The Wisconsin Supreme Court has only just gone back into session, but the abortion giant Planned Parenthood is ready to put it to work.
In a new lawsuit filed against District Attorney Ismael Ozanne, Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin is arguing that the state constitution’s guarantee of personal liberty is under attack by two current induced abortion policies. The laws in question, Wisconsin Statutes 253.10 and 253.105, require mothers seeking induced abortions to undergo counseling and a 24-hour waiting period between requesting the abortion and obtaining the procedure or drugs, as well as specifying that only licensed physicians may commit induced abortions.
These regulations were put in place as common-sense safeguards. Induced abortion ends the life of a child and comes with a long list of potential adverse maternal events; it’s important that women receive informed consent, have time to consider the information, and be treated by qualified medical professionals.
Additionally, when we consider these requirements in a different healthcare situation, they don’t seem arbitrary or uncommon at all. Oncology patients, for example, can’t usually begin treatment the day they are diagnosed. Cancer is certainly medically serious and time-sensitive, but these patients must still schedule appointments in advance (often days if not weeks). When a patient determines she wants a hysterectomy as treatment of a medical condition, that surgery doesn’t typically happen that day or even the next day. Even less serious procedures throughout medicine, like dental surgery, entail much stricter professional requirements – yet Planned Parenthood is making the case that such restrictions when applied to induced abortion “conflict with the freedoms and protections guaranteed to each of us.”
AAPLOG agrees with much of the medical literature on this topic, which has found that protective restrictions on induced abortion often produce better results for women. Post-abortive surveys show waiting periods and increased counseling help to screen for coercion and ensure informed consent, as well as provide opportunity for further resources or follow-up. AAPLOG additionally added in a committee opinion that other potential maternal advantages of a waiting period also include “the ability to provide standard medical care, such as Rho(D) immunoglobulin administration when indicated, which decreases the rate of alloimmunization in future pregnancies.”
Unfortunately, despite the science, pro-abortion organizations like Planned Parenthood, bolstered by ACOG’s influence on abortion policy, frequently ignore evidence-based, life-affirming medical standards as they advocate for expanded abortion access at the expense of women and their preborn children.
Whether Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin will ultimately prevail is unclear, but one thing remains certain: we must continue advocating for evidence-based policies that safeguard the health and well-being of women and their preborn children.
