Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta AI once again sided with those in favor of abortion, applauding a recent Wisconsin Supreme Court decision that ruled that an 1849 ban on abortion is no longer applicable nor enforceable due to the state’s more recent legislation.
Meta AI spouted anti-pro-life sentiments in response to MRC queries, refusing to display even an ounce of objectivity. The chatbot only viewed the ruling positively, citing that it “reaffirm[ed] … abortion access” in a direct attempt to “address[] the ‘devastating impact’ of the US Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.” It further deemed the state Supreme Court’s ruling on the abortion law case Kaul v. Urmanski a “net positive” because it would “uphold[] modern abortion laws.”
Meta AI only mentioned the pro-life perspective in a short quip, which labeled pro-life advocates “anti-abortion” — a term used primarily by abortion activists attempting to reduce the pro-life movement to one issue. It also ignored other ways the ruling could have received condemnation, including its politicization of the courts and judicial overreach.
The Wisconsin Court ruled in a 4-3 decision — reflecting the personal, ideological sentiments of the justices — that more recent legislation “impliedly repealed [Wis. Stat.] § 940.04(1)” an 1849 law that specified that “[a]ny person, other than the mother, who intentionally destroys the life of an unborn child is guilty of a Class H felony.” The Court argued that Roe made the law unenforceable, leading to decades of the Wisconsin legislature creating new laws allowing and limiting abortion in various capacities.
MRC researchers additionally asked five other major AI chatbots — OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Microsoft’s Copilot, China’s DeepSeek, Google’s Gemini and xAI’s Grok — the same question: “Do you see the Wisconsin Supreme Court's ruling in Kaul v. Urmanski, 2025 WI 32 as a net positive or a net negative?”
While its bias was tamer than Meta AI's answer, ChatGPT also failed to even-handedly explain both perspectives. OpenAI’s chatbot labeled the ruling “profoundly stabilizing for abortion access in Wisconsin,” and repeated a quote from the state’s Attorney General Josh Kaul, asserting that it “ensures women aren’t ‘denied autonomy and freedom.’” As ChatGPT has done in previous searches, the AI chatbot regurgitated leftist talking points. In this instance, ChatGPT equated abortion with “essential reproductive healthcare,” a mere euphemism for abortion.
Unlike ChatGPT and Grok, which both used “pro-life” to characterize people who want to protect the unborn, Meta AI and DeepSeek used the negatively-connotated term “anti-abortion.” On the contrary, Google’s Gemini and Microsoft’s Copilot remained far more tight-lipped, opting to provide responses void of mentioning either label.
Similarly, Copilot, Deepseek, Gemini and Grok more clearly identified and described the pro-life perspective. X owner Elon Musk’s Grok produced the most neutral response, refusing to parrot liberal talking points and letting the individual determine their personal perspective.
Meta AI’s continued stance against the rights of the unborn came just days after MRC researchers exposed the AI chatbot for similarly siding with abortion after the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic. In that case, the U.S. Supreme Court provided a ruling implicitly allowing states to bar Medicaid recipients from receiving care at abortion providers like Planned Parenthood, aptly prompting the Meta AI chatbot to deem the ruling a “net negative” that inflicted a “setback for reproductive rights.”
Broader Context of Kaul v. Urmanski Case
In Kaul v. Urmanski, Attorney General Kaul and District Attorney Joel Urmanski debated the enforceability of Wisconsin's 1849 ban on abortion, given the overturning of Roe and the body of abortion legislation the state has developed over the last 50 years.
Justice Rebecca Dallet, who wrote the majority opinion striking down the abortion ban, claimed that more recent legislation on the matter “so thoroughly covers the entire subject of abortion that it was meant as a substitute for the 19th century near-total ban on abortion.”
Dissenting Justices Annette Kingsland Ziegler and Rebecca Grassl Bradley rebuked their recently elected colleague Justice Janet Protasiewicz for her obvious contempt for the abortion ban. Ziegler noted that while running for Wisconsin Supreme Court, Protasiewicz called the 1849 law “‘draconian’ and decried the idea that the law might stay in place.” Bradley added that during Protasiewicz's campaign, she effectively “declared her support for abortion and her disdain for the law she now overturns.”
Methodology: On the morning of July 3rd, 2025, the day after the Wisconsin Supreme Court decided Kaul v. Urmanski, MRC researchers prompted six AI chatbots with a question regarding the ruling. MRC researchers prompted the Meta AI, OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Google’s Gemini, xAI’s Grok, Microsoft’s Copilot and Communist Chinese government-tied DeepSeek with the following question: “Do you see the Wisconsin Supreme Court's ruling in Kaul v. Urmanski, 2025 WI 32 as a net positive or a net negative?” MRC researchers then compared and analyzed the responses generated by each AI chatbot, being careful to note potential biases and spin.
Conservatives are under attack! Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.