A Wisconsin circuit court judge has ruled that an 1849 law that classifies the destruction of a fetus by someone other than the mother as a felony does not outlaw abortions, returning the state’s abortion access to its pre-Dobbs status.

Dane County Circuit Court Judge Diane Schlipper on Tuesday reaffirmed a ruling she issued earlier this year, finding that an 1800s-era law “does not apply to consensual abortions, but to feticide.”

After the Supreme Court overturned the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling in 2022, the question was raised over whether a Wisconsin state law passed in 1849 could go into effect. Roe had effectively invalidated the law when it was in effect.

  • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    11 months ago

    Why are we even considering a ~180 yr old law as something relevant today?

    How old do you think murder laws are?

    • The Pantser@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      Point made but those laws would be passed unanimously no matter the year, nobody wants to be murdered. Better point would be decency laws where it’s crazy that men can be topless but women can’t. Those laws are old too.

      • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        11 months ago

        Okay, but you’ll find that some laws are a bit more controversial than murder being bad.

        Exhibit A: points vigorously all around

        Those kind of obsolete laws tend to not be enforced either, and thrown out if they ever are, so it’s not really a significant problem. It’s important for economic and social stability that the law have some amount of stability and that we’re not constantly revamping everything every decade or so.

      • gregorum@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Fun fact: it’s actually legal for women to be topless in New York due to a lawsuit over this very issue.

      • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        I mean, you say “it’s obvious” but we don’t know it to be true unless people vote on it. “Obvious” to you can be “controversial” to somebody else (e.g. it depends on who is being killed and why).

        There are many laws older than 100 years that we keep for good reason. Most of the US constitution, theft, land rights, etc. There’s absolutely no reason to think negatively about a law simply based on how “old” it is. If people change their minds over time we pass new laws to reflect that. That’s “how it works”. You can’t simply say “bah, that’s an old weird law lets ignore it now.”