTION PROCEDURE?
>> SO I JUST WANT TO EMPHASIZE
THAT ABORTION IS SAFE AND
EFFECTIVE.
IT IS CERTAINLY SAFER THAN
PREGNANCY OR CHILDBIRTH IS.
THE MEDICATION ABORTION PILL
SPECIFICALLY HAS A LOWER RATE OF
ADVERSE SIDE EFFECTS THAN
TYLENOL DOES.
ANY SAFETY CONCERNS COME FROM
THE VERY VULNERABLE SITUATIONS,
PEOPLE WILL BE PUT IN WHEN
THEY'RE FACING CRIMINALIZATION
TO CROSS STATE LINES FOR
HEALTHCARE, BUT WE TAKE EVERY
STEP THAT WE CAN IN ORDER TO
EDUCATE OUR PATIENTS ABOUT THOSE
RISKS AND MAKE SURE THAT THEIR
CAN THE SHAFT AND --
CONFIDENTIALITY AND PRIVACY IS
PROTECTED.
>> IF SOMEONE CAME FROM
WISCONSIN AND HAD THEIR
PREGNANCY TERMINATED, DO THEY
STAY IN PLACE FOR A PERIOD OF
TIME TO BE MONITORED -- YOU'RE
SAYING IT'S EXTREMELY SAFE,
RIGHT.
BUT IS THERE KIND OF A PERIOD OF
TIME WHERE THEY STAY IN PLACE IN
ILLINOIS?
>> DEPENDING ON WHETHER THEY'RE
SEEKING MEDICATION OR INCLINIC
ABORTION, YEAH, THEY'LL BE AT
THE CLINIC TO BE MONITORED FOR
ANY IMMEDIATE HEALTH CONCERNS
ASSOCIATED WITH THAT.
BUT OTHERWISE, OUR -- PERSON
FOLLOWING THE PROGRAM IS ALWAYS
REACHABLE BY PHONE OR ONLINE.
>> IS YOUR CLINIC HIRING PEOPLE
TO ASSIST WITH THIS INNUX OF
PATIENTS?
>> I CAN'T SHARE ANY SPECIFICS
ABOUT OPERATIONAL, BUT THIS
RESPONSE TO THIS HEALTH CRISIS
IS GOING TO BE A MARATHON, NOT A
SPRINT.
SO WE'RE WORKING REALLY CLOSELY
WITH ALL OF OUR PARTNERS AROUND
THE MIDWEST REGION TO ENSURE
THAT PATIENTS HAVE ACCESS TO THE
CARE THEY NEED NO MEAT WHERE
THEY'RE COMING FROM -- NO MATTER
WHERE THEY'RE COMING FROM I AND
THERE WILL BE MORE.
>> IS IT ACCURATE THAT THERE'S A
PLANNED PARENTHOOD JUST ACROSS
THE BORDER IN SOUTH BELOIT,
ILLINOIS?
>> I'M NOT FAMILIAR -- IF THERE
IS, IT'S NOT A PBIL CLINIC.
OUR CLINIC CLOSEST TO THE
WISCONSIN BORDER IS IN WAUKEGAN.
>> JULIE FROM PLANNED PARENTHOOD
OF ILLINOIS, THANKS SO MUCH.
>> THANKS FOR HAVING ME.
>>> FOR MORE ON THIS AND OTHER
ISSUES FACING WISCONSIN, VISIT
OUR WEBSITE AT WPTV.COM.
-- PBS WISCONSIN.ORG.
THAT'S OUR PROGRAM FOR NOT.
HAVE A GOOD HOLIDAY WEEKEND.