Correction: This article has been corrected to include information about demand and readiness from Planned Parenthood North Central States, which is the largest provider of abortion services in Minnesota. They have not seen increased demand for services after the Texas law and say they are prepared for any coming increase in demand for services. The headline of the piece has also been corrected to reflect this information.
About 1,200 miles of I-35 separate the Texas capital of Austin from St. Paul, Minnesota. Despite that distance, in recent months, an increasing number of people from Texas are making the long journey to Minnesota for one reason: obtaining a legal abortion.
In June, Texas passed SB8, a law that bans abortions after six weeks of pregnancy (before many people even know that they are pregnant) and allows private citizens to sue anyone who may have played a role in facilitating a newly illegal abortion. The law is a direct challenge to the standards laid out in the 1992 Supreme Court decision Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which said states could not restrict abortion rights prior to fetal viability — about 24 weeks.
The Supreme Court heard arguments about a challenge to Texas’ law in October and is expected to issue a decision next summer. But for now, the law stands.
And that’s not the only challenge to abortion rights on the horizon. On December 1, the Supreme Court will hear arguments on Dobbs v. Jackson, a case coming out of Mississippi that bans most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. That law was declared unconstitutional by lower courts and is not currently in effect.
As a result of the Texas law, Minnesota abortion rights advocates are seeing more patients from outside the state, some of whom need financial assistance for their journey and medical care. That’s caused demand and costs to increase. If Dobbs doesn’t go the way they want it to, Minnesota could see even more out-of-state patients.
Influx of patients
Since Texas passed its restrictive abortion ban in September, several other state legislatures have introduced similar laws. For example, in Ohio lawmakers have introduced a bill that would make abortion at any stage of pregnancy illegal. In Minnesota, abortion rights activists are nervous about a “heartbeat bill” that has been proposed in the state legislature.
But a complete ban of abortions in Minnesota would necessitate changing the state’s constitution, which is unlikely. Additionally, Gov. Tim Walz has said that he would veto any anti-abortion bill that came across his desk. Walz is up for re-election next year.
At Our Justice, an organization that assists people in accessing abortion care in Minnesota by helping with costs of transportation, lodging, appointments and medication, staff members say they’ve seen an increase in people needing help in the last few months, especially since the Texas abortion ban went into effect. The group sent $6,000 to one clinic just in October, which is nearly triple what it would usually contribute.
“These last couple months we’ve had such an influx of people reaching out to us for funding,” said Shayla Walker, vision realization advisor at Our Justice. “And we’ve seen people even travel all the way from Texas to Minnesota.”
According to Our Justice staff members, the people that they help tend to be around half from Minnesota and half from out-of-state.
“We’re very used to people coming from Iowa and Wisconsin, and there’s been a lot more requests from people farther away,” said Megumi Rierson, communications manager at Our Justice.
“However,” Rierson said, “We’re overwhelmed now. And if Roe falls, the combination of state level restrictions [in other states] and the lack of providers here means that we’re not going to be able to meet the need if it’s federally overturned.”
Other organizations have not seen a significant change in demand after the passage of Texas’ law. Planned Parenthood is the largest provider of abortion services in the state, and is preparing to be able to serve the people who need care, according to Lauren Gilchrist, executive vice president of external affairs for Planned Parenthood North Central States.
“We are preparing, and with the support of donors, we believe we will be ready for a potential surge,” Gilchrist said. According to Gilchrist, Planned Parenthood in Minnesota has not seen a significant change in the number of people seeking abortions since the passage of SB8, but she said that she cannot speak for other independent providers within the state.
Gilchrist also said that the inequities in abortion care expand beyond those who, like many people in Texas, have to travel out-of-state to receive care.
“People who can travel will always have access to resources and abortion, but people who can’t get time off work and can’t get child care [or] are in abusive situations, those are the people who are going to be most disenfranchised.”
Despite their concerns for the future, both Rierson and Walker said that their main focus is just on working with what they have right now. Even after upcoming Supreme Court arguments, decisions may not come out until next summer at the earliest.
