Announcer:

The following program is a PBS Wisconsin original production.

Woman:

I didn’t actually believe it was going to happen.

Frederica Freyberg:

The surprise announcement from Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, that they will resume abortion services. Republican lawmakers change course on redistricting. And a party-line Senate vote to fire the state’s top election official.

I’m Frederica Freyberg, tonight on “Here & Now,” we speak with Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin as well as Wisconsin Right to Life on abortion services returning to the state. Then, both sides of the aisle now want non-partisan redistricting, but they still disagree on the details. We hear from Republican Representative Todd Novak and Democratic Senator Mark Spreitzer. It’s “Here & Now” for September 15.

Announcer:

Funding for “Here & Now” is provided by the Focus Fund for Journalism and Friends of PBS Wisconsin.

Frederica Freyberg:

Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin delivered a bombshell this week, announcing they will resume abortion services after the U.S. Supreme Court upended the constitutional right to an abortion just over a year ago. The announcement comes despite existing state statute, a law passed in 1849 that says any person other than the mother who intentionally destroys the life of an unborn child is guilty of a felony. An existing lawsuit from three physicians challenging the 1849 law is still working its way through circuit court. In July, a motion to dismiss the lawsuit was rejected. In that ruling, Dane County Judge Diane Schlipper wrote there is no such thing as an 1849 abortion ban in Wisconsin. The judge said the 175-year-old law refers to feticide, not consensual abortion. It is under this ruling that Planned Parenthood bases its decision to resume abortion services in Madison and Milwaukee. To better understand this, we turn to Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin president and CEO Tanya Atkinson. And thanks very much for being here.

Tanya Atkinson:

Thank you for having me, Frederica.

Frederica Freyberg:

So why does Planned Parenthood feel confident that they can provide abortions again without even a change in the law?

Tanya Atkinson:

Well, as you pointed out in your introduction, the judge was very clear that the statute that was in question does not apply to voluntary abortions. When Roe was overturned, that was unclear and Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin had to make the agonizing decision to suspend abortion services, and at that time, you know, we made it very clear that we were committed to finding a path forward to providing that essential care again. There were two paths. One is a legislative path that’s not available. The second is a legal path, and with the rulings in the Dane County circuit court, that legal path is now there and we’re maintaining our commitment to resume services.

Frederica Freyberg:

Do you feel as though that’s a path or a window at this point, given that the case continues?

Tanya Atkinson:

Well, we recognize that the case has not concluded. However, twice now, the judge has made it very clear, and also referencing a decision in the ’90s from the state Supreme Court, so it’s been made very clear that the law does not apply to voluntary abortions, so we’ve received the clarification that we need and, you know, we’ll move forward. Of course should anything happen in the future, unexpected, we’ll address it at this time. But as far as we’re concerned, we’re very confident and the law has been clarified.

Frederica Freyberg:

You said that this was not a political decision but a medical one. How so?

Tanya Atkinson:

Well, you know, we’ve received a lot of questions about, you know, the situations that are happening, you know, with the discussions regarding the Supreme Court and the state legislature, you know, and we recognize that that’s something that’s happening in the background. Our commitment was to provide care again as soon as we could and so regardless of whatever those conversations are that are happening, you know, in our legislature, this was absolutely a healthcare decision and not a political decision.

Frederica Freyberg:

What kinds of abortions will be provided?

Tanya Atkinson:

So we’ll resume the care that we were providing prior to Roe falling, so we’ll be providing both in-clinic and medication abortions.

Frederica Freyberg:

And again, if a court moves to block abortions, then you will have to do like you did that day and kind of usher patients who had already arrived out of your clinic?

Tanya Atkinson:

Yeah. Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin always follows the letter of the law, and as you’ve pointed out, when Roe fell, we did have people in our waiting rooms and we very unfortunately had to let them know that we could not provide that care that day and instead try to find them another place where they could receive that care. So should something happen in the future, of course, we will continue to follow the letter of the law.

Frederica Freyberg:

How will you reassure or do you feel that you need to reassure patients that they won’t get in trouble?

Tanya Atkinson:

I think, you know, we will — we haven’t received that question a lot, and certainly we have a lot of education services, both in our health centers and in the community so we’ll continue to lift that up, and it’s not a question that we’ve received since the announcement, and it’s always something that we’re committed to, is ongoing patient education.

