New Climate Change Report On Madison And A Victory For Women’s Health Care (Hour 2)

From the Civic Media Radio Network, moving Wisconsin forward one joke at a time, this is

as goes Wisconsin with Kristen Brott.

Now, filling in for the new mom, here's Jane Mattenair.

Good morning, welcome, welcome, welcome to as goes Wisconsin.

So glad to have you along with us.

Calvin is on the board Greg Bach with me in studio and I'm really excited to talk

to our next guest.

I saw this article in the Wisconsin State Journal.

John Martin is a professor at UW Madison.

He is a professor in atmospheric and oceanic sciences.

Good morning, Professor Martin.

How are you?

Thank you for joining us.

Good morning, Jane.

I'm great.

How are you?

I'm I guess I'm a little concerned about this article in again, the Wisconsin State

Journal.

Climate change has pushed Madison into a new zone on the USDA's plant hardiness map.

And obviously this is something that has been occurring over the last several decades.

How worried should we be about this, Professor Martin?

Well, I think that's a good question.

I think this is just yet another sign of the fact that there's a very gradual but persistent

and systematic change that's ongoing in the world's climate.

And that is affecting all kinds of different things.

And now we see rather dramatically that plant hardiness is affected in a fairly dramatic

way.

We are substantially warmer in this current time than we were 30 years ago.

And that warmness means that the winter time is not as extreme and that has ramifications

for agriculture that are not negative per se.

But the background warming is something that is going to start to affect lots of other

things, both meteorologically, climateologically and ecologically.

And so yeah, there's some concern there.

We can't tell what all of the ramifications are going to be, but you don't like to go

around poking hornets nests, knowing that there's something inside that doesn't like

you very much.

Yeah, for sure.

I mean, I've noticed this myself just in the last over the last couple of winters.

If I wouldn't take out like my snap dragons and they seeded, they would actually come

up in spring.

That's not supposed to happen snap dragons are not perennials.

They're annuals and they're not native to and I live in Milwaukee, which granted it

may be a different zone than Madison, but still it's like this while great and I love

to see things receive themselves.

This is not a good thing necessarily.

No, gets in a way of your plans.

I mean, if you're a meticulous god now you expect certain behaviors from your plants.

You know, if they're annuals, you don't have to worry about them in the next year.

You want to start again or you want to replant or do something else redesign your garden.

And if you can't count on that, which you've counted on for your entire life, it starts

to become a fairly substantial problem.

And one that over which we have little or no control.

What is this do for Wisconsin's farmers, Professor Martin?

I think it might extend the growing season, might compel some of the agricultural interests

to start a little earlier than they would otherwise.

And then not yet plan, but actually in reality, start having a harvest come in later than

normal or maybe get a second crop of various kinds of agricultural products in a season

here in Wisconsin when it used to be prohibited.

So it's going to take some adjustment.

I suspect since there's a commercial aspect to it that the farming industry will figure

out how to best implement, how to best deal with the new circumstances.

But for a period of time, they'll be an adjustment that won't be comfortable and may well cause

people to take risks that they probably shouldn't or to hedge when they probably shouldn't.

So it's going to be a confusing.

If you're just joining us, John Martin is a professor in atmospheric and oceanic sciences

at UW Madison.

And we're talking about how over the last few decades, the hardiness zones have changed

here in Wisconsin and all across the country.

I'm just wondering to Professor Martin, I mean, there are some crops in particular that

absolutely have to have a certain amount of cold, correct?

I think that's right.

I mean, I'm not an expert in botany or anything related to it, but I know that that's correct.

And then also just thinking about it from the broad farming standpoint here in our own

state, we used to be able to count on a pretty decent snow cover during the winter time.

And that not only protects the ground from deep freezing all the way to the, you know,

to really depths that you have to wait too long in the spring, but it also helps the soil

to retain moisture.

So if the soil's bare, uncovered by snow all went along, there's still a lot of evaporation

going on through the soil and sublimation, getting that ice out of there.

And so you begin the new growing season at a deficit of water, not just groundwater,

but soil moisture.

And so those are really substantial issues, and they're incrementally getting worse.

And you know, when the hotiness zones change, that's an implication is that there's something

else about the climate that's changing.

We're about three or four degrees warmer now than we, on average, degrees Fahrenheit.

Then we were, you know, sort of in 1992,000.

