It is not University of Wisconsin-Madison students, but the university that finds itself in trouble for what happened over spring break.

The school's University Health Services placed an advertisement in student newspapers in early March advising women to pack emergency contraceptives for their spring break travels, said Jonathan Zarov, communications manager at University Health Services.

According to Zarov, the ad read, "To help you plan ahead, University Health Services can provide a prescription for emergency contraception over the phone without an appointment."

The emergency contraception referred to is the morning-after pill, which Zarov said is essentially a high dosage of the hormonal birth control pill.

Since it ran, anti-abortion advocates have been criticizing the advertisement and working to prevent similar occurrences. They consider the pill's potential to prevent attachment of a fertilized egg a form of chemical abortion.

Rep. Dan LeMahieu (R-Oostburg) will likely be introducing legislation opposing emergency contraception on state university campuses later this week, said Jeffrey Grothman, LeMahieu's legislative aide.

According to LeMahieu's bill, the legislation would be "prohibiting the University of Wisconsin System from advertising the availability of, prescribing or dispensing emergency contraception."

LeMahieu "was concerned whether this action being done by Health Services was in the best interest of the University System, and in particular UW-Madison," Grothman said.

But many contest LeMahieu's bill and have been quick to defend the university's actions.

Rep. Jon Richards (D-Milwaukee) and Sen. Judy Robson (D-Beloit), early opponents of the bill, requested an opinion from Attorney General Peggy Lautenschlager on the issue.

"The bill is incredibly wrong-headed," Richards said. "Given our high birth rate of unmarried women in Wisconsin, I think we should all be working to stop unwanted pregnancies."

Lautenschlager issued a formal opinion Tuesday. The document outlines three reasons why she finds LeMahieu's bill unconstitutional.

According to the opinion, "First, the proposed legislation would violate female students' constitutional right to privacy." She states a person's right to privacy includes privacy when making medical decisions.

"Second, the attorney general brought up issues of discrimination because if it were to pass, young men could buy condoms on campus but young women couldn't buy birth control," Richards said.

The third constitutional violation cited in Lautenschlager's opinion was freedom of speech to advertise a legal product to adults.

But Lautenschlager's opinion caused even more controversy.

Anti-abortion groups felt it was inappropriate for Lautenschlager to issue an opinion in the first place.

"It is extremely inappropriate for her to try to drive the legislative system by giving an outside opinion," said Peggy Hamill, state director of Pro-Life Wisconsin.

Hamill said Pro-Life Wisconsin has been working with LeMahieu and fully supports his bill. She stressed that Lautenschlager's opinion has no legal weight.

"Her opinion is just that," Hamill said. "It is simply an unbinding opinion of an individual who is using her position to advance a very specific agenda, a very pro-abortion agenda."

Scot Ross, communications director for the Wisconsin Department of Justice, said Lautenschlager's opinion was justified in this instance, especially because it was requested by state legislators.

"The attorney general is asked for legal guidance on many issues, and this happened to be one of them," he said. "It was totally appropriate."

Richards said he and Robson asked for Lautenschlager's opinion because they were concerned that the bill may seek to prohibit advertisement of other forms of birth control in addition to the morning-after pill.

The attorney general shared the legislators' concerns and stated in her opinion, "I believe the language of the proposed legislation is vague enough that it could be interpreted to cover other forms of oral and hormonal contraceptives as well."

Richards also felt it was legitimate to request the attorney general's opinion, and said legislators should consider it when voting.

"I think it's a good guidepost for all of us in the legislature looking at this bill," Richards said. "People are saying the bill works in one way, but the attorney general, who has studied it, has come up with a different interpretation."

LeMahieu's bill defines emergency contraception as "a hormonal medication or combination of medications that is administered only after sexual intercourse for the postcoital control of fertility."

Gothman said this language is not vague, and does not intend to include contraceptives outside of the morning-after pill as Lautenschlager suggested.

"What they're trying to do is throw issues up against the wall and hoping something sticks," he said.

This article appeared in The Marquette Tribune on April 12 2005.