¶ Overview
Lazar praised the overturning of Roe v. Wade and supported anti-abortion legislation. Lazar called the Dobbs decision “very wise” and “a good move forward." Lazar argued that Roe v. Wade “didn’t work” and claimed U.S. justices overturned the landmark case because abortion was not a decision in which nine justices needed to make a “national decision.” Lazar acknowledged that current Wisconsin law permitted abortions until 20-weeks, but called for the legislature to “just make a decision” on abortion restrictions. She suggested a “heartbeat” abortion ban as a middle ground between Wisconsinites who wanted to ban abortion “at conception,” and those who wanted abortions allowed “up to the date of birth.”
Even though Lazar later tried to deny her comments, Lazar also suggested she would not have been in the majority in striking down Wisconsin’s “draconian” abortion ban from 1849. She said she was unsure whether she agreed with the Wisconsin Supreme Court majority in repealing the 1849 abortion ban and said she was unsure it was the “right ruling.” Lazar also said exceptions for rape and the health of the mother were a “really hard question” for her.
In January 2026, Lazar accepted $1,033 from right-wing lawyer Misha Tseytlin, who was a key architect in the legal strategy to overturn Roe v. Wade. A New York Times investigation detailed Tseytlin's attendance in a Federalist Society conference to strategize how to use Trump's presidency to overturn Roe v. Wade in 2016, and how he pitched a plan to trigger a challenge to Roe v. Wade at an Alliance Defending Freedom conference in 2017.
Despite trying to claim she was not the anti-abortion candidate, the Wisconsin Right to Life promoted Lazar as the anti-abortion candidate of the 2026 Wisconsin Supreme Court election. In Lazar’s 2022 run for Court of Appeals, she received endorsements from two anti-abortion organizations, Pro-Life Wisconsin and the Wisconsin Right to Life. Pro-Life Wisconsin said they endorsed candidates who held a “no-exceptions pro-life position.” During her 2026 run for Wisconsin Supreme Court, Lazar met with members of the conservative Independent Women’s Forum, and took their advice on how to address abortion.
As assistant attorney general, Lazar defended laws that threatened abortion access in Wisconsin. In 2013, Lazar defended a law that would require abortion providers to be physically present when a patient ingested abortion pills, which Planned Parenthood warned would put a “burden on the 45 percent of women who choose a medical rather than a surgical abortion.” In 2014, Lazar defended a law that would require all abortion providers to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals, which Planned Parenthood argued would cause three out of Wisconsin’s four abortion clinics to close.
¶ Lazar Praised The Overturning Of Roe V. Wade As “Very Wise” And Suggested Wisconsinites Might Back A “Heartbeat” Abortion Ban, Arguing That A “Heartbeat” Ban Was The Middle Ground
¶ Lazar Praised The Dobbs Decision As “Very Wise” And “A Good Move Forward” And Claimed Roe V. Wade “Didn’t Work”
¶ Lazar Called The Dobbs Decision “Actually Very Wise” And “A Good Move Forward”
October 2025: Lazar Called The Dobbs Decision “Actually Very Wise” And Criticized Dobbs Opponents Who “Threw Tantrums About And Were Very Upset About” The Ruling. According to The Wisconsin Independent, “In an Oct. 19 appearance on Madison CBS affiliate Channel 3000’s ‘For the Record,’ Lazar was asked by host Elly Laliberte about being endorsed by Pro-Life Wisconsin in a previous campaign. Lazar said she did not know whether the group would back her again. She continued: ‘This is such a complicated area. … The United States Supreme Court, in the issuance of Dobbs, which everyone threw tantrums about and were very upset about, was actually very wise, because what it did is it said each individual state can now have the members of that state — so the citizens of Wisconsin, we can now decide what we want to do about abortion. We can decide if we want to put limits on it, what limits we want to put, where we want them, if we want to consider any exceptions, if we want to say that once the baby has gone too far, you cannot have abortions.’” [Wisconsin Independent, 11/14/25]
November 2025: Lazar Said The Dobbs Decision Was “A Good Move Forward” And Said “Abortion Is Not Something That Would Be Right For Me.” According to WMTV15 News, “VK: You’ve previously been endorsed by Wisconsin Right to Life and Pro-Life Wisconsin. Are you pro-life? ML: So, interesting question. My personal views, Abortion is not something that would be right for me, but I recognize this is such a difficult, tricky issue for women... The good thing for us is that it’s now an issue that people in the state of Wisconsin have the freedom to decide what they want to do, because now it’s back in front of each individual state. VK: Being back in front of the states is a consequence of Roe versus Wade being overturned. ML: By Dobbs. VK: Yes. Would you say then that you support that Supreme Court ruling? ML: Well, that’s so in about 1972 or ’73, the U.S. Supreme Court did Roe versus Wade. And the funny thing with that is for all the years after that, they could never, ever resolve the matter. And that should tell you something... It should be out of the courts. It should be back where it belongs, which is every one of us making that decision in the state of Wisconsin. And that’s where it is now. So in that respect, yes, I think that’s a good move forward.” [WMTV15 News, 11/11/25]