And persistently over the 90 days of winter from December 1 through February 28, that integrates

to something rather substantial in terms of snow cover and the ability for the soil to

retain moisture.

So it's, there's lots of implications to these slow creeps in one direction.

And people with a fairly dismissive attitude about a small temperature change are not thinking

the problem all the way through.

I absolutely agree with you.

It's, you know, there's always those folks who are like, yay, we had a mild winter, wasn't

that great?

And I didn't have to shovel.

And yes, that's all well and good.

But as you said, we need a certain amount of snowfall for moisture purposes in spring.

Or even as I said earlier, people who will use that same argument as a way to push legislation

or just push narrative that, oh, climate change isn't that bad.

It's only a degree or two.

And people in power say those types of things from their podiums and their, you know, their

positions of power and people believe them.

Right.

Yeah.

Our own Senator Johnson's made some ridiculous statements regarding that in the notion

that, hey, this might make Wisconsin warmer in the winter.

Right.

You know, it's absurdly stupid to not gain the whole thing out and to think about all

of the ramifications.

And this is one of them we're talking about right now.

How does it affect the growing season in the subsequent season?

There's really big implications for a milder winter.

And to act as if there's no problem at all.

And it's actually a benefit that we've manufactured by our, you know, in an inattentiveness to the

way we're changing our environment is really foolish.

Well, it doesn't deserve to be rewarded by a term in the Senate if you ask me.

Amen.

Absolutely.

And again, it's not even inattent, inattentiveness.

I don't think we've known about this inside and certainly climate, climate scientists have

known about this for a long time.

It was, it was more ignoring the issue because we don't want to have to address the causes

of this because there might be some industries that will lose money.

Mm-hmm.

That's right.

And, you know, you're exactly right, Jane.

It's the willful ignorance part of it knowing better, but deciding to just blow it off

anyway, which is, you know, absolutely the last thing public servants ought to be engaged

in.

And, and, and certainly it's frustrating for those of us who sit by and do our work

every day, whatever it is we do.

In my case, I learned something about how this system works.

And to, to hear people in positions of power just dismiss the importance of that understanding

is very frustrating.

Well, I imagine how, how infuriating that must be for you and your colleagues.

Well, and we took, we mentioned this last hour of Professor Martin about, you know, we'll

always get one politician who will bring a snowball into the chambers and hold up the

snowball and say, well, here's proof that there's no climate change because I have a snowball.

And it's just ridiculous.

It is ridiculous.

In fact, that week when Senator, I forget his name now from Oklahoma brought the snowball

into Washington, DC, that was the same week that Tammy Baldwin's office had somehow gotten

a hand on a paper that I'd written, a scientific paper about how the cold pool in the winter

time over the whole Northern hemisphere is systematically shrinking.

So it's a clear signal that the globe is warming up.

And then there's a Senator in half with a snowball on the floor of the Senate, but it's

stunting.

It's not governing.

Yeah.

And, you know, and another thing we talked about earlier was the fact that, and, you

know, I say this as a person who does recycle, who does try to make sure I do what I can

to help take care of the earth.

But for the longest time, they were really saying, well, you've got to do these things,

the people, you've got to do, you've got to separate your recyclables and everything.

And now we're finding out that it's really these huge companies that really needed to do

the work years ago.

And now it's almost, so I guess the question I have for you is as individual citizens,

what, or if anything, can we do besides like contacting our local politicians, our

elected officials saying you need to do something about this?

I mean, is it really at this point out of our hands individually to do something about

it?

It's discouraging to consider the prospect.

But I have a firm belief, and it goes beyond just the science and the social behavior

aspects.

I have a firm belief that if you know something is right, and you have a choice to do

either the right thing or the wrong thing, if you consistently try and, and then most

times succeed to do the right thing, that does make the world a better place.

And if everybody's thinking that way, it changes an entire ethic about how we ought to approach

each other and our responsibilities to each other, given our privileges.

So I'm in a privileged position here.

I get to talk to young people about science.

I don't shy away from suggesting to them that what they're learning about science might

make them better citizens as well.

And especially in regard to these issues.

And I think that's okay for me to do that.

I think it's actually an obligation for me to do that.

It's part of the Wisconsin idea to do that.

And so that's one thing I feel I can do myself.

But when I'm walking down the hall in my house, I turn the lights off if I don't need them

on.

Those are all things we can do and they're middle things.

But I think the important thing about those actions may not be their physical implications

on the climate system or on our economy.

