>> Announcer: THE FOLLOWING PROGRAM IS A PBS WISCONSIN ORIGINAL PRODUCTION.

>>> NOW WITH ROE V. WADE OVERTURNED, ACCESS TO ABORTION IN WISCONSIN IS SUSPENDED.

TONIGHT WE EXPLORE WHAT HAPPENS NOW AND THE CONFUSING LEGAL AND MEDICAL LANDSCAPE.

THIS RULING LEAVES IN ITS WAKE.

IT'S "HERE AND NOW" FOR JULY 1.

♪ ♪ >>> TODAY I AM ANNOUNCING THAT WE'RE TAKING THIS FIGHT BACK TO THE COURTS.

I'VE AUTHORIZED ATTORNEY GENERAL JOSH KAUL TO FILE A LAWSUIT TODAY THAT IS A DIRECT CHALLENGE OF WISCONSIN'S 1849 CRIMINAL ABORTION BAN.

AN OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF WISCONSINITES SUPPORTED ROW -- ROE IN MAKING SURE ABORTIONS REMAIN SAFE AND LEGAL IN WISCONSIN.

>> TO IT THE RAMIFICATIONS IN WISCONSIN IN THE WAKE OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISION OVERTURNING ROE V. WADE.

BECAUSE THE HIGH COURT SENT IT BACK TO THE STATES, WISCONSIN NOW REVERTS TO A STATUTE PASSED IN 1849 THAT PROHIBITS ABORTION.

BUT THERE HAVE BEEN ADDITIONAL AND CONFLICTING STATE ABORTION LAWS PASSED SINCE THEN.

IN A MOMENT WE'LL HEAR FROM ATTORNEY GENERAL JOSH KAUL WHO SAYS THE 19th CENTURY BAN ON ABORTION IS UNENFORCEABLE BECAUSE OF DUELING LAWS ON THE BOOKS.

>>> BUT FIRST NATHAN TAKES US THROUGH THE BRO DEPRESSION OF ABORTION -- PROGRESSION OF ABORTION LAWS IN WISCONSIN.

>> Reporter: THE 1849 LAW PROHIBITS ABORTION OUTRIGHT, MAKING IT WHY -- ILLEGAL TO PERFORM AN ABORTION AFTER A MOTHER FEELS FETAL MOVEMENT, UNLESS IT IS TO SAVE THE MOTHER'S LIFE.

UNDER THAT LAW, ANY PERSON WHO PERFORMS AN ABORTION COULD BE GUILTY OF A FELONY.

AS THE CHANGES OVER THE YEARS, IN 1858 A NEW LAW MADE IT A FELONY TO ABORT AT ANY POINT AFTER CONCEPTION.

MORE THAN 100 YEARS AFTER THAT, THE U.S. SUPREME COURT RULED IN ROE V. WADE.

THE 1973 CASE HELD THAT THE CONSTITUTION PROTECTS A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO AN ABORTION PRIOR TO THE VIABILITY OF THE FETUS.

INTERESTEDE ROE THE DECISION TO TERMINATE THE PREGNANCY WAS SOLELY AT THE DISCRETION OF THE WOMAN DURING THE FIRST THREE MONTHS.

WISCONSIN'S POST-ROE LIMITS INCLUDED A LAW PROHIBITING ABORTIONS OF A 20 WEEKS EXCEPT FOR THE LIFE OR HEALTH OF THE MOTHER.

MORE UPDATES TO THE STATUTED CONTINUED.

A SET OF LAWS FROM 2017 PUT RESTRICTIONS INCLUDING A WAITING PERIOD AND MANDATORY ULTRASOUNDS.

[CHANTING] >> Reporter: SO WHEN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT STRUCK DOWN ROLFED, THE -- ROE V. WADE, THE DECISION LEFT THE OLD AND NEW LAWS ON ON THE BOOKS IN WISCONSIN.

>> HAVING BOTH THE OLD AND NEW LAWS ON THE BOOKS MAKES THE 1849 LAW UNENFORCEABLE.

THAT'S ACCORDING TO WISCONSIN ATTORNEY GENERAL JOSH KAUL.

HE'S FILED A LAWSUIT SEEKING TO CLARIFY WHETHER THE 173 BAN IS STILL IN PLACE.

JOSH KAUL JOINS US NOW FROM THE CAPITOL.

THANKS VERY MUCH FOR BEING HERE.

>> THANKS FOR HAVING ME.

>> WHY ACCORDING TO YOUR LAWSUIT WOULD THE 1849 ABORTION BAN BE UNENFORCEABLE?

>> WELL, FIRST I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT JUST TO SAY WHERE WE ARE, WHICH IS YOU KNOW, WE'RE A WEEK AFTER ROE VS. WADE WAS OVERRULED AND THE IMPACT IS THAT WOMEN IN WISCONSIN TODAY ARE LESS FREE, LESS EQUAL, AND LESS SAFE THAN THEY WERE JUST A WEEK AGO.

