Wisconsin Senate passes bill changing state's definition of abortion

The Wisconsin State Senate has passed a bill that would change the state's definition of abortion. That bill now heads to the State Assembly.

Key Takeaways:

• The Wisconsin State Senate passed SB 553, ensuring that induced delivery for a medical emergency is not considered an abortion.

• Pro-abortion Democrats pushed back against the bill, claiming women would be subjected to unnecessary c-sections and induced deliveries, seemingly ignorant to the fact that even in an abortion, the baby must be delivered.

• The difference between induced delivery and induced abortion is that in the abortion, the baby is intentionally killed.

The Details:

On November 18, the state Senate passed SB 553, with every Democrat voting against it. The bill seeks to clarify the state's definition of abortion to represent the truth: that an induced abortion is the direct and intentional killing of the preborn child, not simply a "termination of pregnancy."

"The bill before us today does not ban abortions. It does not restrict abortions. It simply clarifies our laws so that women and medical providers can do what's necessary in those situations," Republican state Sen. Romaine Quinn said.

The bill states:

This bill amends the definition of abortion, for purposes of requiring voluntary and informed consent for abortions, to except from the definition of abortion a physician’s performance of a medical procedure or treatment designed or intended to prevent the death of a pregnant woman and not designed or intended to kill the unborn child, including an early induction or cesarean section performed due to a medical emergency or the removal of a dead embryo or dead fetus, or an ectopic, anembryonic, or molar pregnancy, which results in injury to or death of the woman’s unborn child when the physician makes reasonable medical efforts under the circumstances to preserve both the life of the woman and the life of her unborn child according to reasonable medical judgment and appropriate interventions for the gestational age of the child.

Why It Matters:

Pro-abortion Democrats in Wisconsin took issue with the bill, including Sen. Kelda Roys. "You now want to change the definition — we're just gonna say, well, 'we're just not gonna call it abortion' — when a woman needs an abortion; that is so Orwellian," she said.

However, such procedures — miscarriage treatment, ectopic pregnancy treatment, or induced delivery and emergency C-sections — have never been defined under the umbrella of induced abortion.

The goal of an induced abortion has always been to ensure the baby dies. That is the only point pro-lifers argue — that babies should not be intentionally killed. When a woman needs her pregnancy to end for a health reason, the doctor does not have to intentionally kill her baby to end the pregnancy, and countless doctors have confirmed there is no need to commit an induced abortion even in a medical emergency. The baby can be delivered alive in an induced delivery and, beginning at 21 weeks, that baby would have a chance of surviving if given medical care.

To be clear:

• Induced delivery = inducing delivery and try to save the baby's life

• Induced abortion = ensure that the baby dies either by direct action or intentional neglect to result in death

If the baby is too premature to survive even with medical intervention, the delivery is not considered an abortion because the intent of the delivery was to save the mother, not to kill the baby.

‘PREVENTABLE’: How pro-abortion media is weaponizing reporting on maternal deaths

In light of this information, looking at Sen. Roys' claims — that the bill "would force women to have unnecessary c-sections or to induce delivery rather than providing them with an abortion" — is baffling.

Regardless of what Roys thinks or says, an abortion is not a magic spell that makes the preborn child disappear. The baby must be delivered in an abortion, too, but during that abortion, the baby is intentionally killed and delivered dead. Sometimes in pieces.

This is not complicated to understand, which means Roys could be conflating induced delivery and induced abortion intentionally in order to protect abortion access — a complete disservice to women and babies.

"Across this state, Democratic candidates, for purely political partisan reasons, tell women that have experienced the tragedies of a miscarriage that they have had an abortion – that somehow, the heartbreak and loss of their very much wanted child, from no fault of their own, is the same, and needs to be told to them is the same as the intentional and procured termination of that child's life," said Sen. André Jacque.

The Bottom Line:

Hopefully, by being more intentional with their definitions of abortion, stats seeking to clarify abortion laws as Wisconsin is will help well-intentioned Americans realize that protecting preborn children from abortion does not mean women will lose access to health care.