With Susan Crawford, Planned Parenthood is on the Ballot in Wisconsin

Dane County Judge Susan Crawford has said she will not recuse herself on abortion-related cases if elected to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, despite representing Planned Parenthood on abortion-related cases and receiving Planned Parenthood Advocates of Wisconsin’s endorsement.

She told Milwaukee’s WISN-TV, “I'm proud of the work that I did as a lawyer in our courts fighting for people's rights, including Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin and their doctors, to protect their right to deliver health care services to women without having to be in fear of felony prosecution for doing it.”

The problem with that statement is Wisconsin law makes it a felony to perform an abortion. In fact, the court she’s running to sit on is set to rule on the constitutionality of that law after the election.

How exactly is Crawford going to be impartial and apolitical on the bench when faced with an abortion case—which she claims is possible—when she’s telling everyone she thinks the courts can remove the fear of prosecution from people who commit crimes?

Wisconsin’s 1849 abortion law codified the common law abortion restriction by banning abortions after “quickening,” the point when the mother can feel the baby move, except to protect the life of the mother. At the time, this left no doubt that the baby was alive, regardless of one’s view on when life begins.

Wisconsin became a state at a time when doctors were beginning the recognize that even early abortions took human life and began lobbying for laws to better protect the lives of unborn children. Some states at the time didn’t include the “quickening” stipulation at all; and, in 1858, Wisconsin’s legislature removed it.

Democrats and the attorneys and judges they elect do not believe in the consent of the governed on the issue of abortion. State Attorney General Josh Kaul even went so far as to argue the law is unenforceable because it’s old. By that metric, the Constitution would become unenforceable.

But he’s not alone in this absurd reasoning.

During oral arguments before the Wisconsin Supreme Court last November, liberal Justice Rebecca Dallet made the same argument, asking what the Court should make of the fact the legislature passed the law when only white, property-owning men could vote. Justice Jill Karofsky described applying such legislation to the modern era as a “world gone mad.”

These leftist ideologues on the Court are revealing their true animosity toward the U.S. Constitution—a document drafted exactly 50 years before the abortion law in question when voting rights were even more restrictive than they were in 1848 when Wisconsin became a state.

Even Wisconsin Assistant Attorney General Hannah Jurss admitted Kaul’s argument that the law is too old to enforce lacks precedent in the state.

It would be naïve to think Crawford disagrees with Kaul’s or Dallet’s legal theory that the judiciary should ignore legislation because the society that passed it didn’t meet their “progressive” standards.

Dane County Circuit Judge Diane Schlipper ruled against the 1849 law on something nearly as ridiculous—that the law doesn’t apply to abortion because the word “abortion” isn’t found in the text. However, the text is very clear: “Any person, other than the mother, who intentionally destroys the life of an unborn child is guilty of a Class H felony.”

Pro-Life Wisconsin legislative director Matt Sande called it "an extraordinary leap in logic." The law was always interpreted as such until Schlipper had to find a reason to get rid of it that sounded a little less preposterous than Kaul’s.

Supreme Court Justice Janet Protasiewicz ran a political campaign in 2023 centered on access to abortion, something even the liberal AP admitted is “an unprecedented approach in a judicial race.”

Just two days after Crawford announced her candidacy for state Supreme Court, Protasiewicz endorsed her, which even the liberal Wisconsin Public Radio called “a rare sign . . . this early in the campaign cycle.”

Make no mistake, if Crawford joins her pals Protasiewicz, Dallet, and Karofsky, she will cement the Wisconsin Supreme Court as a third legislature that will import Illinois’ extreme abortion policies.

Crawford’s opponent Brad Schimel told WISN, “I treasure life even when it's not planned, but I respect that the law puts this in the hands of voters, and I will respect their will.”

Wisconsinites can be proud that their state’s Founders respected life and legislated to protect it. They would be rolling over in their graves if they knew the Supreme Court they also founded was turning into a fascistic scold factory devoid of even the remotest respect for the rights of voters or the rule of law.

(READ MORE: Repealing Act 10 Could Cost $1.8 Billion for Wisconsin Schools, New Report Finds)