In a significant move, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has decided to review two challenges to a long-standing law that bans abortion. This decision by the court comes as conservatives argue that the cases should not be required to go through lower courts for consideration.

Conservative opponents of abortion face an uphill battle in these cases, given the liberal tilt of the high court and remarks made by a liberal justice during her campaign expressing support for abortion rights. Wisconsin lawmakers had enacted statutes back in 1849 which were widely seen as outlawing abortion, except in cases where the mother's life was at risk. However, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade nullified these statutes, although they were never officially repealed.

The recent decision by the high court to overturn Roe v. Wade in 2022 has reactivated the old statutes, prompting Democratic Attorney General Josh Kaul to file a lawsuit challenging their enforcement. Kaul argues that the statutes are outdated and that a 1985 law, which allows abortions before a fetus can survive outside the womb, supersedes them.

Last year, a judge in Dane County ruled that the statutes do not ban abortions but do prohibit attacking a woman in an attempt to harm her unborn baby. This ruling emboldened Planned Parenthood to resume offering abortions in Wisconsin after temporarily halting the procedures following the Supreme Court's decision on Roe v. Wade.

Seeking to expedite the legal process, Republican Sheboygan County District Attorney Joel Urmanski requested that the state Supreme Court overturn the ruling without going through lower appellate courts. Urmanski argues that the ruling will have statewide implications, and ultimately, the case will end up before the Supreme Court regardless.

In February, Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin also filed a lawsuit, asking the Supreme Court to directly rule that the 1849 statutes are unconstitutional. The organization argues that the state constitution's declaration of the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness implies that women have the right to control their own bodies, effectively calling for a constitutional right to abortion.

In a vote, the Wisconsin Supreme Court unanimously agreed to consider Urmanski's appeal and voted 4-3 to take on the Planned Parenthood case. The liberal justices all voted to review the latter, while the conservative justices opposed it.

Critics, including the conservative justices, accused the liberal majority of playing politics with their decision. They argue that the court should prioritize the law above partisan viewpoints. However, Justice Jill Karofsky, a liberal, defended the court's role in deciding important state constitutional questions related to abortion regulation.

While the outcome remains uncertain, abortion advocates are hopeful that the court's liberal majority will ultimately uphold their rights. Michelle Velasquez, Chief Strategy Officer for Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, expressed gratitude that the court agreed to hear their case, emphasizing the need for clarity on the legality of abortion within the state.

The decision by the Wisconsin Supreme Court to review the challenges has sparked controversy and debate. Anti-abortion groups, such as Wisconsin Right to Life, strongly condemned the court's decision, calling it an attempt to "enshrine death on demand" and a misuse of the justice system.

As this pivotal legal battle unfolds, many Wisconsin residents eagerly await the court's ruling on whether the 175-year-old abortion law will be upheld or struck down, potentially reshaping the landscape of reproductive rights in the state.