Fifty years ago, on Jan. 22, 1973, abortion during the first trimester of pregnancy became legal throughout our nation. States had to prove a “compelling interest” to regulate pregnancy during the second trimester, before fetal viability. I was 15 years old, not knowing and later not fully appreciating that I would have the right to abortion care and birth control throughout my reproductive years.
On June 24, 2022, an otherwise sunny Friday, I watched as a differently minded, decidedly more conservative U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and threw decisions about abortion rights back to individual states. It was the bleakest day for American women in my lifetime and a major setback for the generation that includes my two grown sons.
Since then, Minnesota has become an island of abortion rights in the Upper Midwest. Thirteen states have enacted outright abortion bans, without exceptions for rape or incest (in Mississippi an abortion after rape might be allowed). Wisconsin and South Dakota are among the restrictive 13; a judge currently is blocking the outright ban in North Dakota and Iowa has a partial ban, according to data tracking by the New York Times.
That makes passage of the Protect Reproductive Options (PRO) Act an essential first step for the DFL-controlled Legislature in Minnesota – more important than legalized cannabis and even paid family leave, which are among the top priorities for the liberal legislators who control both the House and Senate for the first time in a decade.
Introduced in February 2021 by a state legislator who is an OB-GYN, the PRO Act wraps abortion rights into a broader package that includes contraception, fertility treatment and more. That is in line with current thinking – visible on Planned Parenthood T-shirts and on signs at protest rallies – that “abortion is healthcare.”
Not an easy decision, for many of us who have made the choice, but surely not a source of shame. Instead, abortion is a right that the Pew Research Centers say 61% of Americans support.
How safe is Minnesota?
Plenty of pro-choice activists in Minnesota will point to a 1995 Minnesota Supreme Court decision, Doe v. Gomez, and say that abortion rights are “enshrined” in our state constitution. To which I, a non-attorney, will respond warily, “Yes, but.”
Doe v. Gomez declared that the state constitution protects abortion rights based on a “fundamental right to privacy.” If that sounds eerily like Roe v. Wade – which, likewise, turned on privacy as an argument to protect abortion – then you’ll see why the PRO Act is both foundational and essential.
It renders abortion rights not just a legal precedent but a law. Doe v. Gomez, by contrast, places women’s bodily autonomy at the whims of a state supreme court that, with a different makeup, and in another time and place, could overturn the 1995 decision.
Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision felled abortion rights this past June, healthcare providers have seen an increase in women from other states coming to Minnesota for abortion care. Significantly, the PRO Act would protect those women, too, even if they live in a state like Texas, where so-called vigilante justice – in true Wild West fashion – allows citizens to file suit against abortion providers or anyone who helps a woman obtain an abortion.
The personal is political
Abortion rights no longer apply to me directly. I got my last full-on menstrual period in a filthy bathroom in India in the fall of 2006 and over the next couple of years would experience only intermittent spotting before concluding what the National Institute on Aging calls “the menopausal transition.” My childbearing years were over, at 52.
And yet my abortion rights activism has ramped up, in both passion and persistence, the older I have become. “Planned Parenthood Is Here for Good,” the marketing handle reads, and I wholeheartedly endorse the double meaning of that message.
My first volunteer gig for Planned Parenthood, in January 2018, was to phone people to verify whether they had health insurance and, if not, make them aware of the MNsure enrollment deadline. I have tabled at events, yelled myself hoarse at rallies, made calls for the Planned Parenthood Action Fund on behalf of pro-choice candidates. Our actions could not save Roe.
So, we are left with the next best option in Minnesota: to remain a haven for women who need essential healthcare, to demonstrate the compassion that characterizes this high-tax state. And to urge our legislators, and ultimately Gov. Tim Walz, to protect a freedom that treats pregnant people as the thinking, responsible, autonomous adults they are.
I owe that to my sons, one of whom already has had a vasectomy. I owe it to younger women. We owe it to the folks beyond our borders who are turning to us for help. Minnesota … pass the PRO Act and show the nation who we are.
Amy Gage volunteers with Planned Parenthood North Central States and is the mother of two grown sons. She lives in St. Paul.
