Since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last month, Democrats at the Minnesota Legislature have called for voters in November to elect a “pro-choice majority” to the state Capitol.
That request includes flipping the Senate, which is controlled by Republicans. But it also includes changing the makeup of the state House, where the DFL already has a narrow majority.
“We need a Democratic pro-choice majority in the Senate and we need to have it in the Minnesota House,” said Senate Minority Leader Melisa López Franzen of Edina, at a June news conference following the Supreme Court’s decision. (López Franzen is not running for reelection this fall.)
There are at least four House Democrats who do not share the party’s view on abortion rights and have supported limits on the procedure.
Democrats locally and across the country have debated whether the party should include anti-abortion Democrats in its coalition or excise them.
That question is salient in Minnesota, where at least two of those anti-abortion lawmakers are facing tough re-election fights in outstate districts that could be key to deciding control of the Legislature.
Stalled push for abortion legislation
In the 1995 case Doe v. Gomez, the Minnesota Supreme Court outlined a right to abortion access in the Minnesota Constitution which is unchanged by the federal ruling reversing Roe. But Democrats have pushed to remove state limits on abortion — many of which were struck down by a Ramsey County judge last week — and to codify in law that abortion is a “fundamental right.”
Those bills face staunch opposition in the Republican-led Senate, but they have also failed to pass the DFL-led House in recent years.
House Speaker Melissa Hortman, a Democrat from Brooklyn Park, said her DFL majority the House is too slim to move forward any legislation to expand abortion access.
Four House Democrats have supported legislation to limit or regulate abortion: Reps. Paul Marquart of Dilworth, Mary Murphy of Hermantown, Gene Pelowski of Winona and Julie Sandstede of Hibbing.
In 2019, Murphy co-sponsored a Republican-led bill to prohibit most abortions 20 weeks after fertilization.
Sandstede proposed a bill in 2019, co-sponsored by Marquart and Murphy, that would require physicians to notify a patient when they perform an ultrasound before an abortion and allow the patient to see the imaging. In 2020, Marquart co-sponsored a bill limiting state money for abortions. And in 2019, Sandstede proposed creating “Choose Life” license plates that fund abortion alternative programs. Pelowski co-sponsored similar bills in 2017 and 2018 related to ultrasounds and taxpayer-funded abortion.
All four in 2017 voted for a bill to impose new licensure and regulation requirements on abortion facilities that most Democrats opposed, and for legislation on ultrasound viewing and limiting public funding of abortion. The bills passed the House, which was then controlled by Republicans, and the Senate, but were vetoed by then-Gov. Mark Dayton.
Tough elections ahead
The DFL effectively controls 70 of the House’s 134 seats, giving the party a six-vote majority.
But Republicans are bullish on their chances to take control of the House in the November election amid political headwinds for President Joe Biden such as rising inflation. Many key battleground races will be in the Twin Cities metro area suburbs. But there are a handful of important elections in Greater Minnesota, including at least two featuring anti-abortion Democrats.
Sandstede won her Iron Range seat in 2020 by just 30 votes and is now facing incumbent Rep. Spencer Igo, a Republican from Grand Rapids, following the redistricting process that changed district boundaries.
[image_credit]MinnPost photo by Tom Olmscheid[/image_credit][image_caption]Democratic state Rep. Gene Pelowski co-sponsored similar bills in 2017 and 2018 related to ultrasounds and taxpayer-funded abortion.[/image_caption]
Murphy’s newly redrawn district includes a much larger area north of Hermantown that stretches nearly to Hoyt Lakes.
Marquart is retiring, so he won’t be up for election. Pelowski, who was first elected in 1986, ran unopposed in the last two elections. He’s running against Republican Stephen James Doerr, but his campaign doesn’t appear to have a website.
Abortion policy doesn’t seem to be a huge part of either Murphy or Sandstede’s campaign.
Sandstede didn’t respond to several requests for comment, but her social media accounts did not mention the Supreme Court decision overturning Roe. Her campaign website doesn’t include any information about her stance on abortion.
Murphy noted Minnesota law on abortion hasn’t been changed by the new Supreme Court ruling and said she’s been gathering information about the decision. But she largely wouldn’t comment on abortion policy or detail her stance on the issue. Murphy said she hadn’t read the PRO Act, the DFL legislation to codify abortion access in state law.
