Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Stat. § 940.15 (2026)

Abortion

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

940.15940.15 Abortion.

940.15(1)(1) In this section, “viability” means that stage of fetal development when, in the medical judgment of the attending physician based on the particular facts of the case before him or her, there is a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support.

940.15(2)(2) Whoever intentionally performs an abortion after the fetus or unborn child reaches viability, as determined by reasonable medical judgment of the woman’s attending physician, is guilty of a Class I felony.

940.15(3)(3) Subsection (2) does not apply if the abortion is necessary to preserve the life or health of the woman, as determined by reasonable medical judgment of the woman’s attending physician.

940.15(4)(4) Any abortion performed under sub. (3) after viability of the fetus or unborn child, as determined by reasonable medical judgment of the woman’s attending physician, shall be performed in a hospital on an inpatient basis.

940.15(5)(5) Whoever intentionally performs an abortion and who is not a physician is guilty of a Class I felony.

940.15(6)(6) Any physician who intentionally performs an abortion under sub. (3) shall use that method of abortion which, of those he or she knows to be available, is in his or her medical judgment most likely to preserve the life and health of the fetus or unborn child. Nothing in this subsection requires a physician performing an abortion to employ a method of abortion which, in his or her medical judgment based on the particular facts of the case before him or her, would increase the risk to the woman. Any physician violating this subsection is guilty of a Class I felony.

940.15(7)(7) Subsections (2) to (6) and s. 939.05, 939.30 or 939.31 do not apply to a woman who obtains an abortion that is in violation of this section or otherwise violates this section with respect to her unborn child or fetus.

940.15 HistoryHistory: 1985 a. 56; 2001 a. 109.

940.15 AnnotationThe constitution does not confer a right to abortion. Therefore, a rational-basis review is the appropriate standard for a constitutional challenge to abortion laws. A law regulating abortion, like other health and welfare laws, is entitled to a strong presumption of validity. It must be sustained if there is a rational basis on which the legislature could have thought that it would serve legitimate state interests. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215, 142 S. Ct. 2228, 213 L. Ed. 2d 545 (2022).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 10 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1993–2025 · leading case: State v. Black, 526 N.W.2d 132 (Wis. 1994).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Black, 526 N.W.2d 132 (Wis. 1994). · cites it 10× “[3] Further, when the legislature enacted sec. 940.15, Stats., it did not repeal sec.”

Planned Parenthood of Wis., Inc. v. Kaul, 384 F. Supp. 3d 982 (W.D. Wis. 2019). · cites it 4× “• Wis. Stat. § 940.15 (5) and Wis. Admin. Code MED § 11.”

Planned Parenthood of Wiscons v. Brad D. Schimel, 806 F.3d 908 (7th Cir. 2015). · cites it 2× “So far as relates to this appeal the statute prohibits a doctor, under threat of heavy penalties if he defies the prohibition, from performing an abortion (and in Wisconsin only doctors are allowed to perform abortions, Wis. Stat. § 940.15 (5)) unless he has ad- 2 No.”

Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, Inc. v. Van Hollen, 738 F.3d 786 (7th Cir. 2013). “So far as relates to this appeal, the statute prohibits a doctor, under threat of heavy penalties if he defies the prohibition, from performing an abortion (and in Wisconsin only doctors are allowed to perform abortions, Wis. Stat. § 940.15 (5)) unless he has admitting…”

Josh Kaul v. Joel Urmanski, as DA for Sheboygan Cnty., WI, 2025 WI 32 (Wis. 2025). · cites it 35× “STAT. §§ 48.375, 69.186, 253.095, 253.105, 253.”

State Ex Rel. Angela M.W. v. Kruzicki, 541 N.W.2d 482 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 4× “The defendant also argued that the feticide statute "was impliedly repealed when the legislature enacted [the abortion statute] § 940.15 in response to Roe v. Wade." Black, 188 Wis.”

Vandervelden v. Victoria, 502 N.W.2d 276 (Wis. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 3× “" Section 940.15(1), Stats. 3 Presently, in Wisconsin, for an abortion procedure to comply with the law, the legislature has recognized that a physician need only obtain the consent of the pregnant woman.”

Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin v. Doyle, 162 F.3d 463 (7th Cir. 1998). “Wis. Stat. § 940.15 (3); see 505 U.S. at 879 , 112 S.”

Karlin v. Foust, 188 F.3d 446 (7th Cir. 1999). “See Wis. Stat. § 940.15 . That statute is not presently before us.”

Hope Clinic v. Ryan, 195 F.3d 857 (7th Cir. 1999). “A woman who finds herself five months pregnant is *879 unlikely to decide to have an abortion unless advised by her physician either that the fetus is profoundly deformed or that her own health requires that the pregnancy be terminated.”

— Wis. Stat. § 940.15(1) — 3 cases

Vandervelden v. Victoria, 502 N.W.2d 276 (Wis. Ct. App. 1993). “" Section 940.15(1), Stats. 3 Presently, in Wisconsin, for an abortion procedure to comply with the law, the legislature has recognized that a physician need only obtain the consent of the pregnant woman.”

State Ex Rel. Angela M.W. v. Kruzicki, 541 N.W.2d 482 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995). “The defendant also argued that the feticide statute "was impliedly repealed when the legislature enacted [the abortion statute] § 940.15 in response to Roe v. Wade." Black, 188 Wis.”