Oct. 2012: In A Blog Post, Kelly Accused The Democratic Party Of “Knowingly Favoring A Policy That Has As Its Primary Purpose Harming Children” In Order “To Preserve Sexual Libertinism.” According to Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “Kelly over the years has expressed opposition to abortion, though the court hasn’t had any cases on the issue since he became a justice. In an October 2012 blog post, he wrote that the Democratic Party and National Organization for Women were committed to normalizing taking the life of human beings. ‘We may safely charge them with knowingly favoring a policy that has as its primary purpose harming children. Why? To preserve sexual libertinism,’ he wrote.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 1/24/20]
2020: When Asked Whether He Believed Roe v. Wade Had Been Improperly Decided, Kelly Said His Past Writings “Certainly [Carried] A Suggestion.” According to Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “Asked if that meant he thought the landmark Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion was improperly decided, Kelly said, ‘It certainly carries a suggestion, but as with all the other things that I've written about in the past before coming to the court, that's going to have to stand on its own. You know, I certainly wouldn't want to be opining on matters that may come before the court.’” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 1/24/20]
2020: Kelly Was Endorsed By Wisconsin Right To Life. According to a Wisconsin Right to Life press release, “Wisconsin Right to Life PAC has endorsed Justice Dan Kelly in the race for Wisconsin Supreme Court justice. ‘Wisconsin Right to Life is supporting the candidate who will stay true to the rule of law. Justice Kelly has a proven judicial philosophy. He will interpret the law as written and not attempt to create law from the bench. When our pro-life laws are challenged in the courts, we want to ensure that the justices on our highest court are not working as social justice warriors or attempting to push personal agendas. Over his tenure on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, Justice Kelly has demonstrated his loyalty to the constitution and judicial precedent. We are excited to endorse him as he seeks a 10-year term on our state’s highest court,’ shared Kristen Nupson, Wisconsin Right to Life PAC Director.” [Press Release - Wisconsin Right to Life PAC, 1/6/20]
Kelly Said He Did Not Expect Abortion To Be A Dominant Factor In Supreme Court Race. According to Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “During an interview Wednesday with the Journal Sentinel, Kelly said abortion would not dominate the race. ‘The people in Wisconsin are very careful in who they're looking at to be on their Supreme Court and the qualifications of each candidate,’ Kelly said. ‘It isn't about just one issue. It is about the role of the court, the role of the Constitution and the role of the rule of law.’” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 12/2/22]
Kelly Refused To Give His Stance On Abortion, Said If Text Of 1849 Abortion Ban Was Not Clear Enough, It Was Up To The Legislature To Fix It. According to WKOW, “As for the key issues facing the high court, Kelly declined to offer his views on the state's abortion ban, saying it could led to perceptions he approached a case with a pre-determined opinion. The 1849 ban makes it a felony to provide an abortion. It only provides exceptions for when a mother's health was at risk. Critics have said the exception language is too vague, and puts strain on doctors to decide what defines someone's health being at risk. Kelly said if a law wasn't clear enough, only lawmakers could fix that problem. ‘If there is a concern about what a law prescribes or proscribes, the proper response is to go to the legislature and say, 'hey, this law is problematic for these reasons. You need to change this,'’ Kelly said. ‘If they don't, that does not give the power over the court to act in their place. It simply doesn't.’” [WKOW, 12/4/22]
Kelly Said Inaction On Abortion From The Wisconsin Legislature Did Not Give The Court Power To “Act In Their Place.” According to WKOW, “As for the key issues facing the high court, Kelly declined to offer his views on the state's abortion ban, saying it could led to perceptions he approached a case with a pre-determined opinion. The 1849 ban makes it a felony to provide an abortion. It only provides exceptions for when a mother's health was at risk. Critics have said the exception language is too vague, and puts strain on doctors to decide what defines someone's health being at risk. Kelly said if a law wasn't clear enough, only lawmakers could fix that problem. ‘If there is a concern about what a law prescribes or proscribes, the proper response is to go to the legislature and say, 'hey, this law is problematic for these reasons. You need to change this,'’ Kelly said. ‘If they don't, that does not give the power over the court to act in their place. It simply doesn't.’” [WKOW, 12/4/22]