But they develop within all of us a habit to be critical of overconsumption, to be thoughtful

and mindful about what we're doing every step of the way.

And I think those things matter.

And I think especially if you carry those ethics into a situation where you run across

a person in power who says those are a waste of time.

They laugh at you and they say, why are you doing that?

I think you can say, I don't think I want you representing me anymore.

That speaks to their person.

That speaks to their the way they live their life and treat other people when they approach

these types of topics with such disregard.

I think that's right.

Well, and as you kind of infer to Professor Martin, it is about getting individuals, we're

all individuals.

That's great.

Let's all celebrate our individuality.

But again, we are collectively part of this planet.

It's about all of us.

And we need to get back to some of the do this for the greater good.

Not just because I want to take a 90 minute shower.

Well, you know, okay.

And some people too, it's like some of these politicians and now we're getting to the

political, which is fine by me.

We talk about these politicians who are making it their end game to protect the children at

all costs from everything anywhere.

And these are the same people who are like, I have no interest in saving the earth.

It's like as if they don't care about their children and their children's children.

There's so much hypocrisy, they should be the first ones to say, we need to do something

about this.

Yeah.

Very true.

It has been delightful talking to you.

John Martin is a professor in atmospheric and oceanic sciences at UW Madison.

Really appreciate your time.

This morning, Professor Martin, thank you so much for joining us.

Thank you, James.

Been a pleasure.

Stay with us.

When we come back, remembering Norman Lear and Times person of the year that's coming

up on Asgos, Wisconsin, across the Civic Media Radio Network.

Good morning and welcome to Asgos, Wisconsin.

Thank you so much.

We're joining us.

Thank you for listening in Madison on WM DX shout out to the listeners in lacrosse

listening on the EGLE WLC X Jane Mattner in for Kristen Brie Greg Bach with me in studio

Calvin is on the board.

You can always join us at 844 967 2789 or if you're watching on the live stream on Facebook,

YouTube and Twitter, you can leave comments there as well.

101 years old Norman Lear television pioneer and I saw something this morning that's mentioned.

He was born before TV TV's were even invented.

Norman Lear is gone at the age of 101 he giant is too small of a term for that man literally

changed the course of television history absolutely and not just in the entertainment that

he provided as far as just good old fashioned comedies that made you laugh but like those

were shows that made you think and talk and come to self realizations about and open up

yourself to new people and you know, let me just list off some of the titles.

Different strokes Mary Hartman Mary Hartman oh my gosh.

One day at a time the Jefferson's good times mod Sanford and son those are just some of

the most popular ones and they all had messages with them.

They all had some sort of, you know, whether we're talking about feminism or we're talking

about black excellence or we're talking about racism, whether we're talking about family

and all those things coming together, it was just he was an amazing human being period

and you know, he's one of those guys like Mel Brooks, he's getting up there in aging

like you're not going to be surprised, right, but you're not going to be less heartbroken

about it either.

But I think too, as you pointed out all the things that he did, one of the best ways

to remember someone like that is to look back at what they created and as you mentioned

to Greg, he really did change the course of television with those kinds of programs that

still used humor to address some really serious things and turned a mirror on some pretty

unsavory behaviors.

I mean, just a show like Archie Bunker, some of the most like, it's hard to put in the

words how important that show was.

Oh, absolutely.

I mean, and not to mention the fact that like from Archie Bunker, you get the Jefferson's

from Jefferson's you get mod from, you know, not only just from good television, but you

know, opening up the doors to this family, who is the family we all know there.

They were our dad and mom.

They were a grandma and grandpa, aunt and uncle and they spoken real terms.

And I don't want to say that in the 70s, they were more comfortable with it.

Maybe there was just less, there was less of a spotlight on it, less of a spotlight.

So saying some of the words they said on television back in those days, I don't want to use

the word sensitive.

That's just not what I'm going to do here, but, but it really just opened the doors for

what television could become and what you could say and your motivation and giving opportunities

to different writers and different producers and actors who got their shot from these

shows.

I mean, he was, he was just important and he was gigantic and I loved him so much and

I loved listening to him talk.

He was so, he was so about artistic expression and freedom and license.

I was telling you before in 2000, he, along with some other people, purchased an original

copy of the Declaration of Independence and I found out what they did with it.

Oh, wow.

They sent it.

First of all, they paid $8.14 million for it.

They sent it on tour across the country so people could see it.

How cool.