¶ Lazar Argued Roe V. Wade “Didn't Work” And Was Overturned Because Abortion Was Not A Decision In Which Nine Justices Needed To Make A “National Decision”
March 2026: Lazar Argued U.S. Justices Overturned Roe V. Wade Because Abortion Was Not A Decision In Which Nine Justices Needed To Make A “National Decision,” Arguing That For 50 Years The “System Did Not Work” And That Reproductive Rights Were A States’ And Individual Issue. According to 27 News WKOW, “However, that is what happened with the United States Supreme Court in 2022. After the ideological makeup of the court shifted with appointments President Donald Trump made in his first term, the court heard a new challenge to Roe v. Wade. Despite several SCOTUS justices saying the issue was settled because of precedent, the court overturned the Roe v. Wade ruling. Lazar said she thinks that happened because abortion is not an issue ‘where you need a national decision by nine justices in Washington, D.C.’ ‘Roe v. Wade was on the books for almost 50 years, and, if you notice, there were constant attacks, constant lawsuits, constant opinions being written because, quite frankly, the system did not work,’ she said. ‘Abortion and reproductive rights are more appropriately decided by each individual citizen of each individual state.’” [27 News WKOW, 3/23/26]
November 2025 UW-Whitewater College Event: Lazar Claimed Roe V. Wade “Didn’t Work.” According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “Lazar's comments were part of a lengthy answer about how she would address the issue of abortion following a question about the topic during a UW-Whitewater College Republicans event in November. In her wide-ranging response, Lazar discussed her personal opposition to abortion, which she said doesn't matter because she wouldn't try to legislate from the bench. Lazar also said Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision that established a constitutional right to abortion nationwide, ‘didn't work,’ and praised the 2022 Dobbs decision that overturned Roe, effectively sending the authority to regulate or ban abortion back to each state.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 1/12/26]
¶ Lazar Suggested “Wisconsinites Might Back A State Law Banning Abortion Once A Fetal Heartbeat Is Detected” And Claimed A “Heartbeat” Ban Was The Middle Ground
¶ November 2025 UW-Whitewater College Event: Lazar Suggested “Wisconsinites Might Back A State Law Banning Abortion Once A Fetal Heartbeat Is Detected” And Asserted A “Heartbeat” Ban Could Be “The Middle”
November 2025 UW-Whitewater College Event: When Asked About Personal Opposition To Abortion, Lazar Claimed She Would Not “Legislate From The Bench,” But Also Said She Believed “Wisconsinites Might Back A State Law Banning Abortion Once A Fetal Heartbeat Is Detected.” According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “State Appeals Court Judge Maria Lazar, the conservative candidate for Wisconsin Supreme Court, said she thinks Wisconsinites might back a state law banning abortion once a fetal heartbeat is detected, according to a recording from a college Republican event obtained by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. […] Lazar's comments were part of a lengthy answer about how she would address the issue of abortion following a question about the topic during a UW-Whitewater College Republicans event in November. In her wide-ranging response, Lazar discussed her personal opposition to abortion, which she said doesn't matter because she wouldn't try to legislate from the bench. Lazar also said Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision that established a constitutional right to abortion nationwide, ‘didn't work,’ and praised the 2022 Dobbs decision that overturned Roe, effectively sending the authority to regulate or ban abortion back to each state.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 1/12/26]
- Lazar Noted Wisconsin’s 20-Week Abortion Ban, And Said Governor Evers And The Legislature Should “Just Make A Decision, And Make A Fair, Good Decision… If They're Going To Say Heartbeat, I Think Maybe People Can Live With That.” According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “Noting that current Wisconsin law bans abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, Lazar said she wouldn't attempt to change the law as a Wisconsin Supreme Court justice. She instead said Democratic Gov. Tony Evers and the Legislature should compromise and resolve the issue. ‘Just make a decision, and make a fair, good decision,’ Lazar said. ‘If they're going to say heartbeat, I think maybe people can live with that.’” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 1/12/26]