“We’re scared. And we have to prepare for the future. But we’ve also tried to be really clear with people that right now, and for the foreseeable future, you’ll be able to legally get an abortion in Minnesota,” Rierson said.
Overturning abortion precedent
The Supreme Court will hear arguments on December 1 in Mississippi’s bid to overturn Roe v. Wade, the Court’s landmark decision that guarantees a woman’s right to an abortion.
Mississippi is requesting that the Court uphold the state’s ban on most abortions after the 15th week of pregnancy, and the state has told the Court that it should overrule Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The Planned Parenthood case prevents states from banning abortion before viability, or the point at which a fetus can survive outside the womb, around 24 weeks of pregnancy.
The Supreme Court had previously turned down state appeals over pre-viability abortion bans. If the Court upholds Mississippi’s law, it would be the first ratification of an abortion ban before the point of viability.
“The Supreme Court doesn’t hear most cases that are presented to it. They pick and choose, and they don’t normally hear cases on well settled issues, but for some reason they did decide to hear this case, even though it’s been well settled for what is it now five decades,” said Jess Braverman, legal director at Gender Justice, an organization that addresses gender injustices by representing people in legal cases and educating the public. “So it’s really troubling, even just that they agreed to hear this case.”
The case could have a few different outcomes: The Supreme Court could strike down the Mississippi law, meaning that Roe is upheld and abortion policy in many states would stay as it is today. The Court could uphold the state law, which would effectively overturn Roe and turn over abortion laws to individual states. There are already several states with “trigger bans,” which would immediately ban abortion if Roe is overturned.
Braverman said that one worry some abortion rights advocates have is that the Supreme Court now has a 6-3 majority of conservative justices, some of whom have historically been against constitutional protection for abortion access, particularly Justice Clarence Thomas. Two new justices who were appointed during the Trump administration, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, have expressed some anti-abortion viewpoints in past court cases. Barrett in particular has a long record of personal opposition to abortion rights, co-authoring a 1998 law review article that said abortion is “always immoral.”
Minnesota ‘an oasis’
Because the right to an abortion is protected in Minnesota’s constitution, an overturn of Roe would not have immediate effects on legal access in the state. But some neighboring states, including North Dakota and South Dakota, have trigger bans, and Wisconsin still has an unenforced pre-Roe abortion ban that could potentially come back if Roe is overturned.
In Minnesota, current laws protect the right to an abortion until viability, which the state considers to be 23 weeks. After that, abortions are allowed when necessary to save a pregnant person’s life.
According to Unrestrict Minnesota, a reproductive rights group, Minnesota currently has eight abortion providers. And according to Our Justice staff, there is one abortion care provider in St. Paul that offers in-office surgical services after 12 weeks of pregnancy, and one provider in Duluth that will provide surgical abortions up to 16 weeks. Most other earlier abortions are administered by pill. But with increasing demand in Minnesota, waiting times also increase, meaning many patients cannot see a doctor for two to three weeks.
Delays like this can often result in more complex procedures, which tend to be more expensive. Medication abortions are usually cheaper and less invasive than surgical abortions, but they’re not recommended after 10 weeks of pregnancy. So a two week delay that many Minnesota patients are experiencing could push someone from being able to consider a medication option to a point where surgery is the only viable option.
“If you look within the letter of the law, Minnesota looks like quite an oasis or a haven for abortion access,” Rierson said. “But because of just a million different things including stigma… it’s so hard, and all the demand gets placed onto hub states like Minnesota.”
With only a few abortion providers still in Minnesota and the increase in out-of-state patients causing long waiting times, organizations like Our Justice are struggling to help patients and keep up with demand. And the demand for those services will only increase if Roe is overturned, said Braverman.
“Basically, we’d be flooded. We’d be inundated,” Braverman said. “So the question is, can we keep up with demand like that? Do we have the infrastructure, do we have the funding? The Minnesota constitution does protect us…but what will abortion access look like if the states around us ban it is a different question.”
“The Court could uphold the state law, which would effectively overturn Roe and turn over abortion laws to individual states. “T
The court is not going to overturn Roe.