SO WE ARE DOING WHAT WE CAN TO WORK TO RESTORE ACCESS TO SAFE AND LEGAL ABORTION IN WISCONSIN.

NOW, OUR SUIT ARGUES THAT THE 18 -- MID 1800s BAN DOESN'T COME INTO EFFECT EVEN THOUGH IT'S STILL ON THE BOOKS FOR A COUPLE REASONS.

THERE WERE A SERIES OF LAWS THAT WERE PASSED MUCH MORE RECENTLY THAT ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THAT 19th CENTURY BAN, SO FOR EXAMPLE THE 19th SEN TRAY BAN DOESN'T HAVE AN EXCEPTION EVEN TO PROTECT THE HEALTH OF THE MOTHER.

BUT THE NEW LEGISLATION DOES.

AND IT CAN'T BE SIMULTANEOUSLY LEGAL AND ILLEGAL FOR A DOCTOR TO PERFORM AN ABORTION THAT PROTECTS THE HEALTH OF THE MOTHER.

SO TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR STATEUTES CONTINUE TO HAVE A EFFECT IN MORE RECENT ONES, THE OLD ONE CAN'T BE ENFORCED.

OLD STATUTE HAS GONE INTO DISUSE BECAUSE IT WAS RARELY USED BEFORE AND IT HASN'T BEEN USED IN THE LAST 50 YEARS.

>> HAS THIS HAPPENED BEFORE WHERE AN EARLIER LAW THAT REMAINS ON THE BOOKS WAS SUPERCEDED BY A LATER ONE?

>> THERE IS PRESS SENT FOR LAWS -- PRECEDENT FOR LAWS TO BE IMPLIEDBLY REPEALED.

IT'S NOT COMPLON.

BUT THIS IS NOT -- COMMON.

BUT THAT IS NOT A COMMON SITUATION.

WE'RE IN A SITUATION WHERE THE LEGISLATOR ACTED ABORTION WAS PROTECTED.

THAT A RIGHT WAS TAKEN AWAY FROM AMERICANS AFTER ALMOST 50 YEARS.

WE'RE IN UNCHARTED WATERS HERE.

BUT YOU KNOW, THAT SORTING ISSUES OUT SO THEIRS CLARITY -- SO THERE'S CLARITY AS TO WHAT THE LAW IS IS CRITICAL.

>> EVEN THOUGH THERE ARE COMPETING ABORTION LAWS ON THE BOOKS, IS IT AS OF TODAY ILLEGAL?

PROVIDERS ARE CERTAINLY PRACTICING THAT WAY WITH PLANNED PARENTHOOD TURNING AWAY PEOPLE IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING LAST FRIDAY'S RULING.

BUT IS IT IMMEDIATELY ILLEGAL?

>> WELL, OUR ARGUMENT IS THAT IT'S NOT BECAUSE THAT OL STATUTE IS NOT IN EFFECT.

BUT PROVIDERS ARE OF COURSE -- THEY DON'T WANT TO TAKE A CHANCE THAT WHAT THEY'LL BE DOING COULD LEAD TO A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION.

SO THIS SUIT WILL HELP DETERMINE EXACTLY WHAT THE STATE OF THE LAW IS.

ONE OF THE REASONS IT'S SO IMPORTANT TO GO FORWARD IS THAT WISCONSIN PROVIDERS NEED TO HAVE CLARITY ABOUT WHAT THE STATE OF THE LAW IS.

THE BEST WAY TO GET THAT CLARITY WOULD BE FOR OUR LEGISLATURE TO COME INTO SESSION AND ACT LEGISLATION AND HOPEFULLY PROTECT REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM.

BUT HAVING THIS LITIGATION WILL HOPEFULLY BEGIN THE PROCESS OF PROVIDING CLARITY AS WE TRY TO THINK ABOUT WHETHER AND HOW A 19th CENTURY LAW THAT WAS IN PLACE WOULD APPLY TO 21ST CENTURY MEDICINE.

>> STILL, COULD A D.A.

INTENT ON PROSECUTING A CASE UNDER THE 1849 LAW DO SO NOW?

>> WELL, MY OFFICE CAN'T STOP THEM FROM DOING SO.

THEY CAN CHOOSE TO USE THEIR RESOURCES HOWEVER THEY WANT.

I WOULD DISCOURAGE THEM FROM DOING THAT BECAUSE I'D MUCH RATHER SEE THEM USING THEIR LIMITED RESOURCES TO PROSECUTE SERIOUS OFFENSES LIKE HOMICIDES OR SEXUAL ASSAULTS OR DRUG TRAFFICKING.