- Lazar Claimed Some People Would Want To Ban Abortion At Conception, While Others Would Like Abortion “Up To The Date Of Birth,” But Contended Most Wisconsinites “Are In The Middle.” According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “She added, ‘You're always going to get the people on one side who say, 'No, it has to be at conception,' and the other people on the other side who say 'Up to the date of birth.' And I think most of the people in Wisconsin are in the middle.’” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 1/12/26]
¶ Lazar Denied “Running To Impose A Heartbeat Bill From The Bench” And Claimed Her Words Had Been “Twisted”
Maria Lazar Opinion: Lazar Claimed “Sensationalized Headlines” Had “Twisted” Her Abortion Position, Further Claiming She Was “Not Running To Impose A Heartbeat Bill From The Bench” And That While “Abortion Is Not Something [She] Would Have Contemplated,” She Promised To “Never Legislate From The Bench.” According to Maria Lazar’s opinion from WisPolitics, “Words matter. Recently, sensationalized headlines have twisted my comments to suggest I am seeking to change Wisconsin’s abortion laws. Let me be clear: I am a jurist, not a politician. I am not running to impose a heartbeat bill from the bench, and any insinuation to the contrary is false. While I have been honest about my personal values as a mother, those feelings do not dictate my rulings. My role is to follow the law, not to legislate from the bench. I am the first judicial candidate to state a clear position on this complex issue of abortion. The people of Wisconsin deserve to know exactly where I stand. As a judge, my personal views, which include the fact that abortion is not something I would have contemplated for myself, make no difference in my role on the bench. I honor my oath to never legislate from the bench.” [Maria Lazar Opinion – WisPolitics, 1/20/26]
¶ Lazar Said Abortion Exceptions Were A “Really Hard Question For Her” And Said She Was Unsure If She Would Have Ruled With The Majority Of The Wisconsin Supreme Court In Repealing An 1849 Abortion Ban
¶ Lazar Said It Was A “Really Hard Question” For Her When Women Faced Complicated And Challenging Circumstances Needing Abortion Exceptions
Lazar Said It Was A “Really Hard Question” For Her When Faced With Complicated And Challenging Circumstances, Like Mother’s Facing Health Complications Or Children Who Were Raped And Faced The Decision To Seek An Abortion Or Have A Child. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “Lazar acknowledged that abortions often involve complicated and challenging circumstances. ‘People tell me all the time, 'Yes, the 12-year-old, the 13-year-old who was raped, and now has that issue of does she have a child or not. There are always horrible exceptions. The woman's going to die, or not,’ Lazar said. ‘I don't know. It's a really hard question for me.’ She added, ‘But the easy thing for me, is that, I don't make those decisions. I make my personal decisions. When I'm on the bench, I look at the law.’” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 1/12/26]
¶ Lazar Suggested She Would Have Ruled In Favor Of A “Draconian” 1849 Wisconsin Abortion Ban, Claiming She Was Unsure If She Would Have Sided With The Majority Of The Wisconsin Supreme Court In Repealing It
October 2025: Lazar Said She Did Not “Know That I Would Have Been In The Majority” Of The Wisconsin Supreme Court Ruling That Repealed An 1849 Abortion Ban. According to The Wisconsin Independent, “Asked about the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s July ruling that repealed a 1849 state statute that had been used to ban abortion, Lazar said, ‘My personal views, I don’t know that I would have been in the majority on that case, but I didn’t really study all the facts and all the details, and I didn’t look to whether the law is or is not constitutional as it is.’” [Wisconsin Independent, 11/14/25]
¶ Wisconsin’s 1849 Law Banned Abortion In All Cases Unless Two Doctors Ruled That A Woman’s Life Was In Danger
2022: A Total Abortion Ban That Was Written In 1849 Became Law In Wisconsin When The U.S. Supreme Court Overturned Roe V. Wade. According to Wisconsin Public Radio, “For more than a year now, Wisconsin has been operating under an abortion law that was first written and passed more than 170 years ago. Last June, when the U.S. Supreme Court issued its historic opinion in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case, overturning Roe v. Wade and leaving the legality of abortion up to individual states, that little-known Wisconsin law went into effect. That law — which was written just one year after Wisconsin became a state — effectively bans abortions.” [Wisconsin Public Radio, 8/7/23]
