Wisconsin Assembly Bill AB355

Wisconsin 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 7/8/25
• Refer: 7/8/25
• Failed: 3/23/26

Caption

An Act to repeal 40.03 (6) (m), 40.56, 46.245, 253.095, 253.105, 441.07 (1g) (f), 457.26 (2) (gm), 632.8985, 940.04 and 940.15 (5); to amend 40.03 (6) (a) 1., 40.03 (6) (a) 2., 40.03 (6) (b), 48.375 (4) (a) 1., 69.186 (1) (hf), 69.186 (1) (k), 253.107 (1) (b), 448.02 (3) (a), 939.75 (2) (b) 1. and 968.26 (1b) (a) 2. a.; to repeal and recreate 253.10 and 448.02 (3) (a); to create 40.51 (9m) and 253.094 of the statutes; Relating to: right to bodily autonomy, elimination of certain abortion-related regulations, and coverage of abortion under certain health care coverage plans. (FE)

Summary

AB355 would establish a statutory right to bodily autonomy that expressly includes access to abortion, and it would bar the state from prohibiting an abortion when, in the medical provider’s professional judgment, the procedure is necessary. The bill also declares that state laws or rules restricting abortion access are unenforceable if they do not confer a legitimate health benefit, and it creates a private right of action for people aggrieved by enforcement of a law or rule that violates that standard. The bill would repeal or narrow a wide range of abortion-related restrictions in Wisconsin law. It removes the 24-hour waiting period and special informed-consent requirements for abortion, eliminates restrictions on abortion-inducing drugs and hospital admitting privileges, and repeals several criminal provisions tied to abortion and unborn-child offenses. It also revises provider regulation so abortion care providers are subject to the same general requirements as other health care providers, and it changes references in related statutes to align with the bill’s new framework. AB355 would also change public and employer health coverage rules. It requires state and Group Insurance Board health plans that include maternity coverage to also cover abortion and medically necessary services related to abortion, and it repeals existing prohibitions on abortion coverage in certain public employee plans and exchange plans. In effect, the bill would expand insurance coverage for abortion services in state-administered and related plans while removing statutory exclusions. The overall sentiment reflected in the bill’s introduction is strongly supportive of abortion access and reproductive rights, as shown by the large number of Democratic legislative sponsors and cosponsors. The bill was referred to the Health, Aging and Long-Term Care Committee but ultimately failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1, indicating it did not advance into law. No committee transcript or recorded vote history was provided, so the available context shows sponsorship support but no documented floor debate in the materials supplied. The main points of contention are likely to be the bill’s broad preemption of abortion restrictions, its repeal of criminal and regulatory provisions, and its mandate that certain health plans cover abortion if they cover maternity care. Supporters would view these changes as restoring access and clarifying rights after Dobbs, while opponents would likely object to the removal of waiting periods, informed-consent rules, criminal penalties, and coverage limits. The bill also intersects with ongoing litigation over Wisconsin’s pre-Roe abortion statutes, making its legal effect and timing especially significant.

Impact

AB355 would substantially rewrite Wisconsin’s abortion-related statutes by creating an explicit right to abortion, repealing multiple abortion restrictions and criminal provisions, and requiring abortion coverage in certain state and public employer health plans that offer maternity coverage. It would also alter provider regulation, informed-consent rules, and statutory references tied to abortion law, while leaving some existing limits such as viability-related restrictions and other homicide laws intact. The bill would affect patients seeking abortion care, physicians and other abortion providers, state and local officials, and public insurance plans and employers subject to the Group Insurance Board framework.

Sentiment

The bill’s sponsorship pattern suggests strong pro-choice and reproductive-rights support among its authors and cosponsors. Its introduction language and structure indicate an affirmative effort to expand abortion access and remove regulatory barriers. At the same time, the bill’s failure to pass shows that it did not achieve the necessary legislative support, and the absence of recorded committee or floor debate in the provided materials limits the ability to identify specific vote-based sentiment beyond its introduction and ultimate defeat.

Contention

The most contentious provisions are the creation of a fundamental right to bodily autonomy including abortion, the declaration that restrictive laws are unenforceable unless they provide a legitimate health benefit, and the repeal of long-standing abortion regulations such as the 24-hour waiting period, special informed-consent requirements, admitting-privileges rules, and criminal penalties. Coverage mandates for abortion in public employee and Group Insurance Board plans are also likely to be disputed, especially by opponents of public funding or insurance coverage for abortion. Supporters would argue the bill modernizes Wisconsin law and protects access to care; opponents would likely argue it goes too far by eliminating safeguards and overriding existing statutory limits.