Frederica Freyberg:

Yesterday, your clinic started scheduling appointments for Monday. Have you gotten a lot of calls?

Tanya Atkinson:

We have. We have received a lot of calls and we have appointments set up in both Madison and Milwaukee.

Frederica Freyberg:

So when your clinics ceased abortions last year, did you imagine this is how services would resume?

Tanya Atkinson:

We knew that there was — that the legislative path forward was a narrow path, if it was there, so we recognized that the legal path forward was something we really needed to attend to, so I think that, you know, how exactly, you know, the words and the trajectory and, you know, we obviously didn’t know that the attorney general was going to file a lawsuit. We didn’t know what the Dane County circuit court was going to say, so we didn’t have a crystal ball on those specific actions. We did understand that our best course forward was a legal — a legal one.

Frederica Freyberg:

All right. We leave it there. Tonya Atkinson of Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, thanks very much.

Tanya Atkinson:

Thank you so much.

Frederica Freyberg:

Anti-abortion advocates who were celebrating this time last year call the news devastating. We turn now to Gracie Skogman, legislative director for Wisconsin Right to Life. Thanks very much for being here.

Gracie Skogman:

Thanks for having me.

Frederica Freyberg:

Describe why you call this devastating.

Gracie Skogman:

You know, we have seen and met many of these children firsthand who are here today because Roe was overturned and this law was in effect in our state here in Wisconsin. So we can’t help but think of these mothers and their children and how this will impact them. This was a really powerful time in our state to show that we value all preborn life and now it’s very, very different, will be very different on Monday in Wisconsin.

Frederica Freyberg:

How surprised were you by this announcement by Planned Parenthood?

Gracie Skogman:

You know, coming back to this spring, we knew that the election of the new Supreme Court justice would have a very big impact on this fight to protect life, but I think we’re still surprised to see this preemptive decision by Planned Parenthood since this matter is still to be decided by the courts. So that was surprising to us but at the same time, we knew that this battle was going to ramp up after the results of the election.

Frederica Freyberg:

Does Wisconsin Right to Life plan to file any kind of legal challenge against Planned Parenthood now at this point?

Gracie Skogman:

We are currently looking at all options, whether that be legal, legislative, to see what options we have to fight back against this, but I think our most powerful tool is the pregnancy resource centers here in the state, ensuring that they are fully funded and able to provide services to women.

Frederica Freyberg:

So given the shifting public opinion to support abortion, are there any situations that Wisconsin Right to Life would support legal abortions?

Gracie Skogman:

So we have always been in favor of having protections when there’s a medical emergency. We think that’s very important and that’s been consistent through our history at Wisconsin Right to Life and remains our position today.

Frederica Freyberg:

So our recent reporting quoted doctors who said abortion is healthcare and should be the decision of the patient. What do you say to patients who fear that their fetus will suffer or their health and life are at risk without an abortion?

Gracie Skogman:

Again, in the case of a medical emergency, we, you know, understand and believe that there should be that protection in the case of a medical emergency. But when we think about healthcare, ultimately the goal is always to protect life, and we are talking about protecting the most vulnerable life in our society, and that is these unborn children.

Frederica Freyberg:

So you spoke to this a moment ago. What do your attorneys say about whether the Dane County judge’s order that said there is no such thing as an abortion ban in Wisconsin, represents an actual window of legality for the resumption of abortion procedures in this state?

Gracie Skogman:

We certainly believe that the issue has yet to be decided by the courts. I know that it’s expected that this will come before the state Supreme Court and, again, we are surprised by Planned Parenthood taking this action, we think that it is early to resume services when the issue is yet to be decided.

Frederica Freyberg:

So is Wisconsin Right to Life calling on Justice Protasiewicz to recuse from the underlying lawsuit over the 1849 abortion statute?

Gracie Skogman:

We certainly did see throughout her time on the campaign trail that she made her issue, her opinion on this issue very clear, and that is certainly concerning for any sitting justice on the state Supreme Court.

Frederica Freyberg:

Are you asking for her to step aside from that case?

Gracie Skogman:

We’re not commenting on that specifically, but certainly have concerns about how she made her opinions so clear while she was running for that office.