And when I saw his interviewer, he showed it to the interviewer.

He opened up this big case with it and he, and he spoke from the heart about the importance

of the document.

I could not stop crying because I'm like, artists, creative people, you know, you can have

a lot of discussions about the history of this country, about the goals and whatever,

as far as art goes, there is a certain sense we look at these documents and we can say,

we live in a country we are, we can say these things on television.

And if someone tries to come for us or someone tries to shake a fist at our, to shake a

finger or whatever, no, we're protected, there it is.

There it is.

So, uh, Norman, they're very, very, very much going to be missed and it's been great

seeing some of the tributes come in from the comics on my Twitter feed, John Stewart

said, Norman, thank you for raising me a call about Rob Reiner said, you know, essentially

Norman Lear was his second father.

Yeah.

And just a very, very impactful human being in entertainment and, and just for humanity.

Norman Lear gone at the age of 101, just a couple of minutes or another shout out to

time magazines, person of the year, Jane Matt man, not even close, well done 33 year old

Taylor Swift, who surprised?

Oh, I think there are some people who are surprised, they're haters shaking off.

You are not wrong, but look at what the, what, what she has done.

She has changed the way you said it.

I can't tell if it was good or bad.

No, look at what she has done.

Look at what she did.

She affected global economies with her tour.

She registered people to vote.

She registered that got thousands of people to register to vote.

I mean, there are very important artists in this time.

And if you can't include her in that, then, then your, your reasons for not are selfish.

Like you don't have to like Taylor Swift's music.

No, you don't.

A couple of years ago, I didn't care about her music.

I love her music now.

And I love the way she treats her fans.

And I love the way she, she's tongue in cheek.

And she just, she kind of doesn't give an F. And that's important.

And she speaks on important topics too.

So, I mean, I, yeah, I do it, Tay-Tay.

And don't, I mean, she started when she was like 14 years old.

Oh my gosh.

Yeah.

She's been recording her parents for nearly 20 years.

And that's weird.

Because she's only 33.

Yeah.

If you ask me how old she was or like, you know, she's been around for like what, five,

10 years.

Oh no.

No.

Sorry.

I'm about, don't come at me, Swifties.

They're, they, they are not people over there.

They're me, those are many people's.

They are.

They can get really mean.

You can just be like, hey, I didn't really like 1989 as much as midnight.

Oh no.

I got to sell my house and move.

They have very strong feelings.

Well, maybe they should channel those feelings into helping.

All right.

Well done.

Taylor Swift.

Good job.

Coming up.

Big, big breaking news from yesterday, Dane County judge handing a victory to abortion

rights supporters after ruling the 1849 law does not prohibit abortions.

So coming up next, Michelle Velesquez of Wisconsin plant parenthood.

It's going to be joining us to talk about what this means, what happens next, what's

going to happen next with courts and all of those things.

So stay close.

You're listening to Asgo's Wisconsin across the civic media radio network.

Good morning.

Welcome to Asgo's Wisconsin.

Thank you so much for joining us.

Jane Matt Nair in for Kristen Brieg, Greg Bach with me in studio.

Calvin is on the board and some big news came down yesterday at the County judge handing

a victory to supporters of abortion rights yesterday, ruling that that 1849 Wisconsin

law does not prohibit abortions.

And we're so happy that she was able to join us last minute.

She is with plant parenthood of Wisconsin.

Michelle Velesquez Velasquez is our guest.

Thank you so much, Michelle.

I'm sure you guys have been very busy since this was announced yesterday.

So thank you for joining us.

Absolutely.

Thanks for having me.

So what does this mean, Michelle, this decision by this judge in Dane County?

What's going to happen tomorrow?

What's going to happen next week?

So this decision is really what we at plant parent of Wisconsin were anticipating.

And as many folks know, we resumed abortion services back in September.

We did that really based on this judge's some prior decisions and rulings that came

up earlier this summer that are really consistent with that final ruling in order yesterday.

But just because plant parent of Wisconsin resumed doesn't mean that this decision doesn't

have major impacts around the state it absolutely does.

What this decision does is hopefully provide providers and health care systems around the

state with the reassurance that they can now treat their patients with the full scope

of reproductive and sexual health care without fear of prosecution.

And that's really the most important thing is that people have access to this really

essential health care as far as what happens next in this case.

It will really depend on whether any of the defendants decide to appeal this courts decision.

And I'm sure that we will know more about that in the in the coming days and weeks.

