Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 253.09 (2026)
Abortion refused; no liability; no discrimination
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
253.09(1)(1) No hospital shall be required to admit any patient or to allow the use of the hospital facilities for the purpose of performing a sterilization procedure or removing a human embryo or fetus. A physician or any other person who is a member of or associated with the staff of a hospital, or any employee of a hospital in which such a procedure has been authorized, who shall state in writing his or her objection to the performance of or providing assistance to such a procedure on moral or religious grounds shall not be required to participate in such medical procedure, and the refusal of any such person to participate therein shall not form the basis of any claim for damages on account of such refusal or for any disciplinary or recriminatory action against such person.
253.09(2)(2) No hospital or employee of any hospital shall be liable for any civil damages resulting from a refusal to perform sterilization procedures or remove a human embryo or fetus from a person, if such refusal is based on religious or moral precepts.
253.09(3)(3) No hospital, school or employer may discriminate against any person with regard to admission, hiring or firing, tenure, term, condition or privilege of employment, student status or staff status on the ground that the person refuses to recommend, aid or perform procedures for sterilization or the removal of a human embryo or fetus, if the refusal is based on religious or moral precepts.
253.09(4)(4) The receipt of any grant, contract, loan or loan guarantee under any state or federal law does not authorize any court or any public official or other public authority to require:
253.09(4)(a)(a) Such individual to perform or assist in the performance of any sterilization procedure or removal of a human embryo or fetus if the individual’s performance or assistance in the performance of such a procedure would be contrary to the individual’s religious beliefs or moral convictions; or
253.09(4)(b)1.1. Make its facilities available for the performance of any sterilization procedure or removal of a human embryo or fetus if the performance of such a procedure in such facilities is prohibited by the entity on the basis of religious beliefs or moral convictions; or
253.09(4)(b)2.2. Provide any personnel for the performance or assistance in the performance of any sterilization procedure or assistance if the performance or assistance in the performance of such procedure or the removal of a human embryo or fetus by such personnel would be contrary to the religious beliefs or moral convictions of such personnel.
253.09 HistoryHistory: 1973 c. 159; Stats. 1973 s. 140.275; 1973 c. 336 s. 54; Stats. 1973 s. 140.42; 1979 c. 34; 1993 a. 27 s. 222; Stats. 1993 s. 253.09; 1993 a. 482.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1995–2025 · leading case: State Ex Rel. Angela M.W. v. Kruzicki, 541 N.W.2d 482 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995).
State Ex Rel. Angela M.W. v. Kruzicki, 541 N.W.2d 482 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995). “, defining "fetal monitor tracing"; § 253.09, STATS., addressing a hospital's refusal to honor a patient's request for an abortion; § 253.”
State of Ohio v. Xavier Becerra, 87 F.4th 759 (6th Cir. 2023). “§ 3213 (d); Wis. Stat. § 253.09 (1). 7 We note that the Louisiana statute the States cite contains a section providing criminal penalties for abortion in the event that Roe v.”
Josh Kaul v. Joel Urmanski, as DA for Sheboygan Cnty., WI, 2025 WI 32 (Wis. 2025). “§§ 253.09; 441.06(6); 448.03(5)(a). And another one requires reporting to law enforcement, the medical examiner, or coroner of “deaths following an abortion.”
State of Ohio v. Xavier Becerra (6th Cir. 2023). “§ 3213 (d); Wis. Stat. § 253.09 (1). 7We note that the Louisiana statute the States cite contains a section providing criminal penalties for abortion in the event that Roe v.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.