[image_caption]State Rep. Julie Sandstede[/image_caption]
Zeleznikar said abortion has been raised some on the campaign trail, including by people who assume there are some guidelines on abortion or want more limits. Republicans, she said, are more committed to having a conversation about re-imposing some limits on abortion and “defending that unborn child.” Zeleznikar believes a compromise on the issue could include restricting abortion in the second and third trimesters. And she said she wants to provide more support for women who choose to keep a baby.
[image_caption]State Rep. Paul Marquart[/image_caption]
A changing DFL on abortion
Pelowski, for his part, said he would prefer to ban abortion except in cases of rape and incest or to protect the life of a pregnant woman. He said his values on abortion were formed long before he was elected.
“On this type of a personal value the DFL caucus is not my source or ever will be my source,” he said. “Every life matters.”
When Pelowski was first elected, anti-abortion Democrats, particularly in Greater Minnesota were more common. The party has since gained strength in the metro suburbs and lost most of its seats in rural areas outside regional centers like Duluth, Rochester and Mankato.
When asked if his stance on abortion helps or hurts in his Winona district, Pelowski said “look what’s left of the DFL in Greater Minnesota” since the party has become “more intensely pro-choice.”
“I think this is one of the issues that has slowly wiped out DFLers from being elected in Greater Minnesota,” he said. Pelowski said he’s had gatherings in his apartment of elected outstate Democrats for more than 20 years.
“I could probably hold them now in an elevator,” he said.
Pelowski said he has faced backlash within his own party on the issue. He described House DFLers standing up during private caucus meetings and saying “all pro-life people should be banned.” He said those lawmakers “are usually the people who advocate diversity” and Pelowski decried what he views as a lack of respect and inability to deal with different points of view, “other than to say: get out.”
How other Democrats view anti-abortion DFLers
DFL Party Chairman Ken Martin declined to comment. But Hortman, the House Speaker, didn’t criticize any of the anti-abortion Democrats.
[image_credit]MinnPost photo by Peter Callaghan[/image_credit][image_caption]House Speaker Melissa Hortman[/image_caption]
“The most important thing to protect Minnesotans’ rights to reproductive health care is to have a Democratic majority,” Hortman said. “They are important members of the Democratic majority. They give us the majority that enables us to protect Minnesotans right to reproductive health care.”
Hortman said the House DFL campaign arm supports incumbent members of their caucus who have been endorsed by the party. Sandstede, Murphy and Pelowski have all been endorsed. “How much or how little we engage in any particular race is sort of a state secret at this point,” she said.
[cms_ad:x104]
Hortman also said the reason Minnesota doesn’t have more abortion rights legislation passing is because there aren’t Republicans who support abortion access. She said as Republicans lost suburban seats they moved to the political right, and there are remaining suburban legislators in “pro-choice districts” that don’t reflect voters while Sandstede and Murphy reflect their populations.
A House Republican spokesman said no current members or GOP endorsed candidates support abortion access. Republican Dario Anselmo of Edina favored abortion rights as a state representative but he was ousted in 2018 by a Democrat.
Democrat John Hest, an academic advisor and teacher running to replace Marquart in a district outside of Moorhead, does support abortion access and would vote for the PRO Act. He said he’s wrestled with the issue, wondering if Democrats should support anti-abortion candidates and compromise on a “fundamental human rights issue” while at the same time wanting to welcome those with sincere religious beliefs on abortion.
In the end, he said the party has a broad coalition and Democrats who win endorsements and primaries should be supported.
“I don’t know if it will hurt me or help me to be honest,” he said of his stance on abortion. But in the wake of the Supreme Court reversing Roe, Hest said: “We just don’t have the luxury to be squishy on the issue of choice.”
It was the founder of the democrat party, Thomas Jefferson, who wrote, “that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” It’s sad that being pro-life is now seen as only a republican principle.
Yes, and life is listed before liberty and pursuit of happiness; and anyone who has studied American history would know how carefully the writers had considered every word, so we know this order was intentional.
Jefferson was a great admirer of William Blackstone, whose Commentaries explained when abortion would be legal under the common law.
