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.