I wish I shared your optimism.
Interesting article Ashley, thank you.
Question…. if women can get an appt. via email, can they get the pill via postal mail thereby avoiding the clinic appointment?
Probably not. The pill requires a prescription. Setting up an appointment isn’t the same as dispensing a prescription. However, I do wonder whether a “TeleDoc” type exam would be sufficient. The issue there might be about whether a doctor is licensed to practice in the state in which the patient is.
Time to sue, individually, Abbott and all the TX legislative members who voted FOR their law. They “aided and abetted” interstate travel (out of TX to elsewhere) for women to get abortions. Let’s do the math: $10k per each “aiding and abetting” (not per abortion) times (how many voted FOR the law + Abbott) times (say) 200k violations = way more money than any of them can afford to pay ($2B *each*–and up). The state can’t pay, so the individuals are on the hook and they can not declare bankruptcy to get out of their debt. Collection agencies, go get them !!
Men are in the driver’s seat in state legislatures, in police departments and the courts. The men of the Texas Legislature passed an abortion law that allowed no exceptions for rape and incest, male crimes that have resulted in a pregnancy. Police departments do not even receive reports on most rapes, much less pursue them as many resources as minor traffic violations such burned out tail lights. Eventually a predominantly male US Supreme Court will determine whether than Texas abortion law is constitutional. Men are also responsible for the number of children they bring into the world and abandon to a life of poverty, in a society where it is difficult to raise a single child with two parents. When men expect so much control when collectively they show so little responsibility for women they impregnate is hard to fathom.
Yet surveys show that the demographic that is most supportive of legal abortion is 18-34 year-old males.
If true, it’s not because of a sudden increase in a sense of responsibility toward others. That’s the demographic most likely to engage in unprotected sex, and most eager to avoid child support payments…
That’s a little cynical, Ray. I suspect that many men in that age group might actually believe that women are people, too, and that they have the right to self determination. I think the bigger issue is that state and federal legislatures don’t actually represent many (most?) of the people they were elected to represent. In fairness, state and federal legislatures do represent the people that voted for them (more or less). 18-34 year old males aren’t known for being super excited about their civic duty. https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2021/2020-presidential-election-voting-and-registration-tables-now-available.html
Obamacare says that every American must have health insurance. Health insurance must provide free birth control. Why are people still travelling hundreds of miles for abortions? And a box of condoms costs $15.00 (36 pack).
“Health insurance must provide free birth control.”
Something the right-wing found at once offensive and titillating. In any event, the Hobby Lobby decision lets employers contrive a religious objection to paying for employee insurance coverage for birth control.
“Why are people still travelling hundreds of miles for abortions?”
Because not every doctor performs abortions. State laws in many states have so limited the facilities that may perform an abortion that there are no providers available.
“And a box of condoms costs $15.00 (36 pack).”
Any woman being sexually assaulted should remember that, and tell her rapist to make a quick trip to Walgreen’s.
Exactly. Plus, male condoms are 98% effective only if they’re used perfectly. Every time. Female condoms are only about 95% effective. Again, with perfect use. Guess who has control over who wears what? And, in any case, the effectiveness rate still means that, with perfect use, pregnancy happens 2 to 5 times out 100 with perfect use. In real life, a 2006-2010 study showed that condoms had a 13% failure. In fact, the overall failure rate of reversible contraceptives was about 10%. That’s actually quite a few pregnancies that people took care to avoid. But, yeah, let’s just say it’s “her” fault.
Don’t forget that there are Republican officeholders – some of whom are physicians – who believe that a woman cannot be impregnated as a result of a “legitimate” rape.
Ah yes. 13-year-olds bearing their fathers’ children clearly weren’t “legitimately” raped. If little girls didn’t want it, their bodies would have “shut that down.” Gah! Some people belong UNDER the jail.
In this morning’s New York Times, a Dr. Ingrid Skop, a member of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, minimized the possibility of health risks of a 9 or 10 year-old carrying an infant to term.
The fact that she was so willing to be cavalier about the idea of a nine-year old giving birth tells me all I need to know about these people.