Jefferson discussed, without judgment, Native American abortion habits (using vegetables, it seems).
Benjamin Franklin, another Founder, printed instructions for women on how to induce an abortion.
Benjamin Rush, yet another Founder, was a physician who described abortion as just expelling blood from the uterus.
Utter nonsense, bordering on lunacy to even suggest that TJ or any of our framers had fetus on their mind. You quoted from the Declaration of Independence, and conveniently (or was it simply deceptively?) left out the key words preceding your excerpt. Allow me:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
They wrote that MEN have these rights. Not women, not girls, not fetuses, not even boys. And before others respond with their guesses at what “Men” meant, remember what side you are on in the question of interpreting the Constitution. Are you “strict constructionists” such as those justices who voted down Roe v Wade? Are you “if it doesn’t appear verbatim in the Constitution, then it can’t be considered by the Feds?” Well, then, if the Declaration says “Men”, then it must mean Men, right?
Or do you conveniently alter your interpretation of our founders’ words for your own convenience and conspiracies?
Once again, What is the DFL position on Abortion?
Is it “my body my choice?”
Is it the rules established by men on the SCOTUS over 50 years ago?
Why don’t you take the bold step of telling us just what it is you’re trying to get at?
If you choice is from two pro-life candidate in a heavily Catholic and evangelical district that is not going to elect a pro-choice candidate, you vote for the Democratic for their votes on all other issues.
Decades of tepid, equivocal, and conditional Democratic support for abortion rights have now produced a nation wherein pregnancy is now a potential death sentence, and women are second class citizens with no right to privacy, or control over their own bodies. That has to stop.
When you only have two major parties, and one of those parties has dedicated itself to inequality, endangering women’s lives, and imposing their own dictates upon women and their bodies… the OTHER Party has to be apposed to that unconditionally and unapologetically.
It can be argued that there is a big difference between banning abortion in the first trimester (i.e. the “life begins at conception” dogma) and regulating procedures after viability, whenever that point evolves. If there is no actual health and safety justification for a proposed regulation, or if it potentially undermines an MD’s determination of medical necessity, then it is proposed merely to burden the right, and that should be against the Dem platform.
So there is going to have to be a policy floor that a candidate running as a Dem can’t sink beneath. An outright ban has no health basis or medical legitimacy. It is actually barbaric.
I think the big difference is in the enhancement of the role of lawyers and ultimately the police in abortion decisions. Because of the intervention of Justice Alito, what was until recently a matter between women and their doctors is now a matter of public concern. Through the legislators we select, we now have a role in these most intimate and consequential decisions. I hope we are up to the responsibility.
There is an idea out there or maybe it exists only in my own head, that a way to go on abortion is a version of Bill Clinton’s famous formulation for gays in the military, “Don’t ask, don’t tell”. Procedures could be performed, but they could just simply be called something besides “abortion”.
For myself, I care a lot more about people than I do the law. If there is deal out there to be made to the effect that we will have laws that say bad things about abortion, but that they will neither be enforceable or enforced, that is something I would urge considering. In many parts of the world, I think that is what the state of the law as it intersects with social norms.
Again, this reluctance to simply and unconditionally embrace women’s rights is not only bad politics for Democrats, but it’s a disaster for women. The loss of Roe is one of the single greatest political fails in US History and it is a direct of result of political negligence within the Democratic Party. Sure… leave it to a conservative Democrat (man) to decide that turning abortion, women’s equality, and reproductive rights into some kind of dirty little secret is an “acceptable” compromise. Women can have their bodies, and rights… as long as they don’t tell anyone about it? BUSHWA!!!! Wherever abortion is illegal… it will prosecuted… that’s how Roe. came into existence in the first place!
No. If women have the right to choose abortion, they have the right to choose abortion. Semantic games are not just unlikely to mollify the forced-birth advocates, but they demean women by suggesting that the right to control their own bodies must be dressed up in euphemisms to protect the tender sensibilities of those who would deny them that right.
And while we’re on the subject, President Clinton’s waffling on abortion did nothing to help. “Safe, legal, and rare” should have been “safe, legal, and no one else’s business.”