- The 1849 Wisconsin Law Made Abortion A Crime Unless Two Doctors Ruled That The Pregnant Woman’s Life Was In Danger. According to the Cap Times, “The law, which makes abortion a crime unless two doctors have ruled the woman's life is in danger, predates the Roe decision. As a result of the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Wisconsin's ban cannot be enforced. The Wisconsin Right to Life paper concludes that, should the Supreme Court overturn Roe, the most effective way to make abortion illegal in Wisconsin is to keep this statute on the books, rather than passing a personhood amendment.” [Cap Times, 10/28/14]
¶ Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul Called The 1849 Abortion Ban “Draconian” And Vowed Not To Enforce It
2022: Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul Called The 1849 Abortion Ban “Draconian” And Vowed Not To Enforce It. According to Wisconsin Watch, “In an interview, Attorney General Josh Kaul says the 173-year-old abortion ban may be unenforceable under a legal doctrine called desuetude, which holds that a long-unenforced law essentially becomes invalid. Kaul has vowed not to enforce that ‘draconian’ law if Roe falls.” [Wisconsin Watch, 6/4/22]
¶ Lazar Later Claimed She “Never” Said How She Would Rule On The 1849 Abortion Law
March 2026: Lazar Refused To Say How She Would Have Ruled In The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s Decision To Strike Down The 1849 Abortion Law, Said She Would “Only Be One Of Three Members In The Minority, So I Won't Be Changing That,” And Repeated Her Position On Abortion As A “Complicated Issue.” According to PBS Wisconsin, “Zac Schultz: Another case from last year is Planned Parenthood v. Urmanski. It was a 4-3 decision to invalidate Wisconsin's 1849 abortion law. How would you have ruled on that? Maria Lazar: I'm not going to say how I would've ruled, but I will say what I will do moving forward. I have put that in positions. I've released a statement. I've released an op-ed talking about abortion, and indicating that this is a really complicated issue for the woman, and her life is so valuable and important. And I've indicated that, one, I respect the rule as decided by the state Supreme Court. I will only be one of three members in the minority, so I won't be changing that. And two, I think women in this state need clarity, they need certainty. And three, you need to lower the temperature on this issue. This is resolved, as far as I'm concerned, for courts, for the judiciary. The Legislature can do what they want and the people in the state of Wisconsin can do what they want, but the judiciary, it's clear, it's done.” [PBS Wisconsin, 3/9/26]
February 2026: Maria Lazar Op-Ed: Lazar Claimed She “Never” Said How She Would Rule On The 1849 Abortion Law. According to Maria Lazar’s op-ed from the Washington County Daily News, “Let’s set the record straight. I do not hold extreme views on abortion. Like most Wisconsin citizens, I favor a practical, common-sense approach, as detailed in my written statements. I have maintained that it is better for each individual state to address abortion and the restrictions its citizens deem appropriate to match their moral objectives. Rather than a national standard, Wisconsinites deserve the right to set their own boundaries — not the boundaries of citizens from other states, including Judge Taylor’s home state of California. I have never stated how I would rule on Wisconsin’s 1849 abortion law.” [Maria Lazar Op-Ed – Washington County Daily News, 2/5/26]
¶ Lazar Said She Did Not Know If The Wisconsin Supreme Courts’ Ruling On The 1849 Abortion Law Was The “Right Ruling"
March 2026: Lazar Said She Did Not Know If The Wisconsin Supreme Courts’ Ruling On The 1849 Abortion Law Was The “Right Ruling." According to 27 News WKOW, “One of the most notable Wisconsin Supreme Court rulings in recent years was the court's decision to overturn an 1849 law that was widely interpreted as an abortion ban. In a 4-3 ruling, the court found there is a difference between feticide and abortion ruled the law is not enforceable. 27 News anchor Caroline Dade asked Lazar if she believes that was the correct ruling. ‘Well, I don't know if it was the right ruling,’ Lazar said. ‘It was the ruling they made, and I abide by it. I'm a Court of Appeals judge, and even, were I fortunate enough to win this election on April 7 and become a justice on the state Supreme Court, I would abide by the precedent of cases that have recently happened. I don't know why, recently, people in the state of Wisconsin and maybe the country think that you can elect a judge and they'll change everything that's there.’” [27 News WKOW, 3/23/26]
¶ Lazar Accepted $1,033 From Misha Tseytlin, A Right-Wing Attorney Who Played A Critical Role In The Plot To Overturn Roe V. Wade
¶ On January 27, 2026, Lazar Accepted $1,033 From Right-Wing Attorney Misha Tseytlin
HEADLINE: “Lazar Gets Four-Figure Donation From Out-Of-State Lawyer At Center Of Plot To Overturn Roe V. Wade” [Press Release – A Better Wisconsin Together via Urban Milwaukee, 2/6/26]
January 27, 2026: Lazar Accepted $1,033 From Misha Tseytlin.