BUT WHETHER THEY CAN OR NOT WILL ULTIMATELY DEPEND ON WHAT HAPPENS WITH OUR SUIT, BECAUSE IF THE LAW CAN'T BE ENFORCED, IF WE RECEIVE THAT RULING IN THE SUIT, THEN THERE WOULD BE NO BASIS FOR ENFORCEMENT.

BUT IF THE SUPREME COURT FINDS THAT IT CAN BE ENFORCED, THEN IT'S UP TO THE D.A.s WHETHER THEY PROSECUTE CASES.

>> WHAT'S YOUR SENSE AS TO HOW FAST ANY KIND OF RULING MIGHT BE MADE ON THIS?

>> I THINK IT'S LIKELY TO BE A MATTER OF MONTHS.

YOU KNOW, THIS IS A LEGAL DISPUTE FUNDAMENTALLY, NOT A DISPUTE ABOUT UNDERLYING FACTS.

AND SO I THINK A COURT CAN RULE RELATIVELY QUICKLY.

BUT THERE WILL BE BRIEFING.

THERE WILL BE ARGUMENTS BEFORE THE COURT.

AND THEN AFTER THE CIRCUIT COURT RULES, THERE'S LIKELY GOING TO BE APPEALS AS WELL.

SO WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE CLARITY IMMEDIATELY.

IT'S GOING TO TAKE A BIT OF TIME.

BUT I WANT TO MOVE THROUGH THE COURT SYSTEM AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.

IN THE MEANTIME, I HAVE CALLED AND CONTINUE TO CALL ON THE LEGISLATOR TO COME INTO SESSION AND HELP PROVIDE SOME CLARITY SO DOCTORS AND NURSES AND WOMEN IN WISCONSIN HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING, A CLEARER PICTURE OF WHAT THE LAW IS.

>> SO WE SHOULD TELL OUR VIEWERS THAT WE DID INVITE REPUBLICAN LEGISLATIVE LEADERS TO APPEAR TONIGHT.

NEITHER OF THEM RESPONDED.

BUT HERE IS WHAT SPEAKER VOSS SAID ABOUT YOUR LAWSUIT.

HE SAID, QUOTE, IT'S SAD THAT REVERSE AND KAUL WANT TO BREAK THE LAW INSTEAD OF WORK WITH THE LEGISLATURE.

I'M CONFIDENT OUR COURTS WILL SEE THROUGH THEIR TACTICS, HE SAYS, AND UPHOLD THE LAW.

WHAT IS YOUR RESPONSE TO SPEAKER VOSS' STATEMENT?

>> WELL, FIRST, PART OF THE ISSUE IS WE HAVE INCONSISTENT LAWS.

AND WHICH SETS OF THOSE LAWS APPLY IS ONE OF THE THINGS WE WANT TOY SOLVE THROUGH THE COURTS.

BUT WE ARE HAPPY TO WORK WITH LEGISLATIVE LEADERS.

YOU KNOW, THE GOVERNOR CALLED THE SPECIAL SESSION AND MOST REPUBLICAN LAWMAKERS DIDN'T EVEN SHOW UP FOR THAT SPECIAL SESSION.

THEY GAVELED IN AND GAVELED OUT AND THEN JUST A FEW DAYS LATER, WE WERE LEFT IN THIS STATE OF LEGAL UNCERTAINTY BECAUSE ROE WAS OVERTURNED AND WE STILL HAVEN'T HEARD FROM OUR LEGISLATORS.

THIS IS A HUGE DEVELOPMENT IN WISCONSIN THAT'S IMPACTING MANY PEOPLE'S LIVES.

AND WISCONSINITES DESERVE TO HAVE THEIR LEGISLATORS STEP UP, HEAR FROM THEM ON THESE ISSUES, DEBATE THESE ISSUES, AND I HOPE ACT TO PROTECT ACCESS TO SAFE AND LEGAL ABORTION.

>> SO JUST BRIEFLY, IF YOU WORKED WITH THE LEGISLATURE AT THIS POINT, EVEN AFTER THAT SPECIAL SESSION, WHAT WOULD YOU SEEK?

>> WELL, I WOULD WANT THEM TO RESTORE ACCESS TO SAFE AND LEGAL ABORTION IN WISCONSIN.

YOU KNOW, THE SITUATION THAT WE HAD IN WISCONSIN PRIOR TO ROE BEING OVERTURNED WAS ACTUALLY A FAIRLY RESTRICTIVE SET OF RULES.

A LOT OF THE LAWS THAT ARE IN PLACE WERE SIGNED BY GOVERNOR WALKER.

AND RETURNING TO THAT KIND OF SITUATION, WHERE WOMEN WHO NEED TO OBTAIN ABORTIONS ARE ABLE TO GET THEM AND ARE SAFE DOING SO.

