One key issue in getting out the vote is abortion
The race for state Supreme Court justice is a decision by voters to maintain the court’s 4-3 conservative majority or roll back the court’s weight for, in the words of Just the News “repeal of Wisconsin’s 1849 abortion law, right-to-work legislation, school voucher programs, and alter redistricting maps.”
It is so important that that it is gauged by some as the “most expensive” state Supreme Court Race with $27 million in spending so far, according to Just the News.
According to a March 28 social media posting, Scott Manley of Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, total general election spending on broadcast TV, cable, and radio from Feb. 22 till March 3 tallied the following from the candidate and third parties: Janet Protasiewicz $15.61 million, Daniel Kelley $16.94 million.
A Daily Caller article indicates, “For this period, Protasiewicz’ campaign, Janet for Justice, received a total of $12.4 million in funds and Kelly’s campaign, Friends of Justice Daniel Kelly, garnered just $2.2 million, their respective records show.”
“The Wisconsin Republican Party gave Kelly, a former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice, just under $500,000 in funds, with $457,867 in-kind donations and only $33,657 in monetary donations, according to finance reports for this period.”
The Daily Caller article can be read here.
There is little doubt that Daniel Kelly represents the conservative Republican side and Janet Protasiewicz the progressive Democrat side. You can tell by the endorsements each have received. Kelly is a former state Supreme Court justice and Protasiewicz is a Circuit Court judge and served as an assistant district attorney under Milwaukee County DA John Chisholm, a Soros-backed prosecutor, for 25 years.
Here are background profile on the candidates.
Janet Protasiewicz
Janet Protasiewicz is an attorney and a judge who currently serves on the Milwaukee County Circuit Court in Wisconsin. She has been a judge since 2013, and prior to that, she worked as a prosecutor and an attorney in private practice.
Protasiewicz is running for election to the Wisconsin Supreme Court in 2023. She has stated that her campaign is focused on improving access to justice and protecting the rights of all individuals, regardless of their background or socio-economic status.
Protasiewicz has been involved in various community organizations and initiatives, including the Milwaukee Bar Association, the Milwaukee Trial Judges Association, and the Legal Aid Society of Milwaukee. She has also been recognized for her work in the legal field, including being named a “Woman in the Law” honoree by the Wisconsin Law Journal in 2019.
Protasiewicz received her law degree from Marquette University Law School in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
Daniel Kelly is an attorney and a former justice on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. He was appointed to the court in 2016 by former Governor Scott Walker and served until 2020.
According to PBS Wisconsin (March 21, 2023):
Janet Protasiewicz has focused her candidacy on her support for abortion rights … She reiterated March 21 that she hadn’t made up her mind on how she would rule … “My personal opinion is that should be a woman’s right: to make a reproductive health decision. Period,” she said.
Endorsements: Hillary Clinton, Planned Parenthood, EMILY’s List, Human Rights Campaign PAC, various labor union organizations, aft Wisconsin, Blue Sky Waukesha, Women Lead Wisconsin, Wisconsin Conservation Voters, WI AFL-CIO, clean Wisconsin action fund, Teamsters, Jewish Democratic Council of America, NARAL, End Citizens United, Let America Vote, Jim Doyle, Mandela Barnes, US Sen. Tammy Baldwin, US Rep. Gwen Moore, Judge Lisa Neubauer, Judge Everett Mitchell, former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Louis J. Butler, Justices Ann Walsh Bradley and Rebecca Dallet.
Negative and tasteless slur television ads have been aired casting dispersions upon each candidate.
Protasiewicz is under scrutiny for her progressive rulings with “lenient” sentencing for perpetrators of violence against women and sex crimes against children.
You can read about these cases in a Just the News article dated March 30 here.
According to a Daily Caller News Foundation story by Mary Lou Masters, “Both George Soros and Democratic Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker funded the party with $1 million each, and Democratic Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California donated $12,000, according to finance reports for this period, Feb. 7 to March 20. The liberal candidate, Milwaukee County Judge Janet Protasiewicz, received roughly $8.7 million from the Democratic Party of Wisconsin in funds.”
iVoter Guide goes on to indicate “relevant statements” by Protasiewicz:
“I’d say that in addition to independence, you bring your values to the court everyday,” she says. “You bring your values, values like your belief in democracy, which kind of leads me in the way that I philosophically think about gerrymandering and the maps. Philosophically, values leading me to believe that a woman’s right to make decisions over her own body should be just that, not made by the government but made by the person who’s ultimately being affected by them. I think on some of those hot button issues, I can certainly tell you what my values are,” said Protasiewicz.
Stated “that in her court in Milwaukee, she’s always kept her focus on upholding the constitution and keeping the community safe.”
Protasiewicz told 27 News in an interview she doesn’t mind being branded as a progressive, at least with regard to social issues. “In regard to the progressive label, I embrace that when it comes to issues such as gerrymandering,” she said. “When we talk about the maps, when we talk about marriage equality, when we talk about women’s rights, and women’s rights to choose.”
“’For almost my entire life, the constitutional right to privacy has been settled law,’ said Protasiewicz. ‘We know that it’s not up to the government to decide who we can or can’t love.'”
