Wisconsin Senate Bill SB553

Wisconsin 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 10/17/25
• Refer: 10/17/25
• Report Pass: 11/7/25
• Engrossed: 11/18/25
• Refer: 1/16/26
• Failed: 3/23/26

Caption

An Act to renumber 48.375 (2) (a), 69.01 (13m) and 253.10 (2) (a); to renumber and amend 20.927 (1g), 939.75 (2) (a) and 940.15 (1); to amend 253.10 (2) (h); to create 20.927 (1g) (a) 2., 20.927 (1g) (b), 20.927 (1g) (c), 20.927 (1g) (d), 48.375 (2) (a) 2., 48.375 (2) (bm), 48.375 (2) (dm), 48.375 (2) (f), 69.01 (1m), 69.01 (9), 69.01 (13m) (b), 69.01 (16p), 253.10 (2) (a) 2., 253.10 (2) (bm), 253.10 (2) (cm), 253.10 (2) (dm), 939.75 (2) (a) 1., 939.75 (2) (a) 2., 939.75 (2) (a) 4., 940.15 (1) (a), 940.15 (1) (b), 940.15 (1) (c) and 940.15 (1) (d) of the statutes; Relating to: limitations on the definition of abortion.

Summary

SB553 narrows and clarifies Wisconsin’s statutory definition of “abortion” and “induced abortion” across multiple chapters of the statutes. The bill states that certain physician-performed medical procedures or treatments are not abortions when they are designed or intended to prevent the death of a pregnant woman and are not designed or intended to kill the unborn child. It specifically includes early induction, cesarean section in a medical emergency, removal of a dead embryo or fetus, and treatment of ectopic, anembryonic, and molar pregnancies, so long as the physician makes reasonable medical efforts to preserve both lives consistent with medical judgment and the gestational age of the child. The bill also creates new statutory definitions for “anembryonic pregnancy,” “ectopic pregnancy,” and “molar pregnancy,” and cross-references those definitions in several affected provisions. It amends abortion-related laws governing informed consent, public funding and subsidies, abortion-inducing drugs, the 20-week abortion prohibition, parental consent for minors, abortion reporting, and criminal provisions involving harm to an unborn child. It also adjusts the viability-related abortion exception so that the same medical-procedure carveout applies in that context. In practical terms, SB553 would affect how abortion-related exceptions are interpreted by doctors, regulators, prosecutors, and courts in Wisconsin. By redefining what does not count as abortion in these contexts, the bill could reduce legal uncertainty for emergency obstetric care and pregnancy-loss treatment, while also tightening the statutory framework used to regulate abortion services and related criminal liability. The available voting history suggests the bill had support in the Senate, where it passed 18-15, indicating a largely partisan split. The bill’s final status shows it failed to concur pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1, so it did not become law in the available record. No committee transcript was provided, so the broader discussion record is limited. The main point of contention is likely the bill’s effect on abortion law more generally: supporters would view it as a clarification that protects emergency medical care and treatment of nonviable pregnancies, while opponents may see it as a broader redefinition that could affect abortion access, enforcement, and the scope of existing abortion restrictions. The repeated insertion of the new exception into multiple statutes suggests the bill is intended to have wide reach, which may also have contributed to disagreement over its policy and legal consequences.

Impact

SB553 would amend multiple Wisconsin statutes by narrowing the operative definition of abortion and induced abortion in provisions covering informed consent, funding restrictions, abortion-inducing drugs, the 20-week abortion ban, parental consent for minors, reporting requirements, and certain criminal provisions. It would also create statutory definitions for anembryonic, ectopic, and molar pregnancies and apply those definitions across related sections. The bill would likely provide clearer statutory protection for emergency obstetric interventions and treatment of nonviable pregnancies, while also changing how abortion-related exceptions are applied in law and enforcement.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have had support from its Senate sponsors and enough backing to pass the Senate 18-15, suggesting a closely divided and partisan response. The absence of committee transcript material limits direct evidence of debate, but the narrow vote and the subject matter indicate the bill was politically sensitive. Its final failure to concur suggests that, despite Senate approval, it did not secure the broader legislative agreement needed to advance.

Contention

The central contention is whether the bill is a medical clarification or a substantive abortion-policy change. Supporters are likely to emphasize that it protects physicians performing life-saving treatment, including care for ectopic and nonviable pregnancies, and reduces ambiguity in emergencies. Opponents are likely to focus on the bill’s broader effect on abortion definitions across multiple statutes, arguing that it could alter abortion access, enforcement, and the reach of existing restrictions. The scope of the cross-references and the inclusion of criminal-law provisions make the bill’s downstream effects a likely source of dispute.