Minnesota is one of the few states where young girls can have an abortion performed by someone other than a physician without any waiting period or notifying their parents. This is widely popular in the state and has huge financial potential so it is unlikely that the Legislature will do anything to change this especially given the recent court ruling striking down any limitations. Candidates should focus on issues with higher priority such as climate change, racial equity, and providing affordable housing, health care, and education from cradle to post college.
Good article.
I want to respond to Gene Pelowski’s comments in this article and correct the record. I’ve known Gene for almost 40 years and we used to be friends. I was DFL Senate District chair in 1984 when he first ran for the Legislator and lost to Tim Sherman. I was at his home on election night. When it was evident he lost his race, he announced he was going to change his position on abortion, from supporting the status quo, ( whatever it was in 1984) to becoming 100 pro-life consistent with Minnesota Citizen’s Concerned for Life political agenda. A few months after that he mentioned to me how much it had helped him politically with prominent Catholics in Winona as word of his significant shift on abortion spread.
In other words, contrary to his comments in this article Gene’s position on abortion are extremely calculated to benefit him politically. It has kept him popular with the significant Catholic community in Winona, (remember Winona had two Catholic Colleges not so long ago) and it is why he seldom has significant challengers in his reelection campaigns.
As the article correctly points out the GOP has become exclusively anti-abortion. A very compelling argument can be made that a handful of anti-abortion members in the House DFL Caucus, severely undermines the legitimacy of the Pro-choice Dem House members and also gives the GOP some political traction for attacking Pro-choice Dem candidates running in toss-up districts.
People can judge for themselves if the value of having a Democrat from Winona was worth more than having a Dem who supported fundamental equality for half of the people in our State. but I do think that Gene could have modified his hardcore anti-abortion position over the last 36 years and still gotten reelected has his political stature became more firm and established. The fact that Gene hasn’t modified and made his position on abortion even a little more moderate as Winona and the surrounding area has become less hardcore anti-abortion ( I was elected in 2006 from Houston and Fillmore Counties as a Pro-choice candidate) says loudly that Gene places his own political expediency over any concern for the personal autonomy and equality for the women who live in his District.
It is equally obvious that the era of anti-abortion Dems in the Minnesota Legislature is soon coming to an end. Murphy and Pelowski are some of the longest serving House members. Marquart is retiring and and Sandstede will probably be defeated. In my opinion it will be a very good development. Dems in and running for the Legislature will be able to have a united front in making a clearing an unambiguous case to votes for abortion as a fundamental part of women’s healthcare.
The use of the descriptor Democratic-Farmer-Labor is so untrue that the Minnesota Democratic Party should be embarrassed to use it and further acknowledges their inability to accept political reality. Please, Democrats, for the sake of the Party, the State, and our Country, take the time to read the 14 July, The Economist, piece titled “The Democrats need to wake up and stop pandering to their extremes”. This internationally acclaimed news magazine recognized the significant role that the murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis had in contributing to the devisiveness that is affecting our country and has been used to promote extreme positions related to it. Why was I surprised to find out that it was African-American residents of North Minneapolis, where I was born and raised, who had initiated the lawsuit to require Minneapolis to hire its City Charter required number of police? Because the metropolitan area’s main newspapers and most prominent TV channels promoted the views and positions of the extremists over, and almost the exclusion of, those of others. Wake up!! Before we are faced with another Trump presidency from which our country may never recover.
The Economist is a decidedly conservative perspective, no wonder they want Democrats to be a more conservative Party. However the “extremists” Democrats pander to have been extreme centrists and pseudo moderates. The decades long marginalization and hostility to liberalism has brought Fascism into the White House and the SCOTUS. A “return” to the status quo that manufactured so many crises and paralysis is no antidote of any kind.
Yes indeed. The Repub party is now banning abortion entirely and seeking to regulate contraception, but it’s the Dem party that is unacceptably extreme!
As for your vision of the local media glamorizing the extremists, that’s mostly a mirage that you apparently want to see.
Of course this highlights the dilemma for women, labor, people of color, and middle class or low income voters etc. etc… even when Democrats “win”, their supporters end up losing.
How about we all decide that a woman’s right to privacy and body autonomy is her right as a full person in this country. Woman are not livestock. We do not need some politician deciding our healthcare choices. Politicians need to keep their biased noses out of our lives.