Last week, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that a 170-year-old abortion ban was not valid. Along with the obvious impact of this decision, it also highlighted next spring's election for the state supreme court. The two candidates, incumbent Rebecca Bradley and Judge Chris Taylor couldn't be more polar opposite on the issue of abortion.

Bradley, a Federalist, wrote the dissent to the ruling, and apparently to professionalism:

In a dissent to the majority opinion, Bradley, a conservative, wrote that the court's liberal majority "not only does violence to a single statute; it defies the People’s sovereignty." The majority's decisions, she wrote, "are motivated by the policy predilections of its members."

"Not content with effacing the law, Chief Justice Jill Karofsky rewrites history, erases and insults women by referring to mothers as 'pregnant people,' slanders proponents of the pro-life perspective, and broadcasts dangerously false narratives about laws restricting abortion," Bradley wrote. "Laden with emotion, steeped in myth, and light on the law, the concurrence reads as a parody of progressive politics rather than the opinion of a jurist."

"The People of Wisconsin have surrendered self-governance to four liberal lawyers. No one, regardless of political leanings, should want any four lawyers to make all of the important decisions for we the People — absent debate, discussion, or compromise. The constitution doesn’t allow it," Bradley wrote. "In America, the Law is King. The majority of this court has deposed the Law. There is no greater affront to democracy. There is no greater threat to our Republic."

Now might be a good time to point out that polling shows a large majority of Wisconsinites are in favor of women's reproductive rights, which is confirmed by the fact that the two elections since Dodd have gone easily to the more liberal candidate.

Bradley's reaction is not surprising considering the fact that when she was college, she wrote an op-ed piece comparing abortion to the Holocaust:

In that column, Bradley argued that life begins at conception and it was "incomprehensible" that people could argue that they have "a right to murder their own flesh and blood."

"Our society is turning a blind eye to this holocaust of our children, largely for the sake of the convenience, or perhaps the financial concerns of the women who choose abortion," she wrote.

On the other side of the issue and the election ballot is Judge Chris Taylor. Taylor also used to be a state legislator and before that, she was the public policy director for Planned Parenthood in Wisconsin. As one might expect, her statement was like a breath of fresh air after Bradley's vitriol:

She issued a statement praising the court's ruling as one "protecting an individual’s right to make their most personal, private decisions about their bodies and their lives."

"In contrast to the majority opinion, Justice Rebecca Bradley’s dissent constitutes an unhinged political rant, devoid of reasoned legal analysis," Taylor said. "Using politically charged language unsuited for any judge, let alone a Supreme Court justice, Justice Rebecca Bradley continues to be more concerned with forcing her own right-wing agenda onto the people of our state than protecting our most basic constitutional rights and freedoms."

Please note that while Taylor is a confirmed candidate, Bradley has yet to make it official and is already looking for an escape route.
Regardless of Bradley's decision, I would suggest stocking up on popcorn. This race could prove to be as interesting as the last two elections. Even more so since a win by Taylor would give the court a 5-2 lean to the left.