---

Dear Editor,
The theme continues amongst the uneducated. Democratic-supported Liberal Janet Protasiewicz and her supporters are using the lack of education in Wisconsin to convince the people to vote for her, or more specifically against Dan Kelly. Recent mailings, and many of her TV ads, include statements that "Extreme anti-abortion groups are backing Dan Kelly because they know he will vote to UPHOLD THE 1894 ABORTION BAN. "
Good. That's the definition of a judge. Not to "interpret" the law as one of Protasiewicz's ads say but to read it and uphold it. It's not a ban, it's a LAW. Her mailing says "Kelly's work for anti-abortion group raised in 2023 Wisconsin Supreme Court race." and to lend credibility it was an Associated Press statement in bold letters.
So? It's a fact, not a statement that it's bad.
The other side refers to "DAN KELLY'S EXTREME ABORTION BAN" but again it's the LAW which was enacted in 1849 - a year after statehood so unless Dan is 200 years old, he didn't write it. It's not his law. It's the law of the people of the state of Wisconsin, written by the legislature they elected. He'll be a JUDGE who enforces the law.
Like most conservatives, Protasiewicz also wants to address voting districts yet no one, Conservative or liberal, has come up with a plan that is impartial though dozens have been proposed for as long as I remember. Again, she proposes to fix it but forgets again that it's THE LEGISLATURE that determines it. It's The LEGISLATURE that writes the law JUST AS THEY DID IN 1849.
Judges are to decide whether a person violated the law. Supreme Court Justices are to determine if a LAW or court ruling violates the Constitution. The US Supreme Court already ruled that abortion is NOT a constitutional issue. See if you can find abortion in the Wisconsin Constitution.
She emphasizes there are no exemptions for rape. When a woman is raped, she can be examined immediately and a procedure can be done to ensure there is no pregnancy.
She emphasizes there are no exemptions for incest. Unless that's consensual, that again is rape (see above). What Progressives are progressing towards is greater ability to terminate a life whenever the mother (though that term applies to someone who cares about a child) chooses.
For those who have been chanting "Equality" for years, the father has no say in the decision. She wants to control HER body, fine. But the being inside you with eyes and arms and legs is a separate body.
There's a basic tenet in law used as the basis of Tort Law, "If not for the actions of another, what would the outcome be?" If the other driver didn't turn in front of you, you wouldn't have your car destroyed. If someone didn't start a grass fire that wasn't controlled, your house wouldn't have burned. The one that caused the actions has to "make it whole". How about 'If not for the actions of the doctor, what would happen? We'd have a human being.
Abortion LAWS are there to take a fetus and "Make it whole".
Vote for a JUDGE to uphold the LAW
John P. Curran
Dodgeville
jcurran516@aol.com