Frederica Freyberg:

Given that Planned Parenthood will start offering abortion services on Monday and they have already been scheduling those appointments and have been taking a lot of calls from people seeking that service, what will that mean for the pregnancy resource centers that, in some cases, are really right next door to Planned Parenthood clinics? How will that change what those resource centers do now?

Gracie Skogman:

The resource centers through the past year in a post-Roe Wisconsin, have truly stepped up. They’re seeing, in many cases, double the clients, and it’s so powerful to see the relationships of trust that they build with these women. These women are not only receiving life-affirming care, but in many cases, they are receiving safe and secure housing, they are receiving other options for comprehensive healthcare. So I think that once the center has built that relationship with a woman, she’s much more likely to come back if she’s in need of support and tell her community about those services. So I think that we will continue to see these pregnancy resource centers see an increase in clients.

Frederica Freyberg:

All right. Gracie Skogman, thanks very much.

Gracie Skogman:

Thank you.

Frederica Freyberg:

At the Capitol this week, Senate Republicans voted to fire Wisconsin Elections Commission Administrator Meagan Wolfe. Democrats contend the law says Wolfe doesn’t need Senate confirmation to continue in her role and the vote shouldn’t have happened in the first place because the bipartisan Wisconsin Elections Commission didn’t have a majority of members send it to the Senate. Shortly after the vote took place, Wolfe, who was unanimously confirmed by the Senate in 2019, made a statement and Democratic state Attorney General, Josh Kaul, announced a lawsuit.

Meagan Wolfe:

During my 12 years working as a non-partisan election official, I’ve learned that when politicians on either side of the aisle are upset with me, it’s usually because I will not bend to political pressure. The Senate’s vote today to remove me is not a referendum on the job I do but, rather, a reaction to not achieving the political outcome they desire.

Josh Kaul:

We have asked the court to issue a declaratory judgment and an injunction making clear that Meagan Wolfe remains the administrator of the Wisconsin Election Commission. The Senate would not have authority to act unless WEC had a majority vote in favor of an appointment. So the story today is not what the Senate purports to have happened; the story is that the state Senate has blatantly ignored Wisconsin law in order to put its stamp of approval on baseless attacks on elections in Wisconsin.

Frederica Freyberg:

In more bombshell news, the state Assembly Thursday approved an Iowa-style redistricting bill. The quickly fashioned about-face from majority Republican leaders who have long opposed non-partisan map-making comes as the Wisconsin Democratic Party announced a $4 million ad campaign to pressure Republicans to back down from talk of impeaching liberal Justice Janet Protasiewicz if she doesn’t step aside from two lawsuits over the current maps. Under the bill, the maps would be drawn by the Legislative Reference Bureau, non-partisan staff who work for the legislature. Legislators would then vote up or down on the plan, and if passed, it would then go to the governor for final approval. A Republican state representative who has long championed the Iowa model is here. Todd Novak joins us from Dodgeville. Thank you for being here.

Todd Novak:

I’m glad to be here.

Frederica Freyberg:

So how surprising was it for you that suddenly the speaker moved to a redistricting process similar to what you have long proposed?

Todd Novak:

It wasn’t too surprising. My colleague and I, Representative Tranel from the 49th who’s in the neighboring district and I have been on this for years. We first started, him and I, talking about this after the last election. It’s like, you know, after going through the last court case, even before the election, and we started pushing and we actually met with the speaker before April and he said, you know, you might be right, talk to your colleagues, see if you can talk to some Democrats and we need to really probably take a look at this. Now, this is before April. So we have been working on it and, you know, I will say, it was — talking to some of my colleagues that have been opposed to it and why we need to do it, was not the easiest task, but they listened and then finally we got to a point, I would have rather put it out in May or June. Finally we got to a point where we had it coalesce, we had everything together and we went with it and so I will say this, in my career, this is one of the highlights of my legislative career.

Frederica Freyberg:

Does it matter to you that the about-face on the issue comes in the midst of redistricting lawsuits and talks of impeachment of Justice Protasiewicz and this Democratic ad blitz against that and that it came so quickly like that?