From Twitter:
In regard to Dobbs she wrote“[t]oday’s opinion overturning Roe v. Wade and threatening all of the substantive due process freedoms won over the last century, is a political statement, not a legal one.”
“She believes in fairness, in upholding the rule of law, and in protecting our legal system from the corrupt influence of right-wing special interest.” [Posted to Twitter January 4, 2023]
She posted “Wisconsin faces some of the most pressing challenges in the struggle for reproductive freedom and election fairness, we need to elect a justice with the character and values to fairly interpret the law. I’m running to restore our Wisconsin values to our state’s highest court.” [Twitter post on August 23, 2022]
Daniel Kelly
Before his appointment to the Supreme Court, Daniel Kelly worked in private practice as a constitutional and appellate lawyer. He has also taught constitutional law and legal ethics at the University of Wisconsin Law School.
During his time on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, Kelly was often considered a conservative voice on the court. He authored opinions on various issues, including abortion, gun rights, and election law. His opinions were often controversial and generated significant debate.
In 2020, Kelly ran for re-election to the Wisconsin Supreme Court but was defeated by challenger Jill Karofsky. Since leaving the Supreme Court, Kelly has remained active in the legal community and has continued to speak out on various legal issues.
Kelly received his law degree from Regent University School of Law in Virginia Beach, Virginia.
The iVoter Guide indicates that Kelly is a “Proven Originalist” and Protasiewicz an “Activist” based on endorsements and contributions.
For Kelly, the Proven Originalist category is explained that:
“His campaign website states that “Justice Daniel Kelly will preserve constitutional rights, uphold the rule of law, and prevent judicial activism. He’s an experienced and trustworthy judicial conservative who will apply the law as it is written, rather than legislate from the bench. His opponents are judicial activists who seek to impose their own political agenda on our state.”
As a “judicial constitutionalist” his goals are to (1) “Defend Constitutional Rights; (2) “Uphold the Rule of Law” and (3) “Prevent Judicial Activism.[.]”
According to PBS Wisconsin (March 21, 2023): Kelly defended his support from the state’s three largest anti-abortion groups and said he made no pledge to them to uphold the ban, as Protasiewicz has alleged.
“This seems to be a pattern for you Janet, just tell a lie,” Kelly said. “You don’t know what I’m thinking about that abortion ban. You have no idea. … I had no conversations with those organizations about how I would rule on any issue, including the abortion issue.”
Kelly, who previously did work for Wisconsin Right to Life, has not said how he would rule on the challenge to the abortion ban should it reach the court. But he did write in a blog post years ago that abortion “takes the life of an unborn child.”
Kelly, a former state Supreme Court justice, has long ties to the Republican Party, having previously worked for Republicans. Kelly was endorsed by Trump in 2020. This year, he has the backing of Scott Presler, a Virginia native who planned several “stop the steal” rallies and was on the U.S. Capitol grounds on Jan. 6, 2021. He was in Wisconsin in March helping to raise money and support for Kelly through personal appearances on conservative talk radio.
Endorsements: Wisconsin Family Action PAC, Wisconsin Right to Life PAC, Pro-Life Wisconsin PAC, Wisconsin Farm Bureau, Wisconsin Fraternal Order of Police, NRA-ILA, Associated Builders and Contractors Wisconsin, Waupaca County Sheriff Tim Wilz, Wisconsin Supreme Court Chief Justice Annette Ziegler, Wisconsin Supreme Courts Justices Rebecca Bradley and Shelley Grogan, Wisconsin Court of Appeals Judges Mark Grundrum, Maria Lazar, Greg Gill, and Tom Hruz.
Daniel Kelly provided legal advice to hundreds of clients on a broad range of legal issues.
Below are statements from the campaign’s website (justicedankelly.com) that refute the accusations being leveled by his opponents.
LIE – As a lawyer, Kelly defended child sex predators who posed as ministers in order to prey on vulnerable young girls.
TRUTH – In the first law firm at which Daniel Kelly worked, Mr. Kelly was briefly assigned to handle pre-trial duties in the Spaulding cases. He did no further work in defense of the accused and moved on from the law firm before the case went to trial. He did not represent or defend them at trial.
LIE – Dan Kelly wants abortion banned, even in cases of rape, incest, and the health of the mother. For years, Kelly was on the payroll of a radical anti-abortion group working to take away women’s rights.
TRUTH – Justice Kelly does not discuss his views on abortion. He has said if a case on that subject comes before the Supreme Court, he would analyze it as he does all cases — he would apply the applicable laws, as written, to the extent they are consistent with the state and federal constitutions. As a justice, he sets aside whatever his personal opinions might be and focuses solely on the job of applying the law, not changing it to fit his personal views. Changing law is the job of the state legislature.
LIE – For years, Kelly was on the payroll of a radical anti-abortion group working to take away women’s rights.
TRUTH – Justice Kelly was never on the payroll of Wisconsin Right to Life. Furthermore, as a justice he sets aside his personal opinions and works to apply the law as written.