I know that one of the defendants, the district attorney Joel or Mansky from Shaboygan issued

a statement indicating that while he respects the court's decision and will of course abide

by that order, he intends to appeal that decision.

So that's his state of intention and we'll see what the coming days and weeks bring with

that.

I think it's really important for people to remember that under this 1849 law, there

were no specifics as far as how close to death a mother had to be in order for them to

say she needs this procedure to save her life.

So none of none of those specific things were codified and at least to me, that's what

made this so immensely dangerous because there were no parameters, right?

There were no parameters, no solid parameters for our medical professionals to work with

him.

That's absolutely right.

So this law was originally passed just a year after Wisconsin became a state before women

could vote, before the advances in medicine that we that we see and know today.

So obviously it's a very antiquated and archaic law.

And even with that exception, physicians around the state during that sort of year, year,

a few months posed jobs before Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, resumed him before this courts

decision, really grappled with what does this mean?

And so the impact of that, you know, because some folks would say, well, there's an exception

and you can provide an abortion to save a patient's life.

But what point is it legal?

And so that really had this, this chilling effect.

And we know that abortion bans and heavy restrictions lead to terrible health outcomes

for the pregnant person and despairately impact black women and other women of color as

well.

Michelle Velasquez is our guest.

She's with Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, talking about the decision that was announced

yesterday by a circuit court judge Diane Schlipper, essentially saying that the 1849 Wisconsin

law does not prohibit abortions.

And as you were saying, Michelle, at least in in the Wisconsin instance, there were these

exceptions for for the life of the mother, but they were never codified.

I think it's crucial for people to recognize in states like Texas and where they have no

exceptions for rape, incest, or the life of the mother, there are horrifying stories coming

out of these states about women being told at four months that their fetus is not going

to be viable.

It lacks whatever, you know, it lacks a brain.

It's lungs are not developing and they have to carry that to term.

Absolutely.

These, again, bands just, bands and heavy restrictions make pregnancy even more dangerous

than it already is.

I think there's this sort of idea that, you know, pregnancy isn't really a big deal.

And you carry a child for nine months and then you have a baby and everything's great

and lovely.

And, you know, for some people that's certainly the case, but pregnancy is actually statistically

a more dangerous than obtaining an abortion is.

Abortions are safe.

They're, you know, people, it's an outpatient procedure or a procedure done just through

the use of medication.

And so it's healthcare.

And you're right.

There are states where there's no exceptions.

Wisconsin, under that 1849 law, only had an exception to save the life of the pregnant

person, again, exactly what that meant.

We didn't know.

There were no exceptions for rape or incest, no exceptions for other dangerous health conditions.

Sometimes the fetus is incompatible with life outside the womb as you were mentioning.

And so it's really just forcing people to continue with pregnancies that are non-viable

and that are going to negatively impact their physical health.

And also forcing people that have carry pregnancies, assume the risks even in situations where

the person has already determined, I am not able to care for this child regardless of

existing health conditions.

They have made a choice for themselves that they cannot for whatever reason have a child.

And so bans and restrictions obviously put people in positions of having to carry and

have children that they would otherwise have not had.

I keep thinking of this one particular case in Texas, Michelle, where again, her fetus

was not viable.

She was going to have to carry it to term.

Ultimately, I think she got sepsis and ended up having to get a hysterectomy, which meant

that she could never have anymore children.

And when she tried to join a lawsuit against the state of Texas, they essentially said,

well, you no longer have standing in this because you can no longer have children.

Yeah, it's absolutely mind boggling and I wish I could say I'm surprised, but I'm not.

We've seen, you know, this is really a culmination of 50 years of really strategic activism

from the anti-abortion, anti-choice movement to chip away at abortion access.

And right after dobs, one of the attorneys in that movement really publicly stated this

was the midpoint.

The longer term goal is to ban abortion nationally.

And so we see this happening even in places like Illinois and Minnesota, where abortion

has always remained accessible in legal post-dobs.

We see this in the form of these federal lawsuits that challenge the FDA's approval, for

example, of Mythoprystone, which is the drug used.

It's the first medication used in a medication abortion.

It's the medication that I think about 98% of all medication abortions use.

That's the first dog and then there's a second medication called mesoprostal, which can

be used on its own.

On its own, Mythoprystone is the preferred regimen and we see, so we see these lawsuits at

a federal level, really challenging, again, that medication, which could undo and create

sort of a more tangled web of accessibility in states that have chosen to remain safe,

accessible states.