Todd Novak:

I mean, from me looking on the inside, talking to my Democrat colleagues over the summer, and our working group, I know the optics look bad, but, I mean, I’m usually considered one of the pretty trustworthy guy in the legislature by both parties, and my word’s gold, and we didn’t just throw this out in two or three days. I know the optics may look bad, but I’ve been working hard. We’ve been working, four or five of us, very hard on this for months, and as far as impeachment issue, we have not even talked about impeachment. I am one of the people that are being targeted by this — all this money, the Democrat money, and, you know, I really don’t care about it. I don’t tie the two together. I know the media maybe and the Democrats do, but in my mind, that’s not why I did this. Look at my record. I’ve been doing it for 10 years.

Frederica Freyberg:

What about the lawsuits? I mean, did that…

Todd Novak:

I have no I’m not — that’s not anything to do with me. I don’t even, you know — that’s — I’ve — I’m so used to — you know, you look back — we’ve been in the courts for two years on redistricting, two, three years. This all started — I mean this is kind of what got my colleagues there. The court could essentially flip in two years and then we could be back doing this. I don’t think anybody wants to do maps every two years, and now we have a system in place where it’s out of our hands.

Frederica Freyberg:

How do you respond to Democratic critics of the bill, including the governor, who calls it bogus?

Todd Novak:

The same governor who stood at the Assembly chamber podium demanding we do this in the state of the state or budget address, put this in his budget, I believe, this same exact plan, and now he’s saying it’s bogus. I think yesterday was very telling to me. We have all the Democrat caucus on record, various statements supporting this exact same thing, and now they were just yesterday, just totally flipped. And, oh, no — I won’t say all of them, secretly, behind the scenes, some said we really want this but our leadership won’t let us.

Frederica Freyberg:

I want to get this question in. What about the question that earlier proposals for non-partisan map-making would require approval of at least three-quarters of all members elected in each house, whereas this proposal does not require that?

Todd Novak:

Now, we changed that to bipartisan, and it has to be a bipartisan vote. That was one of the — we put six amendments on last night with the request of some of our Democrat colleagues. It’s changed to bipartisan. And the reason is simply 75%, you could have 10 Democrats let’s say and 10 Republicans that say, selfishly say, I don’t like what you did to my district, I’m not voting for it. 75% threshold isn’t just getting another side on board, it’s getting — it would just be almost impossible to get in a certain situation. I don’t ever want that to happen. It doesn’t happen in Iowa. It’s not in the Iowa model. So only changes this bill from Iowa is what the Legislative Reference Bureau said we had to change to match our constitution.

Frederica Freyberg:

All right. Representative Novak, we need to leave it there. Thanks very much for your time.

Todd Novak:

Thank you. I’m glad to talk to you. Have a good day.

Frederica Freyberg:

On the other side of the aisle, Democratic Senator Mark Spreitzer calls it disingenuous for Republicans to propose the plan after years of fighting non-partisan redistricting. He joins us from Beloit. Senator, thanks for being here.

Mark Spreitzer:

Thank you for having me.

Frederica Freyberg:

So is it not disingenuous for Democrats to now oppose this after calling for non-partisan redistricting over the years yourselves?

Mark Spreitzer:

No. We still support non-partisan redistricting. In fact, non-partisan redistricting was the very first bill that I authored as a state representative in 2015 and I still support it, but there’s some critical differences between what I’ve supported and the bill that Robin Vos is proposing and also the bill we’ve supported was never intended to fix an underlying Republican gerrymander. It was intended for the every decade redraw of maps after the census and the bill that is in front of us right now doesn’t do anything to actually guarantee we get rid of the Republican gerrymander that we’re currently stuck with because if there were to be a stalemate in the drawing new maps, we would just default to the map we have right now. After the census, you go to court because you have to redraw the maps. Right now, we have a gerrymander that we need to make sure we get rid of and this bill doesn’t do that.

Frederica Freyberg:

Would you be at all in favor of any bill that would be coming out of the Assembly right now that dealt with some of these issues as this bill does?