[Wisconsin Ethics Commission, Friends Of Maria Lazar, Filed 2/6/26]
¶ In November 2016, Misha Tseytlin Attended The Federalist Society Conference, Where He Strategized On How To Use Trump’s Presidency To Strategize The Overturning Of Roe V. Wade
November 2016: Misha Tseytlin Attended The Federalist Society Conference To Strategize With Other Lawyers On How To Use Trump’s Presidency To Bring About The End Of Roe V. Wade. According to the New York Times, “It happened almost by accident, over cocktails. Exactly the kind of accident that Leonard Leo intended to happen at his Federalist Society’s annual conference — a three-day gathering of the conservative tribe and a strategy session for right-wing lawyers, officials and judges that drew both big names and those who had lower profiles but were no less ambitious. Nine days after Donald Trump won the 2016 election, the halls of the Mayflower Hotel, just blocks from the White House, were adorned with twinkling Christmas lights and abuzz with the possibilities of a future that had changed overnight. […] So when it was time for cocktail hour, the young solicitor general of Wisconsin, Misha Tseytlin, who had clerked for Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, was surprised when he overheard someone say that Roe v. Wade would never be overturned. There was no reason to think overturning Roe was impossible now, Tseytlin believed. Republicans had the White House, an open Supreme Court seat and legislatures passing a flood of laws restricting abortion in states across the country. If there really was no right to abortion in the Constitution, as many at the Mayflower believed, this was the time to prove it. And Tseytlin had an idea of how to do just that.” [New York Times, 5/28/24]
¶ In July 2017, Misha Tseytlin Attended A Secretive Alliance Defending Freedom Conference, Where He Pitched His Plan To Bring About The End Of Roe V. Wade
July 2017: The Alliance Defending Freedom Held A Private, Four-Day Retreat For Conservative Leaders At The Ritz-Carlton In Laguna Niguel, California To Lay The Groundwork For The Conservative Agenda Under Trump, Including Plans To Challenge Roe V. Wade. According to the New York Times, “In the summer of 2017, A.D.F. convened hundreds of top conservative leaders at the luxurious Ritz-Carlton in Laguna Niguel, Calif., for a private four-day summit. The stated goal was to discuss religious freedom. But the deeper ambition was to develop an agenda for the new Trump era. The guest list included 10 state attorneys general and solicitors general; a collection of the most powerful Christian lawyers in the country; and Jeff Sessions, Trump’s new attorney general. Sessions initially kept his remarks, which offered a strident defense of religious freedom and A.D.F.’s work, a secret from the public. Like the Federalist Society, A.D.F. aimed to connect lawyers and legal allies to further its goals. But A.D.F. was also profoundly different. It was an explicitly conservative Christian legal-advocacy project, designed to bring together lawyers, elected officials and activists to achieve policy goals in line with its religious mission. Now A.D.F.’s work was growing, and largely under the radar, as it sought to become a mainstream Christian rival to the A.C.L.U. No one on the outside knew just how extensive the network’s ambitions were, or that it was beginning to lay the groundwork to challenge Roe.” [New York Times, 5/28/24]
- At The Alliance Defending Freedom Conference, Tseytlin Pitched A Strategy To The Other Attendees Which Involved Passing An Abortion Ban Earlier Than 20 Weeks Intended To Directly Challenge Roe V. Wade In Court. According to the New York Times, “A.D.F. had invited another delegation that sought to keep its participation off the official record: a team from the Wisconsin attorney general’s office, including Tseytlin. When a reporter from the USA Today Network-Wisconsin later unearthed the delegation’s participation, a state spokesperson simply said that Tseytlin was a leader of a session at the conference. No one disclosed what it was about. Tseytlin’s remarks that day remained unknown to the public. But Tseytlin, a man most Americans had never heard of, was there to present his legal strategy to end Roe. Lawyers had a moral duty to act, Tseytlin told the group, according to participants. He proposed his idea for an abortion ban that set a limit earlier than 20 weeks to undercut Roe more openly. Even to those in the room with Tseytlin, it was far from clear that the plan they were hatching would, just five years later, lead to the most consequential Supreme Court ruling on abortion rights in half a century.” [New York Times, 5/28/24]
