Wisconsin
High court to consider whether 175-year-old law bans abortion
MADISON, Wis. (AP) — The Wisconsin Supreme Court decided Tuesday to consider two challenges to a 175-year-old law that conservatives maintain bans abortion without letting the cases wind through lower courts.
Abortion advocates stand an excellent chance of prevailing in both cases given the high court’s liberal tilt and remarks a liberal justice made on the campaign trail about how she supports abortion rights.
Wisconsin lawmakers enacted statutes in 1849 that had been widely interpreted as outlawing abortion in all cases except to save the mother’s life. The U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion nullified the statutes, but legislators never repealed them. The high court’s 2022 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade reactivated them.
Democratic Attorney General Josh Kaul filed a lawsuit challenging the statutes in 2022, arguing they were too old to enforce and a 1985 law that permits abortions before a fetus can survive outside the womb supersedes them. A Dane County judge ruled last year that the statutes outlaw attacking a woman in an attempt to kill her unborn baby but doesn’t ban abortions. The decision emboldened Planned Parenthood to resume offering abortions in Wisconsin after halting procedures when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.
Sheboygan County District Attorney Joel Urmanski, a Republican, asked the state Supreme Court in February to overturn the ruling without letting an appeal move through the state’s lower appellate courts. He argued the ruling will have a statewide impact and guide lawmakers and the case will ultimately end at the Supreme Court anyway.
Days after Urmanski filed his request, Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin sued Urmanski and asked the Supreme Court to take it directly. The organization is seeking a ruling that the 1849 statutes are unconstitutional, arguing that the state constitution’s declaration that people have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness means women have a right to control their own bodies — essentially asking the court to declare a constitutional right to abortion.
The court released orders indicating the justices voted unanimously to take Urmanski’s appeal and voted 4-3 to take the Planned Parenthood case. The court’s four liberal justices voted to take that case, and the three conservative justices voted against taking it.
Urmanski’s attorneys, Andrew Phillips and Matthew Thome, didn’t immediately respond to an email seeking comment.
Persuading the court’s liberal majority to uphold the statutes looks next to impossible. Liberal Justice Janet Protasiewicz even went so far as stating openly during her campaign that she supports abortion rights, a major departure for a judicial candidate. Typically such candidates refrain from speaking about their personal views out of concerns they could appear biased on the bench.
The conservative justices accused the liberal majority in their Planned Parenthood dissents of playing politics.
Liberal Justice Jill Karofsky countered in a concurrence that the state Supreme Court is supposed to decide important state constitutional questions.
“Regardless of one’s views on the morality, legality, or constitutionality of abortion, it is undeniable that abortion regulation is an issue with immense personal and practical significance to many Wisconsinites,” Karofsky wrote.
Michelle Velasquez, chief strategy officer for Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, said in a statement that the organization was grateful the court agreed to take its case and Wisconsin residents need to know whether abortion is legal in the state.
Wisconsin Watch, a media outlet, obtained a leaked draft of the order accepting the case last week, prompting Chief Justice Annette Ziegler to call for an investigation.
Anti-abortion groups decried the Supreme Court’s decision to take the Planned Parenthood case.
Rhode Island
State makes it easier to add rental units on to homes to fight housing shortage
BOSTON (AP) — A new state law designed to streamline the process of developing accessory dwelling units — also known as “granny flats” or “in-law apartments” — is being hailed by advocates as a way to create affordable living spaces amid an ongoing housing crunch.
The law, signed by Democratic Gov. Dan McKee on June 25, lets homeowners create a single accessory dwelling unit, or ADU on an owner-occupied property to encourage rental units that are likely to be more affordable than many other apartments.
Supporters said the measure will also allow homeowners to generate income to help them maintain ownership of their property, bringing more stability to the housing market.
To ensure Rhode Islanders benefit from the law, it bans the ADUs from being used as short-term rentals.
The approach has been implemented elsewhere such as in New York, where Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul recently announced that $59 million was awarded to local governments and nonprofits to boost the housing supply by providing resources for low- and middle-income homeowners to build or improve ADUs.
In Massachusetts, House lawmakers approved a bill that would allow for the construction of one ADU of up to 900 square feet on properties in single-family zoning districts. A similar bill is before the Senate.
And in Boston, where housing costs have skyrocketed, Democratic Mayor Michelle Wu pledged in January to make it easier for residents to create ADUs.
The Rhode Island law authorizes a homeowner to create a unit if they live in the building and the unit is for a disabled relative; if it’s within the existing footprint; or if the lot is greater than 20,000 square feet, provided that the ADU meets building codes, size limits and infrastructure requirements.
June Speakman, chair of the House Commission on Housing Affordability, said one driver of the housing crisis is the low construction rate in Rhode Island, which she said has the country’s lowest per-capita construction rate.
“We need to be creative and be willing to allow construction of housing, particularly affordable, moderate and small units like ADUs,” Speakman said.
Supporters say the units can boost the amount of available and affordable housing while preserving the character of residential neighborhoods. Older adults in particular have looked to ADUs as a way to downsize while remaining in their neighborhoods.
“Our cities and towns must have housing options that are suitable for differing incomes, ages and life stages,” said Catherine Taylor, AARP Rhode Island’s state director. “ADUs are an important way to accomplish this goal.”
A report released in December by Harvard’s Joint Center for Housing Studies found that as its population ages, the United States is ill prepared to adequately house and care for the growing number of older people.
The report said creative ideas are needed for people with fixed or dwindling incomes and with insufficient savings, including ADUs.