Mark Spreitzer:

I don’t think this is a serious effort by Republicans. I don’t think Robin Vos woke up Tuesday morning and decided that after more than a decade, he suddenly supports getting rid of gerrymandering. I think this is a ploy to try to keep his current gerrymander. But if we were looking at something serious, it would have to start by making sure that the current map cannot be used in any future elections, that the odd numbered senators like myself would have to run on the new map in 2024 and not wait until 2026, and you have to have some sort of guarantee that you actually have like a three-fourths supermajority that would be enacting any maps that deviate from what LRB proposes on those first two attempts and simply requiring bipartisanship, that could be one legislator who either decides to switch parties or one Democrat decides to defect because they want a safe district. That’s not what voters want. Voters don’t want individual legislators drawing districts and voting for maps that will benefit them. They want fair maps that are non-partisan and that aren’t drawn by politicians, and this bill doesn’t give us that.

Frederica Freyberg:

Do you think Democrats could get to yes if, for example, that provision of the three-quarters approval of members would be required to pass them?

Mark Spreitzer:

You’d need the three-quarters, but as I said, you’d also need a guarantee that the current map be thrown out and that the entire Senate would have to run next year, and I don’t think that’s something Republicans are going to be willing to do because I think they just want to keep their gerrymandered maps.

Frederica Freyberg:

So then, possibly a rhetorical question, how likely is it that the governor would sign this?

Mark Spreitzer:

I don’t think the governor will sign this. I don’t think Democrats are going to support this because I don’t think this is real. I think this is an attempt to distract from Robin Vos’s impeachment threats against Janet Protasiewicz which essentially amount to extortion because he’s trying to influence her action in a case that he’s actually a party to through the legislature, and I think also that it’s an attempt to delay the lawsuit that is actually seeking to throw out the current gerrymander, get fair maps in place for next year, and set a standard constitutionally against partisan gerrymandering. So I hope that lawsuit proceeds as quickly as possible. Anything that tries to distract from that or delay it is a mistake and is not going to lead to fair maps.

Frederica Freyberg:

So Speaker Vos says that he remains convinced that the reason Republicans win elections is not because of the district maps, but because he says they have a better message, better candidates and a better organization. What’s your response to that?

Mark Spreitzer:

That’s simply not true, when you look at where Governor Evers won districts, where Tammy Baldwin has won districts, where Janet Protasiewicz has won districts, you know, even in landslides like Tammy Baldwin has won, that would have barely gotten to a majority of legislative seats and Tony Evers won about the same number of districts as Democrats did while winning statewide, so there’s a clear disconnect between the legislative district map and how Democrats perform in statewide elections. The fact that we’ve been winning most of the statewide elections for years now means that our ideas are popular and it’s the legislative district maps that are keeping us from getting anywhere near a majority in the state legislature.

Frederica Freyberg:

What do you make of reports that Speaker Vos is seeking consult from former justices on what it kind of takes to impeach a justice?

Mark Spreitzer:

Well, clearly, Speaker Vos is trying to stack the deck with conservative former justices that he thinks will tell him what he wants to hear. We certainly need to know who those three justices are besides David Prosser, who has said he is part of that group, and David Prosser is somebody who has taken Republican donations back when he was on the court and didn’t recuse himself. He’s somebody who donated to Janet Protasiewicz’s opponents so certainly if he were being honest here, he would say she doesn’t need to recuse and there are no grounds for impeachment, but the fact that he just supported her opponent in April, I certainly don’t know if that’s going to influence what advice he gives Robin Vos.

Frederica Freyberg:

We only have about a half a minute left. What’s your comment on the Senate vote to fire elections chief Meagan Wolfe?

Mark Spreitzer:

The Senate vote on Meagan Wolfe has no legal force as Josh Kaul, the attorney general is arguing in court right now. Meagan Wolfe is still the administrator of the Wisconsin Elections Commission and she will be as long as the bipartisan commission wants her there.

Frederica Freyberg:

All right. Senator Mark Spreitzer, thanks very much.

Mark Spreitzer:

Thank you for having me.

Frederica Freyberg:

Next week, we begin presenting stories from our Wisconsin in Black and White broadcast special coming in October. For a sneak peek, visit our website at PBSwisconsin.org and then click on the news tab. That’s our program for tonight, I’m Frederica Freyberg. Have a good weekend.

Announcer:

Funding for “Here & Now” is provided by the Focus Fund for Journalism and Friends of PBS Wisconsin.