IT'S CRITICAL TO PROTECTING THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF WISCONSIN WOMEN.

WE KNOW THAT WHEN ABORTION IS ILLEGAL, IT DOESN'T STOP ABORTION FROM HAPPENING.

WHAT IT STOPS IS SAFE AND LEGAL ABORTION FROM HAPPENS.

WE'VE -- HAPPENING.

WE'VE GOT TO GET BACK TO PROTECTING PEOPLE'S REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM.

>> THANKS VERY MUCH.

>> THANKS FOR HAVING ME.

>>> SHORTLY AFTER THE HIGH COURT OVERTURNED ROE V. WADE, GOVERNOR EVERS ANNOUNCED HE WOULD GRANT CLEMENCY TO ANYONE CHARGED UNDER THE ABORTION BAN AND WOULD NOT APITTSBURG STATE PROSECUTORS WHO AGREED TO ENFORCE THE LAW.

OUR NEXT GUEST IS A SITTING DISTRICT ATTORNEY.

WHAT WILL HE DO?

TIM GRUENKE IS THE D.A.

IN LA CROSSE COUNTY.

HE JOINS US NOW AND THANKS VERY MUCH FOR BEING HERE.

>> GLAD TO BE HERE.

>> SO YOU HAVE SAID THAT YOU DON'T AGREE WITH THE OVERTURNING OF ROE V. WADE.

BUT WOULD BE OBLIGED TO PROSECUTE ABORTION CASES UNDER THE LAW.

WHY?

>> I THINK THAT IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, OUR FUNCTION IS TO ENFORCE THE LAWS.

AND THERE ARE MANY LAWS THAT THE LEGISLATURE PASSES THAT I MIGHT HAVE A DISAGREEMENT WITH OR I THINK ARE UNWISE OR SOMETIMES MIGHT BE ACTUALLY MORE HARMFUL THAN GOOD.

I CAN PRIORITIZE MY CASES.

I CAN DEEMPHASIZES SOME OF THE LOST.

WE COME UP WITH CREATIVE SOLUTIONS LIKE THE DIVERSION AGREEMENTS OR ORDINANCE VIOLATIONS, BUT I NEVER SET UP ANY LAW THAT I WOULD NEVER PROSECUTE A LAW.

I THINK OUR JOB IS TO ENFORCE LAWS AS PROSECUTORS.

SO IF THE LAW WERE PASSED, IF THE LAW WERE HELD BY THE COURTS, I HAVE TO PROSECUTE IT JUST LIKE ANY OTHER CASE.

I WOULD LOOK AT THE FACTS.

I WOULD DETERMINE IF IT'S A GOOD CASE.

I WOULD DETERMINE IF WE COULD PROVE IT.

WOULD A JURY CONVICT AND QUESTIONS LIKE THAT.

BUT I WOULD NEVER SAY ABOUT ANY CRIME THAT I WOULD NEVER PROSECUTE OR THAT I WOULD ALWAYS PROSECUTE IT.

>> WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT D.A.s WHO STATE THEY WILL OR WILL NOT CHARGE CERTAIN TYPES OF CASES LIKE THE DANE COUNTY D.A.

WHO PLEDGES NOT TO PROSECUTE ABORTION CASES?

>> I UNDERSTAND THE SENTIMENT.

I ALSO THINK THAT WOMEN SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO CONTROL THEIR OWN BODIES AND I -- I'M UPSET THAT THE ROACHEDZ -- ROE VS. WADE WAS OVERTURNED, BUT MY PERSONAL FEELINGS JUST DON'T PLAY IN IT.

WHEN THE LEGISLATURE PASS AS LAWR THAT'S SUPPOSED TO REFLECT THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE N AS THE D.A.

I'M SUPPOSEES TO REPRESENT ALL PEOPLE OF LA CROSSE COUNTY AND NOT TAKE MY PERSONAL VIEWS IN IT.

I DON'T AGREE WHEN PROSECUTORS WON'T ENFORCE GUN RESTRICTIONS BECAUSE THEY'RE SECOND AMENDMENT FANS I OR THEY WON'T PROSECUTE SEXUAL ASSAULT CASES BECAUSE THEY HAVE A DIFFERENT IDEA OF THE LAW.

I DON'T THINK THE D.A.

SHOULD BE IN THE BUSINESS OF NOT BROTHERS CUTING LAWS PASSED BY LEGISLATURE.

>> AS A DISTRICT ATTORNEY WHO WOULD HAVE IF DRESS -- DISCRETION, WOULD YOU PRACTICALLY, CHOE, RIGHT NOW BE -- THOUGH, RIGHT NOW BE ABLE TO TAKE A CASE TO COURT?

>> PRACICALLY I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S POSSIBLE RIGHT NOW.