Well, and I find it so interesting too, and I mean, originally, the whole argument was

states' rights.

It has to go back to the states.

Every individual state should decide its states' rights until now we have some presidential

candidates who are going, oh no, we want to do this.

So, that whole premise that this was a state's right issue just got tossed out the window.

I mean, the dog's decision certainly would indicate that the idea is that this goes back

to the states, but yes, you're right.

We certainly see folks who would like to ban abortion at the national level and sort

of similar to the 50 years of sort of leading up to the dog's decision.

There will be continued challenges to existing laws or protections such as the Mythoprystone,

for example, just sort of a gradual attempt to chip away at the accessibility that there

is, which is why I always tell people restoring access, protecting access and expanding

access, is a marathon.

There has to be a really long-term strategy.

This isn't going to happen overnight, and we have to remain sort of poised to continue

in this fight for the long-term, certainly here in Wisconsin.

I'm sure other states, obviously, as well.

And this case and decision yesterday, you know, I know it is a long time.

It's over a year since dogs were almost at a year and a half, and it is something that

we're celebrating, we're thrilled, and we know that it's not enough, because Wisconsin

essentially reverts back to the legal framework that we were providing abortions in prior

to dogs, which was very restrictive.

It is very restrictive.

Wisconsin is considered one of the more restrictive states pre-dobs, and so there's still a lot

of work to be done.

We don't have an enshrined state constitutional right to abortion at this point.

We don't have a statutory right to an abortion at this point, and we have just a slew of laws

and regulations that make accessing that care extremely difficult.

Going back to something that Jane had just said about politicians and whomever wanting

the national abortion laws, something that had been noticing, and especially in the Republican

debate, Nikki Haley went on record to saying that she wasn't for it, based simply because

the improbability of getting it through all the way.

And I feel like that, like I see a lot of politicians not really saying there's someone

who danced the line really well, because we're seeing individual states like Kansas pushing

back saying, no, we don't want what you're trying to push.

And it just seems to me that the pushing of a national abortion ban is just, it's going

to be so much harder than I don't know how to frame the exact question, but like these

politicians, it just seems like they really just want it, but they're lying about it on

the podium essentially.

They would never lie.

I know.

They're so they're so nice.

They would never lie.

Michelle Veleska's Veleska's is our guest from Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin talking

about the decision yesterday by a circuit judge in Dane County that the 1848 1849 law

does not affect abortion.

Michelle, do you do you have the time to stick with us through the break?

Sure.

Wonderful.

I got a couple more questions and I want to go back to, especially you're talking about

it is still, there are still lots of hoops for women in Wisconsin that they have to jump

through in order to get this healthcare.

So we'll talk about that a little bit more specifically.

When we come back, stay with us.

You're listening to As Goes Wisconsin on the Civic Media Radio Network.

Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh,

oh, after all of the nervous insinuances, to come to happiness, if I surround myself with

positive things, how they rest, I'm not gonna give up, I'm not gonna stop, I'm gonna

work hard, I'm not gonna survive.

I'm not gonna make it, I was the bad girl, and keep on surviving

I'm not gonna survive.

I'm not gonna give up, I'm not gonna survive.

I'm not gonna survive.

I'm gonna make it I was the bad girl, and keep on surviving

I'm not gonna give up, I'm not gonna stop her, I'm gonna work harder, I'm not gonna survive

I'm gonna make it, I was the bad girl, and keep on surviving

I'm not gonna survive, I'm not gonna give up

I'm not gonna stop, I'm gonna work harder, I'm not gonna survive

I'm gonna make it I was the good one

Good morning, welcome to As well as Wisconsin Jane Mattenair

In for Kristen Brie, Calvin's on the board, Greg Bach

with me in studio and joining us on the stream

from a planned parenthood up Wisconsin.

Michelle Villescaz is our guest

and we're talking about yesterday's decision

by Dane County Circuit Judge Diane Schlipper

that the 1849 Wisconsin Law

does not prohibit abortions

and we were talking just before the break, Michelle

that there are still many, many steps

that women have to go through in Wisconsin

before they are able to get an abortion, correct?

Absolutely.

And what, I mean, there's still a waiting period, right?

Yeah, so for example, there's a 24 hour waiting period.

So what that means is someone comes in for an appointment

it has to be in person.

So they couldn't do a first appointment by telemedicine.

