This post was update Aug. 8, 2024 to correct the names of the attorneys representing Chisholm. Oops. Too many open windows.
You can now subscribe to updates from Appealing Wisconsin! Click on the "Subscribe" tab at the top of the page to receive email updates when a new blog post is published!
Milwaukee Archbishop Jerome Listecki has "no legal basis" to intervene in a state Supreme Court case seeking to protect abortion rights in the state, Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm said in a brief filed Tuesday.
The current defendants in the case, including Chisholm, adequately protect Listecki's interests, he said.
Chisholm is a defendant because, despite his announcement that he will not seek re-election, either he or his successor may want to enforce an abortion ban, Planned Parenthood said in a filing.
Listecki is seeking to intervene in Planned Parenthood v Urmanski, arguing that granting abortion rights to women would "substantially burden" his exercise of religion and would treat secular positions similar to his much more favorably. For more detail, see the previous post here.
An intervenor in a case must have an interest so direct and immediate that the party will either gain or lose by "direct operation of the judgment," Chisholm said.
Listecki's "interest is 'religious' in nature and is not likely one recognized in the law as 'indirect' but in its most favorable light could not be characterized as more than 'indirect,' " Chisholm's said in a brief opposing Listecki's intervention. Chisholm is represented in the case by Samuel Leib and Aaron Birnbaum of the Knott Gaynor law firm.
Listecki contends, without evidence, that “ '[e]ach unborn life is a human ‘person. …' ” Chisholm's brief said.
"Proposed intervenor provides no legal, scientific or medical basis to support a claim that a fertilized egg possesses a legally protected interest under the Fourteenth Amendment," it said.
In addition, Chisholm argued, Listecki's Fourteenth Amendment argument would apply to fetuses of all religions or of no religion in the archdiocese.
"Proposed intervenor has failed to show why he is in the unique position to advocate on behalf of this 'class,' ” the brief said.
The archbishop's arguments that abortion rights for women would violate his rights to religious freedom lack legal substance, the brief said.
Listecki would not be prevented from his mission of teaching the Catholic faith to members of the archdiocese, it said.
Listecki "is suggesting that his First Amendment Free Exercise right would outweigh a woman’s right to be free from being forced to carry to term an unviable fetus that could potentially threaten her life," Chisholm said.
Since Sheboygan County District Attorney Joel Urmanski and Listecki both seek the same goal, Listecki's effort to intervene is premature, the brief said. The two likely will take the same position, making Listecki's interest already adequately represented.
Comentarios