Wisconsin Supreme Court

A majority of the judges on a state supreme court’s bench have exercised what has been determined to be their “personal preference” to overturn a “duly enacted” law banning abortion.

The details are documented a report at the Federalist, which pointed out the minority dissent in the case before the Wisconsin state Supreme Court noted even judges are supposed to follow the law, even if they don’t like it.

The report explained, “In a decision deemed judicial activism and a ‘power grab’ by pro-life and judicial experts, the leftist-controlled Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday to nullify the Badger State’s longstanding law barring abortion.”

The 4-judge majority claimed “the legislature impliedly repealed” an 1849 law that made abortion a felony. There was no specific repeal.

The new interpretation of the law, unchanged by the legislature in the state, is abortion is allowed – through a certain time period.

Chief Justice Jill Karofsky actually “repeated the leftist lie that women, such as Georgia woman Amber Thurman, lost their lives ‘because they lived in states that severely restrict abortion care,'” the report confirmed.

However, both of the women cited by Karofsky died after taking the dangerous chemicals involved in a do-it-yourself abortion pills, and the report noted that medical malpractice also was involved in their deaths, a factor ignored by Karofsky.

“In her dissent, Justice Annette Ziegler scolded the majority and the concurring chief justice for prioritizing the ‘profoundly personal way in which we might determine our respective positions on abortion’ over ‘how a court is required to interpret the law,'” the Federalist explained.

She cited the legal standard that, “It is the court’s duty to adhere to the law whether we ‘like’ the answer or not.”

The majority, she explained, took part in “a jaw-dropping exercise of judicial will, placing personal preference over the constitutional roles of the three branches of our state government and upending a duly enacted law,” the report said.

“In this dangerous departure from our constitutional design, four members of the court make up and apply their own version of implied repeal, failing to hew to any semblance of traditional judicial decision-making or jurisprudence.”

Andrew Bath, of the Thomas More Society, explained, “This decision is nothing short of a judicial power grab. The Wisconsin Supreme Court has taken it upon itself to erase a law that elected representatives deliberately preserved for over 175 years — even while Roe v. Wade rendered it unenforceable.

“The majority abandoned sound legal reasoning in favor of political activism, mocking the very concept of judicial restraint. This is a betrayal of the rule of law and a devastating blow to the state’s longstanding commitment to protecting the most vulnerable.”

Such judicial radicalism isn’t a surprise, as the original Roe decision creating a “right” to abortion was adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court majority with an absence of any link to the U.S. Constitution back in 1973. It was overturned just a few years ago.

And Kelsey Pritchard, of SBA Pro-Life America, told the Federalist that the lives of unborn now are at risk because of an “activist ruling from the Wisconsin Supreme Court.”

“Babies with heartbeats and who can feel pain have no legal protection in the state of Wisconsin where abortion through the fifth month is now the law of the land as dictated by four justices on the court,” Pritchard said.

Bath described the court’s activism as “legislating from the bench — an egregious violation of our constitutional system of separation of powers.”

Bob Unruh

Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after nearly three decades with the Associated Press, as well as several Upper Midwest newspapers, where he covered everything from legislative battles and sports to tornadoes and homicidal survivalists. He is currently a news editor for the WND News Center, and also a photographer whose scenic work has been used commercially. Read more of Bob Unruh's articles here.