They have to go in, see the physician

and the reason they have to be in person

is because the law requires a physical exam.

It requires an ultrasound.

Even if the ultrasound isn't medically necessary,

there is state counseling that's mandated

and that is as script from the state

that is physicians are required to go over with the patient

and then the patient will need to come back

at least 24 hours later for their appointment.

And so realistically, the appointment isn't going to be

exactly 24 hours later, maybe later that week.

It might have to be the following week, depending on schedules.

If the patient is obtaining an abortion through the medication,

they have to see the same physician

that they saw for that first appointment,

which makes it really difficult to provide

medication abortion services, particularly in more rural areas,

where there are just frankly, there's fewer people,

so there's fewer physicians available,

and there's even fewer for women's health.

So those are just a few examples.

Another major barrier is the cost of an abortion.

And so people's insurance, depending on the source of it,

may not be able to pay for that care.

So if anyone is receiving a form of state Medicaid,

whether it's badger care or a form of state Medicaid

called family planning only services,

none of those would be able to cover the abortion.

If you are a public employee,

and you are receiving your insurance

from essentially the government as your employer, right?

That insurance could not pay for an abortion.

If you buy your insurance on the Affordable Care Act marketplace,

that cannot pay for your abortion.

So there are these financial barriers,

which are really significant.

And sort of statistically, I think we're around 63%

of people in this country couldn't cover

an unexpected cost of about $500 some more.

And so that is just the reality that people are living in.

So those are just some of the barriers

that people face trying to obtain

what is routine medical care.

As you were going through those hoops

that women have to jump through,

all I could think of was,

I would love to see how a man would react

if he went in to see his doctor for whatever

and had to go through the same amount of hoops

in order to get health care.

The outcry would be unending.

You're going to do what?

I have to come back in 24 hours.

What? I'm not capable of making my own decision.

What?

Absolutely.

There's no other form of health care

that's really regulated and restricted

like abortion care is.

The other thing I wanted to add is that advanced nurse

practitioners also cannot provide this care.

So they're not doing the initial consult

with the patient.

They're not providing the medication.

And this is very, this is Wisconsin.

This looks really different in other places,

particularly our neighbors in Illinois and in Minnesota.

And permitting advanced nurse practitioners

to practice under the full scope of their license,

which they prescribe medication

in every other scenario,

except for like really specific types of controlled substances,

permitting them to use the full scope

of their license would be another way

to expand the availability and access

folks have to abortions.

And I think it's important for people to keep in mind.

And I had done an interview with Wisconsin Right to Life

probably 35 years ago.

And they said then that the goal was to ban contraceptives,

all contraceptives, ban all abortions.

And that will also then spill over into IVF.

And those kinds of treatments as well,

don't think they're not still gunning for that stuff

to ban that stuff.

That is part of the overall goal.

Absolutely.

I think this is about abortion,

but it's about so much more.

It's about these fundamental rights

that we should have as human beings

to control our own bodies, to control our futures

and the course of our lives.

And that includes contraception,

that includes who we want to marry.

And these are the sort of privacy rights

that doves, the doves decision really sort of calls into question.

And I know that in the decision,

some of the justice has sort of said,

well, we're not talking about those things,

but Justice Thomas was not shy about saying,

well, actually this could apply in those scenarios as well.

Right.

It's not so long ago that contraception

was very, very regulated as well.

People who women who were not married

couldn't obtain it.

Women who were married couldn't obtain it

without their spouse's permission.

And that was in the 60s and early 70s.

So it's not that long ago that contraception itself

wasn't particularly available to everybody.

So those types of things are not necessarily settled.

The other side is absolutely coming

for those access to contraception as well.

And so that's why I say again,

this is a marathon and not a sprint.

Thank you so much.

Again, Michelle for taking time to join us today.

I know there's been a lot going on.

Michelle Velisquez from Plant Parenthood of Wisconsin

has been our guest talking about yesterday's decision

from Dane County Circuit Court.

Really appreciate it.

I know we will talk more as as the months go on.

So thank you again.

Stay tuned.

The news is on the way next followed by the wonderful Todd

Alba program from noon to two o'clock.

Keep it close.

Keep it here on the civic media radio network.

They can catch me.

What was I just wrong?

They all want what I got.

Never leaving me alone.

I ain't gonna break all that.

I'm all the woman.

Let's go.

I ain't gonna take all that.

I'm all the woman.

Watch out.