It is curious and, for me personally, disturbing that the conversation around abortion here in Minnesota is conducted as if only one human life is involved. As a scientist, I can say, and it can be scientifically demonstrated to be true, that at the time the human haploid sperm and egg combine at conception, to form the diploid zygote, a new human (as in Homo sapiens) life (which metabolizes and will shortly reproduce, the classical definition of living) exists. However, whether this human life has a soul (the preferred religious distinction) or is a person (the preferred, secular) neither I, nor any priest, minister, rabbi, imam or even Supreme Court Justice can say for sure. But what even the Roe v Wade era Supreme Court said, in its Gonzales v Carhart ruling, upholding a Partial Birth Abortion Ban, is that it is certainly before live birth and settled on fetal viability, at about 20 weeks post-conception. This also clarifies a point that seems to be ignored about pre-Dobbs – that there was, indeed, an abortion ban already in place then, too. And, while 61% of Americans may support some form of abortion right, my sense is this would drop considerably if this was to include a right to partial birth abortion, something that is not clearly prohibited in the proposed Minnesota legislation I have seen – and should be clarified.
So let’s have this broader conversation, but let’s not let Planned Parenthood, which is clearly biased, drive the discussion, or let’s at least have those, with an ethical perspective on the “other” human life, have a voice.
You seem to have an obsession with “partial birth abortion,” which is exceedingly rare. Also, most abortions after 20 weeks occur because there is a medical issue with the fetus or the mother.
Yes, exceedingly rare because they were controlled by the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, which the pre-Dobbs Supreme Court held as constitutional. Heinous crimes should be exceedingly rare, and clear laws should be in place to keep it that way. There are always exceptions, but they must be well justified.
“Exceedingly rare” even before the law was passed because of the risks to the mother.
Incidentally, “partial-birth abortion” is not a medical term. It is a rhetorical invention coined by anti-abortion factions.
The question then becomes “who gets to decide?”
Religious leaders have no role in legislating, so must limit their input to their congregations. Then the question is when it’s ok for the state to force a woman to give birth. As you noted, it’s up for debate – and perhaps impossible to specify – when exactly a human life begins. Legislators and courts cannot seem to agree. Therefore the most logical place for the decision is in the woman in whose body the egg has been fertilized.
Point being that while a fertilized egg has the combined dna that can potentially grow into a person, an egg that hasn’t yet implanted in the uterine wall is far from being a human life. I’d argue a fertilized egg is no more alive than the unfertilized egg or sperm from a moment before. So, again when does that life begin, and can it be legislated to a definable point that can be enforced? It seems an impossible task, particularly when considering all the potential complications during pregnancy. Therefore, the state should not have the power to force women to give birth.
The best strategy, as a society, is to ensure people have the tools they need to make good decisions. That starts with decent healthcare, and access to services & information regarding sexual health – particularly contraception. This is, by far, the most effective tool at reducing abortions.
Liberals don’t mind clerics getting involved in legislation, until they do. When ministers, etc, advocate for civil rights, or voting rights, or programs to feed the least of us, liberals are cool with that. Ministers and such opining on abortion? Eh, all of a sudden the public square is no place for people of faith.
Of course, the obverse is true of conservatives. Though they lauded MLK this past Monday, they told him he had no business working for the Civil Rights Act.
Thank you for this excellent explanation of why the MN Legislature should pass the PRO Act. Here’s the honoring the lived experiences of pregnant people and removing barriers to full spectrum reproductive healthcare.
Your title says you are a leader of a religious organization. I’m wondering, per my comment above, what you thoughts are on the “other” human life in the abortion issue. Specifically, do you know what partial birth abortion is? Do you and/or your religious organization support partial birth abortion or any other form of abortion after fetus viability?
Does the “PRO” act put any restrictions on abortion similar to the restrictions on abortion in the Roe V. Wade decision?
Why don’t you read it, and find out?
I have – – it is not final a bill yet. We will see if the DFL supports one of the most radical abortion laws in the world, or not.
Then your question has been answered, hasn’t it?
Incidentally, I’m not clear what you mean by “the restrictions on abortion in the Roe V. Wade decision.” Roe did not place any restrictions on abortion in the first trimester, but left the decision up to the states for abortions later in pregnancy. Have you ever read Roe v. Wade?
Hopefully Minnesota can reap the monetary rewards of being at the center of Midwest abortions. Even though courts all over the US continue to strike down any laws restricting abortion, by encouraging abortion and promoting abortion through our Constitution and Legislature we can form a “precedent” that will be impossible to change in such a liberal state. By taxing abortion and increasing local taxes in those areas providing abortions the State can reap millions of dollars from an ever increasing supply of child birthers.
Thanks Amy for your thoughtful post. I am proud of you for your commitment and support of this work . Keep being amazing and taking stands for what you believe.
The shooter at the Amazon facility is now charged with a second murder due to the death of the fetus that was delivered after the mother was shot.
How can this be, it was not yet a person.