IN WISCONSIN THERE'S TWO ABORTION STATUTES THAT SOMEWHAT CONFLICT WITH EACH OTHER.

ONE IN 1849 AND WITHIN IN 1985.

THEY HAVE DIFFERENT PENALTIES AND DIFFERENT EXCEPTIONS.

THEY HAVE DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS.

SO AT THIS POINT I'M NOT SURE IF LEGISLATURE INTENDS -- WHAT ONE THE LEGISLATURE INTEND US TO FOLLOW.

SO IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO GET A CASE, FIGURE OUT WHICH LAW APPLY, AND PRACTICALLY GO FORWARD AND PROSECUTE THAT CASE UNTIL THE COURTS MAKE A RULING OR IF ATTORNEYS LAWSUIT IS SUCCESSFUL OR THE LEGISLATURE PASS AS LAW THAT'S CLEARER AND REFLECTS THE INTENT OF WISCONSIN PEOPLE, I THINK IT WOULD BE HARD PRACTICALLY TO ENFORCE THE LAWS ON THE BOOKS NOW.

>> SO YOU WERE WITH JOSH KAUL SAYING IT'S UNENFORCEABLE AT THIS TIME, IS THAT THE SAME THING?

>> I THINK IT'S PRACTICALLY UN ENFORCEABLE.

WHEN THE CASE COMES IN IT MAY BE DIFFERENT.

BUT AT THIS .

I'M NOT SURE HOW -- AT THIS POINT I'M NOT SURE HOW DISTRICT ATTORNEYS UNDERSTAND WHICH TWO LAWS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE ENFORCED WHEN THEY'RE PROHIBITING THE SAME CONDUCT BUT DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS AND PENALTIES AND SEEM TO HAVE DIFFERENT INTENT.

>> IF THE COURTS AS A RESULT OF JOSH KAUL'S LAWSUIT UPHOLD COMPLETE BANS ON ABORTIONS IN WISCONSIN, HOW DO THE CASES COME IN FOR CHARGING?

WHO REFERS THEM?

WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE?

>> THERE'S ANOTHER QUESTION THAT PRACTICALLY I'M NOT SURE THAT THAT WOULD BECOME AN ISSUE BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO GO INTO DOCTOR'S OFFICES, HEALTHCARES IS OBVIOUSLY CONFIDENTIAL.

WE DON'T SEND OVER INVESTIGATORS TO HOSPITALS AND EVEN IF WE DID, I DON'T THINK THEY'D GAVE US ANY INFORMATION.

SO I'M NOT YEAR ON HOW A CASE WOULD EVEN COME TO US.

AND IF IT DID, I'M NOT SURE WHAT INFORMATION WE'D BE ABLE TO GATHER AND SO I THINK IT'S PRACTICALLY VERY DIFFERENT TO ENFORCE THIS -- DIFFICULT TO ENFORCE THIS BAN, EVEN THOUGH PEOPLE THINK IT'S A CHANGE.

IT'S NOT SURE MUCH IS GOING TO CHANGE IN MOST COUNTIES IN WISCONSIN.

>> SO YOU ARE STANDING BY TO FIND SOME CLARITY AROUND THESE LAWS.

>> I WOULD URGE THE LEGISLATURE TO DO WHAT I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE WANTED, WHEN ROE VS. WADE WAS OVERTURNED, WAS BURN A BALLOT TO THE STATES -- RETURN THE BALLOTS TO THE STATES.

AND FIND OUT WHAT WISCONSIN REALLY WANTS.

DO WE WANT EXCEPTIONS, A CERTAIN TIME PERIOD, HOW ARE WE DEFINING THE -- FINANCIAL HEALTH, HEALTH, EMOTIONAL HEALTH.

THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT NEED TO BE FIXED AND I WOULD THINK THE LEGISLATURE WANT TO WELCOME THAT AND HAVE THAT DISCUSSION AND GIVE US SOME CLARET ON WHAT IT IS WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE PROSECUTING.

>> TIM GRUENKE, D.A., THANKS VERY MUCH.

>> THANK YOU.

>>> WITH THE LAWS IN LIMBO, WISCONSIN PHYSICIANS ARE CONTENDING WITH WHAT THIS MEANS FOR PATIENT CARE.

MARISA SAT DOWN WITH DR. AMY DOMEYER, LEGISLATIVE CHAIR OF THE WISCONSIN SECTION OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF OPINDUSTRIESES AND GIN -- OBSTETRICIANS AND GUANTANAMOCOLOGISTS.

>> WHAT WAS -- GYNECOLOGISTS.

>> WHAT WAS YOUR REACTION AND YOUR PATIENTS WHEN THIS CAME DOWN?

>> THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE AT WISCONSIN A.C.O.G.

