On October 17, 2025, Wisconsin lawmakers introduced a new Republican-backed bill aimed at clarifying and exempting certain life-saving medical procedures from the state’s definition of “abortion.” The legislation, authored by Rep. Joy Goeben and Sen. Romaine Quinn, has sparked a heated debate, drawing support from anti-abortion groups and sharp criticism from medical professionals and Democratic politicians. The proposal’s arrival comes amid a national reckoning over abortion rights, as stories like Taylor Edwards’—a Texas woman forced to travel out of state for an emergency abortion—continue to highlight the real-world impact of restrictive laws.
According to Wisconsin Watch, the bill seeks to exempt procedures such as early inductions or cesarean sections performed in cases of ectopic, anembryonic, or molar pregnancies from being classified as abortions, provided that physicians make “reasonable medical efforts” to save both the pregnant patient and the fetus. The legislation specifies that these interventions would not be subject to Wisconsin’s ban on abortions past 20 weeks, nor to laws prohibiting state funding for abortion-related activities.
One of the bill’s most significant changes is its redefinition of “unborn child” in state law. The current statute describes an unborn child as “a human being from the time of conception until it is born alive.” The new proposal would shift this to “a human being from the time of fertilization until birth.” While this distinction may seem technical, it has become a flashpoint in the debate, with medical experts arguing that the term “unborn child” lacks scientific grounding. Dr. Carley Zeal, an OBGYN and representative for the Wisconsin Medical Society, told Wisconsin Watch, “Unborn child is not a medically recognized term because doctors don’t confer personhood to a fertilized egg or fetus.”
Legal scholars have weighed in as well. Howard Schweber, a legal expert, noted that while the change in definition may not have a substantial legal effect, it could influence how hospitals and insurance companies approach life-saving reproductive procedures. “Insurance companies and hospitals or doctors, in order to err on the side of safety, will tell the doctors not to perform a procedure that is medically needed and, in fact, properly legal,” Schweber explained. “(This) law is trying to prevent a chilling effect on legal medical procedures.”
The bill’s authors say their intent is to counter what they describe as “misinformation spread by bad actors” regarding doctors’ hesitancy to provide necessary care for fear of criminal prosecution. Rep. Goeben told Wisconsin Watch, “A doctor may at all times, no matter where the state is at on the abortion issue, feel very confident in providing the health care that women need in these very challenging situations that women face.” She added that she consulted with physicians in drafting the bill and believes it will reassure them of their ability to deliver care without legal jeopardy.
But many in the medical community remain unconvinced. Dr. Leslie Abitz, a Sheboygan OBGYN and member of the Committee to Protect Healthcare and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, criticized the proposal as an attempt to inject “emotionally charged, ideologically driven, non-medical terms” into the law. “The stated goal of the bill—to distinguish between medical procedures from abortion—is misleading because it suggests that abortion care is not an essential part of comprehensive health care,” Abitz said. She added, “A woman is putting her health and her life at risk every time she chooses to carry a pregnancy, and so she shouldn’t be mandated to put her life at risk.”
National incidents have underscored the stakes of such legislative debates. As reported by Paste Magazine, Taylor Edwards, a Texas woman, was 17 weeks pregnant in February 2023 when her fetus was diagnosed with a fatal neural tube defect. Her doctor advised an emergency abortion to protect her future fertility, but due to Texas’s strict abortion laws, Edwards was forced to travel out of state. After complications and delays—including a canceled appointment in New Mexico due to a medication shortage—she finally underwent a two-day procedure in Colorado. The experience left her with significant uterine scarring, requiring reconstructive surgery before she could attempt IVF. In March 2024, she gave birth to a healthy son, naming him Reid Owen Edwards, with the initials R.O.E. in tribute to the landmark Roe v. Wade Supreme Court case.
Edwards’ ordeal is far from unique. A National Institutes of Health study cited by Wisconsin Watch found that after Texas enacted its abortion ban, maternal morbidity during pregnancy doubled, even though the law included a medical emergency exception. These stories, bill authors argue, are precisely why clarification is needed to ensure that doctors are not deterred from providing necessary care. Goeben stated, “These are the issues that the other side of the aisle has talked about, saying, ‘oh, the poor women that can’t get health care!’ So I thought honestly that this would be supported by everybody, if we are really concerned about the health care of women.”
Yet, Democratic lawmakers have rejected the bill as insufficient and potentially dangerous. Sen. Kelda Roys, a gubernatorial candidate, called it “an acknowledgement of the truth, which is that abortion bans kill women.” She continued, “The way that you protect people from legal jeopardy is by not criminalizing health care.” Amanda Dennis, executive director of the Society of Family Planning, also condemned the bill, saying, “The narrative that exceptions to an abortion ban—or redefining what abortion care is—can mitigate the harm of restrictive policies is based in ideology, not evidence.”
Anti-abortion organizations, including Wisconsin Right to Life, Pro-Life Wisconsin, Wisconsin Catholic Conference, and Wisconsin Family Action, have endorsed the proposal. A similar measure introduced by Sen. Quinn last year failed to advance after the Wisconsin Supreme Court struck down the state’s 1849 abortion ban in July. Even if the current bill passes the Legislature, Democratic Governor Tony Evers has pledged to veto it, according to his spokesperson.
The future of abortion law in Wisconsin remains uncertain, with the state’s newly liberal-leaning Supreme Court expected to decide whether the Wisconsin Constitution guarantees a right to abortion. Schweber emphasized, “Just because the U.S. Constitution does not secure a right to abortion does not mean that Wisconsin or Ohio or Texas constitutionally doesn’t have that right. Each state supreme court now has to decide this profound question.”
Meanwhile, legislative and gubernatorial races in 2026—amid newly drawn maps and a national political climate that could favor Democrats—promise further shifts in the state’s abortion landscape. In the words of those on both sides of the aisle, the stakes could not be higher for women’s health, legal clarity, and the future of reproductive rights in Wisconsin and across the nation.