¶ Lazar Was Aligned With Extreme Anti-Abortion Groups, Even As She Tried To Claim She Was Not The Anti-Abortion Candidate
¶ Anti-Abortion Groups Supported Lazar’s Campaigns
¶ Despite Trying To Claim She Was Not The Anti-Abortion Candidate, Wisconsin Right To Life Promoted Lazar As Their Preferred Anti-Abortion Candidate In The 2026 Wisconsin Supreme Court Election
2026 Supreme Court Election: Wisconsin Right To Life Promoted Lazar As The Anti-Abortion Candidate, Highlighting Her Support For Overturning Roe V. Wade. According to the Wisconsin Right to Life, “Wisconsin Supreme Court Has a record of defending our laws when activist judges try to legislate from the bench Committed to ‘Judicial restraint and the rule of law’ Believes the overturning of ‘Roe v. Wade was very wise, ‘ as it returned the ability to pass pro-life laws to the states Believes that ‘We must provide more support for women before and after birth’”
[Wisconsin Right To Life, Archived 3/10/26]
¶ Lazar Argued She Was “Not An Anti-Abortion Candidate”
March 2026: Lazar Argued She Was “Not An Anti-Abortion Candidate” And Said She "Recognize[d] This Issue Is So Difficult.” According to the Badger Herald, “Lazar stands firm in her decision to uphold the 20-week compromise — unless Wisconsinites tell their legislators they would like that to change, she said. ‘I’m not an anti-abortion candidate. I recognize this issue is so difficult,’ Lazar said. ‘I found out one of my close dear friends had an abortion during high school, and I never knew … There’s no way I would have told her not to do it. The only thing I would have done is held her hand.’” [Badger Herald, 3/10/26]
¶ Anti-Abortion Groups Endorsed Lazar’s 2022 Run For Court Of Appeals District 2
HEADLINE: “Wisconsin Right To Life PAC Endorses Judge Maria Lazar For Court Of Appeals District 2” [Press Release – Wisconsin Right To Life, 2/22/22]
2022: Pro-Life Wisconsin Endorsed Lazar For Court Of Appeals District 2 And Said They Endorsed Candidates That Hold The “No-Exceptions Pro-Life Position” And “Are 100 Percent Pro-Life.” According to Pro-Life Wisconsin, “We proudly endorse these candidates who recognize the personhood of the preborn baby and hold the principled and compassionate no-exceptions pro-life position. For over twenty-five years, Pro-Life Wisconsin has held high the banner of total protection for all preborn children. Because we insist on this high standard, more and more candidates for elected office are 100% pro-life. We stand behind those candidates who stand behind 100% of the babies. […] WISCONSIN COURT OF APPEALS, DISTRICT 2 Judge Maria Lazar.” [Pro-Life Wisconsin, 2022 Election Endorsements, Archived 1/30/26]
¶ Lazar Met With Members Of The Independent Women’s Forum, Where They Gave Her A 16-Page White Paper On Abortion, But Lazar’s Campaign Said The Non-Profit Was Not Advising The Campaign
November 2025 UW-Whitewater College Event: Lazar Told Attendees She Met With Members Of The Conservative Independent Women’s Forum, Where They Gave Her A 16-Page White Paper On Abortion, But Lazar’s Campaign Said The Non-Profit Was Not Advising The Campaign. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “At the Whitewater event, Lazar told the crowd that she had met members of the Independent Women's Forum, a conservative nonprofit group, and that they offered guidance on addressing abortion. ‘They talked to me and gave me this huge, long, 16-page white paper, and I read it,’ Lazar said. ‘And their advice is sound.’ She added, ‘So what I say about abortion is, my personal view is it's not right for me. I have two children. I would never have contemplated an abortion in any circumstance whatsoever. But, as a judge, that doesn't matter.’ Lazar campaign spokesman Nathan Conrad said that the Independent Women's Forum is not advising Lazar's campaign. ‘They provided one of many papers Judge Lazar read about the issue, gaining great information on how to show voters that the current law is constitutional,’ he said.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 1/12/26]