HAVE BEEN PREPARING FOR.

WE'VE BEEN HAVING CONVERSATIONS WITHIN OUR STATE AMONGST OTHER PHYSICIAN GROUPS TRYING TO ANTICIPATE THIS MOMENT AND PREPARE THE BEST WE CAN TO TAKE THE BEST AND SAFEST CARE OF OUR PATIENTS, GIVEN THE CURRENT POLITICAL LANDSCAPE OR THE CURRENT CHANGE IN WISCONSIN LAW REFLECTED BASED ON THE JUDICIAL DECISION.

AMERICAN COLLEGE OF OB GINs VIEWS ABORTION, AS ESSENTIALLY HEALTHCARE FOR OUR PATIENTS.

AND SO KNOWING THAT OUR QLEETION WHO ARE CARING FOR -- COLLEAGUES WHO ARE CARING FOR PATIENTS EVERY DAY WHO ARE NEEDING THESE SERVICES, IT'S DEVASTATING.

>> SO NOW THAT THE RIGHT TO ACCESS AN ABORTION HAS BEEN OVERTURNED, WHERE DOES THAT LEAVE PHYSICIANS IN TERMS OF PATIENT CARE?

>> YEAH.

SO I WOULD SAY, NUMBER ONE, WE'RE FOLLOWING VERY CLOSELY THE LEGAL LANDSCAPE IN THE STATE OF WISCONSIN.

I'M SURE YOU'RE AWARE OF THE LAWSUIT THAT WAS PLACED YESTERDAY BY GOVERNOR EVERS AND ATTORNEY GENERAL KAUL.

SO I THINK ALL OF US ARE WATCHING TO SEE HOW THAT MAY IMPACT OUR ABILITY TO CARE FOR PATIENTS.

THE CONDITIONS IN THE LAW INCLUDE ONE FOR AN EXEMPTION FOR THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER.

AND WHERE THE LIFE OF THE PREGNANT PERSON, RATHER.

AND THE CHALLENGE IS THAT THIS LAW, WHICH WAS WRITTEN IN 1849, BEFORE ULTRASOUND, BEFORE ANY OF THE DIAGNOSTIC TOOLS THAT WE HAVE TODAY, DOESN'T GIVE US CLARIFICATION OF WHAT THAT MEANS.

AND SO THE CHALLENGE FOR US AS PROVIDERS IS TRYING TO INTERPRET WHAT THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER MEANS.

HOW SICK DOES A PATIENT HAVE TO GET BEFORE I CAN PROVIDE SERVICES THAT I KNOW ARE SAFE AND EFFECTIVE?

AND SO I THINK THAT AND WHERE WE ARE AT IN TERMS OF OUR STATE PROFESSIONAL SOCIETY OF OB/GYNS AS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO BEST PROVIDE THE SAFEST CARE FOR OUR PATIENTS, SO THAT WE AREN'T WAITING UNTIL A PATIENT CANNOT BE PULLED BACK.

I THINK THERE MAY BE THIS MISCONCEPTION THAT, OH, THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER.

WELL, WE CAN JUST DECIDE AT SOME POINT THAT SHE'S SICK ENOUGH AND THEN PROVIDE TREATMENT AND ALL IS WELL.

PATIENTS THAT ARE ALLOWED TO GET SICK ENOUGH ARE IN THE ICU.

THEY MAY HAVE TO HAVE THEIR UTERUS REMOVED FOR LIFESAVING CARE.

SO IT ISN'T SO EASY IN TERMS OF MEDICAL DECISION MAKING TO PROVIDE A QUICK FIX ONCE A PERSON HAS GOTTEN THAT FAR -- THAT FAR ILL. AND PRIOR TO THIS DECISION, IF IT GOT TO THAT POINT, IT WAS BECAUSE A PATIENT CHOSE TO BE THERE.

IT WAS BECAUSE THE PATIENT FELT STRONG ENOUGH ABOUT THAT PREGNANCY AND CONTINUING THAT THEY ACCEPTED THE RISK OF SEVERE ILLNESS OR POTENTIAL DEATH.

AND NOW WITH THIS LAW, THAT WON'T BE THE CASE.

>> IF A SITUATION RIGHT NOW WITHOUT THE LAW BEING CLEARED UP, PRESENTED ITSELF, THAT A PREGNANCY WOULD NEED TO BE TERMINATED, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT PHYSICIANS LIKE YOURSELF ARE GOING TO DO IF NEEDED FOR THE MOTHER?

>> YEAH.

I THINK HONESTLY RIGHT NOW, WE'RE STILL SORTING 3 OUT.

SO THE ANSWER IS I HOPE YES, BECAUSE OF THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER IS AT RISK.

