Here & Now

Erpenbach On Effort To Repeal State Admitting Privileges Law

FREDERICA FREYBERG:

AFTER THOSE ARGUMENTS ON ADMITTING PRIVILEGES WERE RULED UNCONSTITUTIONAL BY THE SUPREME COURT, WISCONSIN ATTORNEY GENERAL BRAD SCHIMEL SAID THOSE PORTIONS OF OUR LAW ADDRESSED BY THE DECISIONS ARE NOW PERMANENTLY ENJOINED. BUT DEMOCRATS WANT SOMETHING MORE. WE’RE JOINED BY SENATOR JON ERPENBACH OF MIDDLETON AND THANKS FOR BEING HERE.

JON ERPENBACH:

THANKS. MY PLEASURE.

FREDERICA FREYBERG:

SO WHY ISN’T IT ENOUGH TO ENJOIN THIS LAW?

JON ERPENBACH:

TECHNICALLY THE LAW IS STILL ON OUR BOOKS. THERE’S ACTUALLY A FEW LAWS ON OUR BOOKS THAT ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE GO. I DON’T KNOW WHY IT HAS TO STAY ON OUR BOOKS. SO WHAT WE’RE ASKING THE MAJORITY LEADER AND THE SPEAKER TO DO IN JANUARY, ASSUMING THEY’RE IN THE MAJORITY. THEY MAY OR MAY NOT BE, WE’LL SEE AFTER ELECTION TIME, IS WE NEED TO TAKE THAT LAW OFF THE BOOKS BECAUSE IT’S NOT CONSTITUTIONAL.

FREDERICA FREYBERG:

IS THERE ANY WAY AT ALL THAT A LAW THAT REMAINS ON THE BOOKS BUT IS ENJOINED CAN SOMEHOW BE RECONSTITUTED?

JON ERPENBACH:

UNLESS THE SUPREME COURT REVERSES ITS DECISION, THEN IF IT’S STILL ON THE BOOKS, OBVIOUSLY THE LAW BECOMES IMMEDIATE THAT DAY, I WOULD ASSUME, NOT BEING A LEGAL EXPERT. BUT AT THE SAME TIME IF IT’S NOT CONSTITUTIONAL, IT’S WASTING SPACE. IT DOESN’T NEED TO BE ON OUR BOOKS. SO I THINK THERE’S A LAW ON THE BOOKS THAT MAKE A DOCTOR PERFORMING ABORTION A FELONY OR A CRIME OF SOME SORT. THAT’S NOT CONSTITUTIONAL. THAT’S STILL ON OUR BOOKS. SO, AGAIN, WE KNEW THE INTENT OF THIS LEGISLATION, WHAT IT WAS ABOUT ALL ALONG. THE SUPREME COURT HAS SIDED WITH US, ACTUALLY BASED ON SOME OF THE ARGUMENTS WE’VE USED ON THE FLOOR IN THE SENATE AND THE ASSEMBLY WHEN WE WERE DEBATING THIS. BUT, AGAIN, IT’S NOT CONSTITUTIONAL, HAS NO BUSINESS BEING ON OUR BOOKS.

FREDERICA FREYBERG:

AND THE PORTION OF THIS LAW THAT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL IS THIS ADMITTING PRIVILEGES. IT DOESN’T GO TO THE ULTRASOUND THAT’S ALSO PART OF ACT 37.

JON ERPENBACH:

CORRECT. IT’S THE ADMITTING PRIVILEGES. AND BASICALLY IF A DOCTOR CAN’T GET ADMITTING PRIVILEGES IN A HOSPITAL, THE CLINIC ESSENTIALLY HAS TO BECOME A HOSPITAL, WHICH THEN IMPEDES A WOMAN’S LEGAL RIGHT TO A SAFE ABORTION. SO THAT’S WHY IT WAS RULED UNCONSTITUTIONAL. AND AGAIN, GETTING BACK TO WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT EARLIER THIS WEEK WHEN WE DID THE PRESS CALL AND PUT OUT STATEMENTS ABOUT HOW IT’S UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND WE KNOW THAT NOW, AND IT DOESN’T NEED TO BE ON OUR BOOKS. I THINK THE FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS IN JANUARY IF REPUBLICANS ARE IN THE MAJORITY IS WE NEED TO GET RID OF THAT UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

FREDERICA FREYBERG:

AND IF REPUBLICANS ARE IN THE MAJORITY AND THEY TAKE YOU UP ON THAT, HAVE YOU HAD ANY WORD FROM THEM AS TO THEIR RESPONSE TO THIS CALL?