¶ As Assistant Attorney General, Lazar Defended Laws That Threatened Abortion Access In Wisconsin
¶ 2013: Lazar Defended A Law That Required Abortion Providers To Be Physically Present When A Patient Ingested Abortion Pills
2013: As Assistant Attorney General, Lazar Defended Attorney General Van Hollen In Planned Parenthood Of Wisconsin Inc Et Al Vs. J B Van Hollen Et Al. According to the Wisconsin Circuit Court, “Dane County Case Number 2013CV000478 Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin Inc et al vs. J B Van Hollen et al […] Defendant: Van Hollen, J B Attorney name Lazar, Maria S.” [Wisconsin Circuit Court, Dane County, Case no. 2013CV000478, Filed 2/8/13]
2013: Planned Parenthood Of Wisconsin Sued Attorney General Van Hollen To Block A State Law Requiring Abortion Providers To Be Present In The Room When Ingesting Abortion Pills. According to Wisconsin Public Radio, “Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin is asking a Dane County judge to permanently block a new state law that restricts how doctors administer pills used to induce medical abortions. The law has been temporarily blocked since February 2013, when Planned Parenthood first filed suit to prevent Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen and the state medical examining board from enforcing it. Planned Parenthood’s attorney Susan Crawford says the law places a burden on the 45 percent of women who choose a medical rather than a surgical abortion, because it requires a doctor to be present in the room with a woman when she ingests both of the pills necessary to induce the abortion.” [Wisconsin Public Radio, 4/24/14]
- Planned Parenthood’s Attorney Argued That The Requirement For A Doctor To Be Present When Ingesting Both Abortion Pills Placed “A Burden On The 45 Percent Of Women Who Choose A Medical Rather Than A Surgical Abortion.” According to Wisconsin Public Radio, “Planned Parenthood’s attorney Susan Crawford says the law places a burden on the 45 percent of women who choose a medical rather than a surgical abortion, because it requires a doctor to be present in the room with a woman when she ingests both of the pills necessary to induce the abortion.” [Wisconsin Public Radio, 4/24/14]
¶ 2014: Lazar Defended An Admitting Privileges Law That Would Have Forced One Of Wisconsin’s Four Abortion Clinics To Close
2014: Lazar Defended A Wisconsin Law Requiring Abortion Providers To Have Admitting Privileges At A Hospital Within 30 Miles. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “Assistant Attorney General Maria Lazar, one of the lawyers defending the law for the state, contended Planned Parenthood could expand or take over Affiliated's clinic if it were to go out of business.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 5/27/14]
- Planned Parenthood Argued The Requirement Would Force One Of Wisconsin’s Four Abortion Clinics To Close And Said The Other Clinics Would Not Be Able To Absorb The Additional Patients. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “The clinic that could close, run by Affiliated Medical Services in Milwaukee, is the only one in the state that provides abortions for women after 19 weeks of pregnancy. Some women seek abortions at that late stage because of fetal anomalies. The testimony came in the first day of a trial that is expected to run through Friday challenging a 2013 law requiring doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles. […] Affiliated's doctors have been unable to get admitting privileges in the months since Gov. Scott Walker signed the requirement into law, clinic director Wendy Ashlock testified. Doctors at the state's three other clinics - run by Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin and located in Milwaukee, Madison and Appleton - have admitting privileges but worry they could not handle the caseload if Affiliated closes. ‘It would be impossible to absorb that number of additional patients into our system,’ Kathy King, Planned Parenthood's medical director for Wisconsin, testified. Planned Parenthood and Affiliated brought their lawsuit in federal court in Madison last year, arguing the admitting privileges law violates the U.S. Constitution's due process guarantee and puts an undue burden on the right to abortion.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 5/27/14]