I HOPE ANY OB/GYN WOULD RECOGNIZE THAT AND QUICKLY REACH OUT TO PARTNERS AT OTHER HOSPITALS TO GET APPROVAL SO THAT THIS CAN MOVE FORWARD SO PATIENTS' LIVES ARE SAVED.

THAT SAID, I WOULD IMAGINE GIVEN THE CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR PHYSICIANS THAT ANY DOCTOR IN THAT SITUATION WOULD FEEL SCARED.

YOU KNOW, IT'S A FELONY CONVICTION.

>> I GOT KIDS AT HOME.

I'M DOING YOUR PAP SMEERGS.

I'M NOT -- PAP SMEARS.

I'M NO A FELON.

SO THAT'S SCARY.

>> WHAT THE LAW IS CLEARED UP OR ATTEMPTED TO BE CLEARED UP, ARE THERE LAWS THAT CAN CAPTURE WHAT IT USED TO BE A CONVERSATION BETWEEN A PATIENT AND THE PHYSICIAN?

>> I THINK IN GENERAL, AS DOCTORS, AS OB/GYNS, WE ARE VERY RESISTANT TO GOVERNMENT INTRUSION ON DOCTOR/PATIENT RELATIONSHIPS.

SO LEGISLATING MEDICAL CARE PRESENTS A DANGER IN US BEING ABLE TO PROVIDE AGAIN, THE BEST AND SAFEST CARE FOR OUR PATIENTS.

>> WE'RE GOING LEAVE IT THERE FOR TODAY.

DR. DOMEYER, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US.

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR HAVING ME.

>> YOU CAN SEE THE EXTENDED VERSION OF THAT INTERVIEW ON OUR WEB PAGE.

>>> PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF WISCONSIN SUSPENDED ITS ABORTION SERVICES IMMEDIATELY UPON THE SUPREME COURT DECISION OVERTURNING ROE V. WADE.

THE PROVIDER HAS PATIENT NAVIGATORS TO HELP PEOPLE FIND OUT-OF-STATE OPTIONS, LIKE THOSE ACROSS THE BORDER IN ILLINOIS, WHERE ABORTION REMAINS LEGAL.

WE ECONOMIC IN WITH JULIE UHAL OF PRIND OF ILLINOIS WHO MANAGE -- PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF ILLINOIS WHO MANAGES ITS PROGRAM.

THANKS SO MUCH FOR BEING HERE.

>> VERY FOR HAVING ME ON TODAY.

>> WHAT KIND OF INFLUX HAS PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF ILLINOIS SEEN FROM BOARDING STATES LIKE WISCONSIN?

>> THANKS FOR ASKING THAT.

WE'RE PREPARING FOR THIS MOMENT FOR A REALLY LONG TIME.

AND PROJECTIONS HAVE SHOWN THAT WE'RE ANTICIPATING SEEING UP TO 20 TO 30,000 ADDITIONAL PATIENTS FROM OTHER STATES.

IT WILL TAKE A LONG TIME TO SEE EXACT NUMBERS AND TRENDS.

IT'S ONLY BEEN A WEEK.

FEELS LIKE FIVE YEARS SINCE THE DECISION CAME DOWN.

BUT I CAN SURE THAT OUR CALL VOLUME DOUBLED ON FRIDAY AND SATURDAY, INCLUDING FROM WISCONSIN PATIENTS WHO LIKE YOU SAID MAY HAVE BEEN AT THE CLINIC FOR AN APPOINTMENT LAST FRIDAY AND WERE FORCED TO RESCHEDULE THAT AND IT CREATED A LOT OF CHAOS AND CONFUSION.

>> INDEED.

YOU'RE SECURING ACCESS FOR EVERYONE OR SAFE PROGRAM.

DID YOU STAND THIS UP JUST FOR THIS EVENTUALITY OR HAS IT BEEN LONG STANDING?

>> IT WAS FOR THIS EVENTUALITY.

WE'VE SEEN THE WRITING ON THE WALLS FOR YEARS NOW, KNOWING THAT YOU KNOW, FAR RIGHT CONSERVATIVES HAVE BEEN PLANNING TO OVERTURN ABORTION ACCESS IN THIS COUNTRY.

SO THE PROGRAM OFFICIALLY STARTED IN 2019.

>> SO PLANNED PARENTHOOD HAS PATIENT NAVIGATORS TO HELP WITH OUT-OF-STATE ABORTION CARE.

HOW DOES THAT WORK EXACTLY?

>> SO A PATIENT NAVIGATOR IS KIND OF LIKE A CASE MANAGER, KIND OF LIKE THE TRAVEL AGENT.

AND THEIR JOB IS SPECIFICALLY TO WORK WITH PATIENTS WHO FACE LOGISTICAL BARRIERS TO ACCESS ABORTION CARE.