JON ERPENBACH:

NO. NO, WE HAVEN’T. AND I THINK NOT TO SPEAK FOR SENATOR FITZGERALD — I THINK HE BASICALLY CALLED IT A STUNT. IT’S NOT. THIS IS SOMETHING WE’RE VERY SERIOUS ABOUT. THIS IS A PASSIONATE ISSUE OBVIOUSLY FOR BOTH SIDES. THEY WERE WRONG. THE SUPREME COURT SAID THEY WERE WRONG AND THE LAW NEEDS TO COME OFF THE BOOKS.

FREDERICA FREYBERG:

MEANWHILE, LEGISLATORS WHO FAVOR THESE KINDS OF RESTRICTIONS ON ABORTION SAY THAT THE HIGH COURT RULING MEANS THAT THEY JUST HAVE TO WORK HARDER AND THERE ARE ALREADY PROPOSALS IN THE WORKS FOR A BILL THAT WOULD REQUIRE DOCTORS TO TELL PATIENTS WHO REQUEST AN ABORTION PILL THAT GETTING INJECTIONS OF PROGESTERONE COULD REVERSE THE EFFECTS OF THE ABORTION PILL AND THEN THEY WOULD HAVE TO BE DIRECTED TO WEBSITES SUCH AS ABORTIONPILLREVERSAL.COM. WHAT’S YOUR RESPONSE TO THAT?

JON ERPENBACH:

THERE ISN’T ANYBODY IN THE MEDICAL COMMUNITY WHO AGREES WITH THAT. THERE ISN’T ANYBODY IN THE MEDICAL COMMUNITY WHO THINKS THAT THAT’S A GOOD IDEA. THAT IS AN ABSOLUTE, COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME, FIRST OF ALL. AND WHAT IT SAYS TO A WOMAN HERE IN THE STATE OF WISCONSIN IS WHAT YOU WANT TO DO WITH YOUR BODY REALLY DOESN’T MATTER. AND TO DRIVE THAT POINT HOME, WE’RE GOING TO GO INTO CRAZY SCIENCE AND JUNK SCIENCE TO PROVE THAT YOUR OPINION ON YOUR BODY AND WHAT YOU CHOOSE TO DO DOESN’T MATTER. I WISH THEY WOULD WORK JUST AS HARD ON TRYING TO FIND PEOPLE JOBS HERE IN THE STATE, BECAUSE THAT’S WHAT REALLY MATTERS RIGHT NOW. I WISH THEY WOULD WORK JUST AS HARD RIGHT NOW IN THE STATE OF WISCONSIN TO TRY AND DEAL WITH THE MASS SHOOTINGS WE HAVE AROUND THIS COUNTRY AND TALK ABOUT SOME LEGITIMATE, SERIOUS GUN CONTROL. THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE ALONG WITH WHAT REPRESENTATIVE KREMER WANTS TO INTRODUCE IS A COMPLETE WASTE OF OUR TIME. THIS LAW IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. IT NEEDS TO COME OFF OUR BOOKS. AND REPRESENTATIVE KREMER NEEDS TO FIND SOMETHING BETTER TO DO.

FREDERICA FREYBERG:

HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT THERE ARE NO MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS GOING ALONG WITH THAT?

JON ERPENBACH:

BECAUSE THEY WOULD BE STANDING UP SAYING, “YUP, THIS IS A GOOD IDEA. THIS IS WHAT WE NEED TO DO.” FROM WHAT I’VE READ AND WHAT I’VE SEEN, THERE ISN’T ANYBODY WITHIN THE MEDICAL COMMUNITY WHO THINKS THAT THAT’S A GOOD IDEA.

FREDERICA FREYBERG:

ALL RIGHT. SENATOR JON ERPENBACH, THANK YOU.

JON ERPENBACH:

THANKS. MY PLEASURE.