High court to consider whether 175-year-old law bans abortion
MADISON, Wis. (AP) — The Wisconsin Supreme Court decided Tuesday to consider two challenges to a 175-year-old law that conservatives maintain bans abortion without letting the cases wind through lower courts.
Abortion advocates stand an excellent chance of prevailing in both cases given the high court’s liberal tilt and remarks a liberal justice made on the campaign trail about how she supports abortion rights.
Wisconsin lawmakers enacted statutes in 1849 that had been widely interpreted as outlawing abortion in all cases except to save the mother’s life. The U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion nullified the statutes, but legislators never repealed them. The high court’s 2022 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade reactivated them.
Democratic Attorney General Josh Kaul filed a lawsuit challenging the statutes in 2022, arguing they were too old to enforce and a 1985 law that permits abortions before a fetus can survive outside the womb supersedes them. A Dane County judge ruled last year that the statutes outlaw attacking a woman in an attempt to kill her unborn baby but doesn’t ban abortions. The decision emboldened Planned Parenthood to resume offering abortions in Wisconsin after halting procedures when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.
Sheboygan County District Attorney Joel Urmanski, a Republican, asked the state Supreme Court in February to overturn the ruling without letting an appeal move through the state’s lower appellate courts. He argued the ruling will have a statewide impact and guide lawmakers and the case will ultimately end at the Supreme Court anyway.
Days after Urmanski filed his request, Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin sued Urmanski and asked the Supreme Court to take it directly. The organization is seeking a ruling that the 1849 statutes are unconstitutional, arguing that the state constitution’s declaration that people have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness means women have a right to control their own bodies — essentially asking the court to declare a constitutional right to abortion.
The court released orders indicating the justices voted unanimously to take Urmanski’s appeal and voted 4-3 to take the Planned Parenthood case. The court’s four liberal justices voted to take that case, and the three conservative justices voted against taking it.
Urmanski’s attorneys, Andrew Phillips and Matthew Thome, didn’t immediately respond to an email seeking comment.
Persuading the court’s liberal majority to uphold the statutes looks next to impossible. Liberal Justice Janet Protasiewicz even went so far as stating openly during her campaign that she supports abortion rights, a major departure for a judicial candidate. Typically such candidates refrain from speaking about their personal views out of concerns they could appear biased on the bench.
The conservative justices accused the liberal majority in their Planned Parenthood dissents of playing politics.
Liberal Justice Jill Karofsky countered in a concurrence that the state Supreme Court is supposed to decide important state constitutional questions.
“Regardless of one’s views on the morality, legality, or constitutionality of abortion, it is undeniable that abortion regulation is an issue with immense personal and practical significance to many Wisconsinites,” Karofsky wrote.
Michelle Velasquez, chief strategy officer for Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, said in a statement that the organization was grateful the court agreed to take its case and Wisconsin residents need to know whether abortion is legal in the state.
Wisconsin Watch, a media outlet, obtained a leaked draft of the order accepting the case last week, prompting Chief Justice Annette Ziegler to call for an investigation.
Anti-abortion groups decried the Supreme Court’s decision to take the Planned Parenthood case.
Rhode Island
State makes it easier to add rental units on to homes to fight housing shortage
BOSTON (AP) — A new state law designed to streamline the process of developing accessory dwelling units — also known as “granny flats” or “in-law apartments” — is being hailed by advocates as a way to create affordable living spaces amid an ongoing housing crunch.
The law, signed by Democratic Gov. Dan McKee on June 25, lets homeowners create a single accessory dwelling unit, or ADU on an owner-occupied property to encourage rental units that are likely to be more affordable than many other apartments.
Supporters said the measure will also allow homeowners to generate income to help them maintain ownership of their property, bringing more stability to the housing market.
To ensure Rhode Islanders benefit from the law, it bans the ADUs from being used as short-term rentals.
The approach has been implemented elsewhere such as in New York, where Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul recently announced that $59 million was awarded to local governments and nonprofits to boost the housing supply by providing resources for low- and middle-income homeowners to build or improve ADUs.
In Massachusetts, House lawmakers approved a bill that would allow for the construction of one ADU of up to 900 square feet on properties in single-family zoning districts. A similar bill is before the Senate.
And in Boston, where housing costs have skyrocketed, Democratic Mayor Michelle Wu pledged in January to make it easier for residents to create ADUs.
The Rhode Island law authorizes a homeowner to create a unit if they live in the building and the unit is for a disabled relative; if it’s within the existing footprint; or if the lot is greater than 20,000 square feet, provided that the ADU meets building codes, size limits and infrastructure requirements.
June Speakman, chair of the House Commission on Housing Affordability, said one driver of the housing crisis is the low construction rate in Rhode Island, which she said has the country’s lowest per-capita construction rate.
“We need to be creative and be willing to allow construction of housing, particularly affordable, moderate and small units like ADUs,” Speakman said.
Supporters say the units can boost the amount of available and affordable housing while preserving the character of residential neighborhoods. Older adults in particular have looked to ADUs as a way to downsize while remaining in their neighborhoods.
“Our cities and towns must have housing options that are suitable for differing incomes, ages and life stages,” said Catherine Taylor, AARP Rhode Island’s state director. “ADUs are an important way to accomplish this goal.”
A report released in December by Harvard’s Joint Center for Housing Studies found that as its population ages, the United States is ill prepared to adequately house and care for the growing number of older people.
The report said creative ideas are needed for people with fixed or dwindling incomes and with insufficient savings, including ADUs.
