Newly unearthed audio has revealed that a conservative Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate has already made a decision on a case currently before the state Supreme Court, saying that he would prefer to keep an archaic law banning most abortions in the state in place.
State Judge Brad Schimel, who was previously a Republican attorney general forWisconsin, is running to replace outgoing liberal state Supreme Court Justice Ann Walsh Bradley. Schimel’s main opponent in the election, set to take place in April, is state Judge Susan Crawford, a liberal.
New audio reported on by The New York Times demonstrates that Schimel has already pre-judged a current case before the state’s highest court. Both candidates have previously been candid about their views on abortion rights, but the unearthed evidence shows Schimel has already made up his mind on the matter, in a highly unorthodox move for a candidate to the court.
The case involves the constitutionality of an 1849 statute banning all abortions in the state save for those necessary to save a pregnant person’s life — a standard that, in practice, is hard to enforce due to the ambiguity of the law.
A lower court in Wisconsin has deemed the law unconstitutional, and in November, liberal bloc justices of the Supreme Court (who compose a slim 4-3 majority over conservative bloc justices) expressed support for overturning the law, allowing abortion access to be recognized as a fundamental right.
Ostensibly nonpartisan contests, state Supreme Court races in Wisconsin have become partisan affairs in recent years, with both major political parties openly campaigning in support of judicial candidates.
Although the case is still being decided, the lower court’s ruling has allowed abortion clinics to resume their services in the state, after a brief hiatus occurred after the federal Supreme Court upended abortion rights protections across the country in the summer of 2022.
The race between these two candidates will have a huge impact on Wisconsin’s politics in the years ahead, including on abortion and reproductive health rights. Currently, the state Supreme Court is composed of four liberal bloc members and three conservatives. If Schimel wins, the court will be controlled by conservatives; if Crawford wins, the court will remain liberal.
The state Supreme Court could officially decide on the matter sometime in the next few weeks, but it’s possible that the state Supreme Court could revisit the 1849 statute in the event that Schimel wins.
Speaking to supporters this past summer, Schimel twice stated that he would disagree with the state Supreme Court if it found that there the state constitution grants the right to abortion-related health care. While candidates in the past have weighed in on their foundational beliefs regarding certain topics, expressing a view on a specific case is highly unusual for candidates to the state Supreme Court to do.
At the first of those two events, Schimel reportedly questioned, “What is flawed about the law?” implying he was supportive of the 1849 statute remaining in place without restriction. At the second event, Schimel went further, stating that, in his view, “there is not a constitutional right to abortion in our state constitution,” saying it would be “a sham” if the state Supreme Court ruled otherwise.
Crawford has also explained her beliefs on abortion rights, though she has not directly expressed her views about the current case before the court, stating that she believes individuals should be able to make their own reproductive health choices in consultation with their doctors.
Abortion rights supporters panned Schimel for his statements.
“This new audio proves what we already know: Brad Schimel is an extreme politician incapable of being impartial or fair,” Democratic Party of Wisconsin Deputy Communications Director Haley McCoy said in a statement on Monday.
Taking note of the fact that Schimel is also being endorsed by Pro-Life Wisconsin, a leading anti-abortion group in the state, Lucy Ripp, communications director at A Better Wisconsin Together, blasted Schimel for being out of touch with Wisconsin residents.
“Schimel has now proven he’s extreme enough to have earned the support of a group that wants to ban abortion without exceptions for rape, incest, or the life and health of” a pregnant person, Ripp said in a statement. “This makes it exceptionally clear where Schimel stands on abortion rights, and it’s not with Wisconsinites.”
A majority of voters in Wisconsin do indeed support much greater access to abortion than the 1849 statute allows for. According to a Marquette University Law School poll published in October, 63 percent of registered voters in the state backed abortion rights in all or most cases. Just 31 percent said abortion should be illegal in most cases, while just 6 percent said abortion should be illegal in all cases, close to what the 19th century law would enforce.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.