LIE – “…Kelly was at the center of the discussion in December 2020 with top Wisconsin Republicans over their highly controversial plan to covertly convene a group of Republicans inside the state Capitol…” Justice Kelly was hired “by the state Republican Party and the Republican National Committee to advise them on “election integrity issues” and the failed plan to set up a slate of fake presidential electors in 2020.”
TRUTH – Justice Kelly was hired by the RPW and RNC as a special counsel in August of 2020-before the November election. He was hired to advise on the ins and outs of all Wisconsin election law when needed and not just on so-called “election integrity” law issues. Justice Kelly was not only not at the center of any alternate elector plan, he had no knowledge of such a plan outside of one requested thirty-minute phone call on the subject. As congressional testimony has established, he was “not in the loop” on any such plan.
LIE – Justice Kelly was “bought off” over $20,000 in campaign contributions.
TRUTH – This is a lie. Before the 2020 election, Justice Kelly recused himself from a case involving an issue that could have affected an election in which he was a candidate. After the election was over, the case no longer had the potential of affecting anything in which Justice Kelly had an interest. Consequently, he sent a letter to the parties asking whether anyone would have any objection if he took part in future activity in the case. No one objected.
LIE – “Kelly ruled six times in favor of a plaintiff with which he had close ties, including taking contributions from its board.”
TRUTH – This is a lie. First, there is a difference between plaintiffs and the attorneys who represent them, which even a minimally competent jurist must know. In each of these six cases, the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (WILL) served as counsel. Long before Justice Kelly was a jurist, he was briefly associated, in a voluntary capacity, with WILL’s litigation advisory board where he attended one meeting five years before the earliest of these cases came to the Supreme Court. None of these matters were even potential cases at the time. Because he had no connection with the parties nor the subject of the cases, it would have been irresponsible for Justice Kelly to recuse himself from their consideration. In addition, these cases occurred between 2017 and June 2019. Justice Kelly didn’t start fundraising until after June 2019 so any campaign donations couldn’t have possibly influenced decisions in those cases. This is just another example of Janet Protasiewicz’s lack of personal integrity, as well as a demonstration of her sloppy analysis.
Abortion
Abortion is one of the key issues in this race.
Despite contact by HeadspingsIS, State Sen. Joan Ballweg and State Rep. Kevin Petersen did not return inquiries as to their outlook as to what their respective legislative bodies might be leaning toward in the matter of rewriting the 1849 abortion law nor their respective individual positions on the issue. Neither is listed on campaign websites endorsing either Supreme Court candidate.
As is expected, both Democrats and Republicans paint each side as being “extremist” on their respective party’s stand on abortion.
State Republicans, who control the Wisconsin Legislature, put forth a bill in March 2023 that would create rape and incest exemptions to the state’s 1849 abortion ban and are open to clarifying what “health of the mother” exception would mean.
State Democrats and Gov. Tony Evers seek return of the law before Roe vs. Wade was overturned.
What do Wisconsinites think?
The latest Pew Research poll on “Views about abortion among adults in Wisconsin” was in 2014, which was based on a sample size of 600 people.
At the time, 53% felt abortion should be legal in all/most cases, 45% illegal in most/all cases and 3% didn’t know. Men and women were evenly divided. Among married persons, 61% leaned toward making it illegal while those who never married favored abortion by a 9% margin. Non-parents favored abortion by a 73% to 66% against margin. Of those who are absolutely certain of their belief in God 75% believe abortion should be illegal and 41% believe it should be legal.
You can read more about this poll here.
Moderate stance
A moderate stance on abortion rights in the USA would likely involve support for some abortion rights while also acknowledging the validity of concerns held by those who oppose abortion. A moderate position may involve advocating for reasonable restrictions on abortion procedures, such as waiting periods or parental notification requirements, while also protecting a woman’s right to choose.
Additionally, a moderate stance may involve supporting access to contraception and comprehensive sex education as a means of reducing the need for abortions. This position may also involve recognizing the importance of protecting the health and safety of both the mother and the unborn child.
Most countries of the world
The majority of countries in the world that permit legal abortions allow it up to 12 weeks of pregnancy. However, there are some countries that permit abortion up to 14, 20, or even 24 weeks of pregnancy. Additionally, some countries have more restrictive laws that only allow abortion in cases of medical necessity or to save the life of the mother.
It’s important to note that the legal timeframe for abortion varies widely across countries and is often a contentious issue influenced by cultural, religious, and political factors.
The countries with the longest legal periods for abortion are:
Canada – Abortion is legal throughout pregnancy, but most provinces have specific limits on when funding for the procedure is available.
Netherlands – Abortion is legal up to 24 weeks of pregnancy.
Sweden – Abortion is legal up to 18 weeks of pregnancy, and in special circumstances, up to 22 weeks.
United Kingdom – Abortion is legal up to 24 weeks of pregnancy, and in special circumstances, such as when there is a risk to the mother’s life or serious fetal abnormalities, the limit is lifted.
Norway – Abortion is legal up to 18 weeks of pregnancy, and in special circumstances, up to 22 weeks.
China – In most parts of China, abortions are legal up to 14 weeks of pregnancy, but in some areas, such as Beijing and Shanghai, abortions are legal up to 22 weeks of pregnancy.