AND AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, THAT'S GOING TO BECOME MORE COMPLICATED AND DIFFICULT AS THEY'RE FORCED TO TRAVEL FURTHER.

IT GENDS PATIENT BY PATIENT WHAT SORT OF ASSISTANCE THEY NEED.

SOMETIMES IT'S SUBSIDY, SOMETIMES IT'S HOTEL, CHILD CARE, FOOD VOUCHERS AND GOOD VOUCHER.

WE TRY TO ASSIST ANY OF THOSE NEEDS THEY MIGHT BE FACING.

>> I READ THAT ANTIABORTION GROUPS ARE DRAFTING MODEL LEGISLATION TO ALLOW PRIVATE CITIZENS THE RIGHT TO SUE FOR ANYONE TERMINATING A PREGNANCY OUT OF STATE.

WHAT'S YOUR REACTION TO THAT?

>> I'M DISAPPOINTED BUT NOT SURPRISED.

I THINK THAT THEY HAVE BEEN TESTING EVERY OUTLET THEY CAN IN ORDER TO CRIMINALIZE FOLKS FOR ACCESSING THAT HEALTHCARE THAT THEY NEED.

BUT YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT GOING TO STOP AND WE'RE COMMITTED TO HELPING PEOPLE ACCESS THAT CARE HOWEVER WE CAN.

>> HOW IS SAFETY ENSURED FOR WOMEN WHO MIGHT TRAVEL FROM THEIR HOME STATES FOR AN ABORTION PROCEDURE?

>> SO I JUST WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT ABORTION IS SAFE AND EFFECTIVE.

IT IS CERTAINLY SAFER THAN PREGNANCY OR CHILDBIRTH IS.

THE MEDICATION ABORTION PILL SPECIFICALLY HAS A LOWER RATE OF ADVERSE SIDE EFFECTS THAN TYLENOL DOES.

ANY SAFETY CONCERNS COME FROM THE VERY VULNERABLE SITUATIONS, PEOPLE WILL BE PUT IN WHEN THEY'RE FACING CRIMINALIZATION TO CROSS STATE LINES FOR HEALTHCARE, BUT WE TAKE EVERY STEP THAT WE CAN IN ORDER TO EDUCATE OUR PATIENTS ABOUT THOSE RISKS AND MAKE SURE THAT THEIR CAN THE SHAFT AND -- CONFIDENTIALITY AND PRIVACY IS PROTECTED.

>> IF SOMEONE CAME FROM WISCONSIN AND HAD THEIR PREGNANCY TERMINATED, DO THEY STAY IN PLACE FOR A PERIOD OF TIME TO BE MONITORED -- YOU'RE SAYING IT'S EXTREMELY SAFE, RIGHT.

BUT IS THERE KIND OF A PERIOD OF TIME WHERE THEY STAY IN PLACE IN ILLINOIS?

>> DEPENDING ON WHETHER THEY'RE SEEKING MEDICATION OR INCLINIC ABORTION, YEAH, THEY'LL BE AT THE CLINIC TO BE MONITORED FOR ANY IMMEDIATE HEALTH CONCERNS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT.

BUT OTHERWISE, OUR -- PERSON FOLLOWING THE PROGRAM IS ALWAYS REACHABLE BY PHONE OR ONLINE.

>> IS YOUR CLINIC HIRING PEOPLE TO ASSIST WITH THIS INNUX OF PATIENTS?

>> I CAN'T SHARE ANY SPECIFICS ABOUT OPERATIONAL, BUT THIS RESPONSE TO THIS HEALTH CRISIS IS GOING TO BE A MARATHON, NOT A SPRINT.

SO WE'RE WORKING REALLY CLOSELY WITH ALL OF OUR PARTNERS AROUND THE MIDWEST REGION TO ENSURE THAT PATIENTS HAVE ACCESS TO THE CARE THEY NEED NO MEAT WHERE THEY'RE COMING FROM -- NO MATTER WHERE THEY'RE COMING FROM I AND THERE WILL BE MORE.

>> IS IT ACCURATE THAT THERE'S A PLANNED PARENTHOOD JUST ACROSS THE BORDER IN SOUTH BELOIT, ILLINOIS?

>> I'M NOT FAMILIAR -- IF THERE IS, IT'S NOT A PBIL CLINIC.

OUR CLINIC CLOSEST TO THE WISCONSIN BORDER IS IN WAUKEGAN.

>> JULIE FROM PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF ILLINOIS, THANKS SO MUCH.

>> THANKS FOR HAVING ME.

>>> FOR MORE ON THIS AND OTHER ISSUES FACING WISCONSIN, VISIT OUR WEBSITE AT WPTV.COM.

-- PBS WISCONSIN.ORG.

THAT'S OUR PROGRAM FOR NOT.

HAVE A GOOD HOLIDAY WEEKEND.