This week in legal news: the bad policy and law behind admitting privileges restrictions, and Republicans’ obstructionism on judicial nominees becomes transparently misogynistic.
The real purpose of Wisconsin’s admitting privileges law—like similar pending legislation in Alabama, Mississippi, and North Dakota—is not to protect maternal health, but to prevent women from exercising their constitutional right to choose an abortion, by making it virtually impossible to do so.
Advocates challenging the law and attorneys for the state agreed to extend a temporary restraining order blocking a portion of HB 57 until March.
While the committee debated the legislation, pro-choice activists met outside the capitol to protest government interference in personal decisions, building on the previous day’s Moral Monday protest, at which dozens of protesters were arrested.
Late Monday a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order, blocking enforcement of a new law designed to practically eliminate abortion access in the state.
On Friday, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker signed a forced ultrasound bill that will also require abortion providers to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles. In 2012, Walker also signed major anti-choice legislation, a telemed abortion ban, in the lead-in to a holiday weekend.
On Friday a federal judge blocked Alabama’s admitting privileges law from taking effect while a lawsuit on its merits proceeds.
According to the anti-choice action group, “tons of doctors” approve of the new anti-choice bills mandating how physicians interact with patients. But national and state physicians’ groups are not on board.
Anti-choice politicians in Wisconsin are gathering sponsors for “Sonya’s Law,” an anti-choice bill named after a woman who chose to continue a pregnancy after receiving an ultrasound.
First you make it so abortion clinics are unable to operate unless they work with a hospital. Then you harass the hospitals that work with them.