Progressive Power-Grab Threatens to Wokeify Wisconsin

A new rule proposed by the Wisconsin Department of Health Services would strip all references to mothers and fathers from regulations concerning the state's prenatal and child care coordination programs in favor of gender-neutral labels.

The new rule, put forward earlier this month, would replace the terms "mother" and "father" with "member" and "other parent," respectively. "Pregnant women" would likewise become "pregnant persons."

The executive branch's apparent pandering to the "diversity, equity and inclusion" (DEI) mob comes less than a year after Wisconsin voters approved President Donald Trump's anti-woke agenda.

Health Services' explanation for the verbiage change—that it "clarifies that the parent is the [benefits-eligible] member and acknowledges the family unit"—strains credulity.

In fact, Republican state Rep. Chuck Wichgers held that the department's proposal does just the opposite—it "discriminates against families and devises a system where providers will be the new family. The concept is wrong, arbitrary, intentionally confusing and lacks common sense."

Former state Rep. Janel Brandtjen, now a staffer for Wichgers, told Restoration News she fears such moves to devalue the traditional family unit would bring her state one step closer to communism.

"[Democrats] want the state now to be your parents," she said. "We don't have mother or father or child. It's 'other person.'"  

Erasing Women in Wisconsin:
Governor Tony Evers removes the term "pregnant woman" from a new administrative rule, replacing it with "pregnant member," and changes "father" to "other parent." pic.twitter.com/FD0km7BLRz

— Scarlett Johnson (@scarlett4kids) September 4, 2025

(READ MORE: Wisconsin's $4.6 Billion Surplus is Under Threat by Liberal Supreme Court)

Seizing Power

The proposal follows a flurry of actions taken by Democrat Gov. Tony Evers—and the state's left-leaning high court—to limit the Republican-controlled legislature's oversight of the executive branch.

"The governor, Evers, has gone above and beyond and gone to court to basically remove the power of the Rules Committee," Brandtjen said.

She noted that until recently, the legislature had the power to review and block agencies' proposed rules before implementation.

"The agency would propose a rule, go through the executive, the executive would approve it, and then that rule would be available for review from the [committees] for the legislature," she said.

After the relevant committees reviewed the rule, the Joint Committee for the Review of Administrative Rules could then approve it, request modifications, or suspend it with a temporary or indefinite objection.

Evers, however, challenged the legality of the committee's "legislative veto" power after it suspended rules banning conversion therapy and updating the state's commercial building code.

The state's Democrat-controlled Supreme Court sided with Evers, arbitrarily deciding that the joint committee's powers unconstitutionally bypassed the full legislative process.  

“The ability of a ten-person committee to halt or interrupt the passage of a rule, which would ordinarily be required to be presented to the governor as a bill [to suspend the rule], is simply incompatible with Articles IV and V of the Wisconsin Constitution,” Chief Justice Jill Karofsky wrote in the majority's July 8 opinion.

The conservative members of the court objected to the majority's uneven application of the law.

"The majority strictly applies limits to the legislative branch, while leaving the executive branch free from any such strict application of constitutional principles," Justice Annette Ziegler held. "This disparate application is profound because it redistributes power unevenly, placing a judicial thumb on the scale to the benefit of the majority’s preferred branch of government."

Ziegler held nothing back in calling out the majority's partisanship. She accused the court's four Democrat justices of prioritizing "preferred results" for the governor and their party over upholding the rule of law.

"Recent decisions of this court consolidate power in one branch of government, the executive branch (which is currently controlled by members of the Democratic Party), and diminish the power of another branch, the legislative branch (which is currently controlled by members of the Republican Party)," Ziegler wrote.

"The majority’s delivery of results for one branch of government and one political party is where the majority’s consistency begins and ends."

Her comments alluded to a string of Democrat-friendly rulings the court has handed down since its ideological flip to a liberal majority in 2023.

In one recent case, the court rubberstamped an expansion of Evers' own veto power.

With a few strokes of his pen, Evers had altered the date range of 2024-25 in a spending bill to read 2425, extending a school funding increase by four centuries. When the court validated that move, Brandtjen said she and her fellow Republicans were shocked.

"We went to court thinking we would win because what governor has the ability to spend for the next 400 years?" she said. "And our Supreme Court said: 'Well, he does.' I mean, that's crazy, right?"

Fighting Back

Wisconsin lawmakers currently have little recourse to stop such executive overreach. Any remedial legislative action would be moot without the Republican supermajority needed to override the governor's vetoes.

"This is new, and honestly, this is just the tip of the iceberg," Brandtjen said. "I mean, this opens a can of worms for Wisconsin. It's going to get worse before it gets better."

"Worse" may come sooner rather than later. After his recent victory concerning the legislature's veto power, Evers filed another lawsuit seeking to effectively eliminate the legislative branch entirely from the administrative rulemaking process. With a complicit high court on his side, he could soon completely upend the separation of powers in the state.

The importance of next year's Governor’s election cannot be understated.

The fight for control of Wisconsin’s sprawling bureaucracy hangs in the balance in front of the Supreme Court. The outcome of this election could bring a major shift to Wisconsin.

— MacIver Institute (@MacIverWisc) September 25, 2025

The silver lining: Evers announced in July that he will not seek a third term. Still, as the next governor won't take office until January 2027, that leaves plenty of time for him to make his mark.

One tool lawmakers have yet to employ is Wisconsin's equivalent of the federal Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE. Under state law, the legislative state-supported program and study advisory committee has long had the power to examine the records of any such program, committee, organization or institution upon request.

The problem, Brandtjen said, is that the committee is supposed to include six representatives from the State Assembly, but those members have not been appointed.

"The speaker has refused to appoint his members for the last at least 12 years because they would become the most powerful committee in the building, and he doesn't like that," she said.

Rep. Robin Vos, a Republican, has served as speaker of the Wisconsin State Assembly since 2013, making him the longest-serving speaker in state history.

If Wisconsinites want to preserve sane policymaking in their state, Brandtjen said their best course of action would be to up the pressure on Vos and their state legislators to start pushing back. She said they can start by objecting to Health Services' latest proposal.

"Ask your representatives and your senators: 'Are you OK with watering down the language?'" she said.

(READ MORE: EXCLUSIVE: Losing Wisconsin is Proof We Need the 'Permanent Campaign' to Win)