Assuming, as I do, that Roe will be overturned, I am wondering what will happen next. Will moderates in the pro life movement be able to block extremist measures proposed by extremists in the pro life movement? Or will they be swept away wants the judicial restraints have been lifted?
I think one issue is extraterritoriality. Will anti abortion states try to enforce their laws across state lines? Will a Texas woman who has an abortion in Minnesota, be tried in Texas for murder? Will contributors to Planned Parenthood in Minnesota be liable for arrest for conspiracy to commit abortion, if they happen to be on plane that has a connection in Houston? Where is the stopping point?
Of course they will. When your aim is to keep the women folk in line, you don’t let silly things like state borders hold you back. They think that intimidation is what is needed to revert the world to the “Leave it to Beaver” nostalgia of their fantasies (never minding that it never really existed), details like the mass executions or imprisonment of tens of thousands of their daughters, sisters, mothers, and friends never even cross their minds as a possibility. THEY respond to fear, so they assume everyone else will too.
Actually, although the pro-forced birth faction may make noises about it, a state may not make it unlawful to travel to another state to do something legal in the state to which the person has traveled.
You speak of the status quo as it stands now. I speak of the possibility of what may be in the offing. Basing predictions about irrationality on a premise of rationality doesn’t work. We’re talking about people acting on beliefs, not facts.
It’s actually a constitutional issue (Right to travel across state lines), and a state’s limited criminal jurisdiction.
If it were against the law to travel out of state to do something illegal at home, there would be no Las Vegas.
The only flaw is in your lack of imagination in understanding how “big” these crusaders dream. Their ideal world most closely resembles something like Victorian era England, minus the seedy underbelly of that society, who they forsee just eliminating en masse. There is no moderating influence, they truly are so bonkers that they would tear up the constitution to force poor people to breed.
“Their ideal world most closely resembles something like Victorian era England . . .”
Interestingly enough, abortion was not a crime in England until 1861.
They should be careful (and specific) about what they wish for.
Sounds like you’ve found some more history they need to revise.
Right now, access to abortion is actually a Constitutional issue. Plus, the Texas law is designed to bypass the whole Constitutional nonsense by giving any person the right to sue anyone associated with helping a woman get an abortion. /Technically/ they’re not hindering HER right to cross state lines. But they are hoping to prevent anyone else from helping her do so.
So, where did the stats come from for this article? Did anybody really do any research? The largest abortion provider, planned parenthood, has not had any increase. This piece is an assembly of opinions.
Dear Rural Minnesota,
Embrace these women. Make them welcome. Accept that abortion is legal here, and don’t judge them for needing to get one here. These women are likely of working age, often already have children (or will eventually have children when they’re ready), and are not of such high means that they are flying in and out to get an abortion. Here is the solution to your worker shortage. Open your towns to women who need refuge from the red states that treat them like brood mares. Treat them and their families with the respect they deserve, and they might stay and make their lives and homes in your town. (Though, it’s important to make sure there’s affordable housing and child care available. They will need it, especially at first.)
I’m afraid you overestimate the character of “Rural Minnesota”. If it’s anything like the “Rural Wisconsin” from which I hail, they are just as interested in making poor women “brood mares” as their Southern red state fellows. They are more than willing to shoot themselves in the foot economically to maintain “purity” in the eyes of whatever deity they prefer.
I don’t. I’m just offering them a win-win situation. They come out of the Dark Ages, and maybe their small towns will survive the new world. It’s worth noting, though, that not all people in those rural areas hold to the stereotype. It’s true that many of the more enlightened leave for greener pastures, but some stay. And I think that there’s been an influx of people from the cities who want a quieter life that might provide some welcome, as well. I grew up in rural South Dakota, and while I’ll never ever, ever consider living there again, and I hold a lot of people in very low regard, there were many people that were decent. Sadly, most of those people are of a past generation, now dead. But these areas are not completely full of irredeemables. Some might be, but then there are bad people in all areas. The bigger issue is, I’m certain, complete isolation (at least apparently) from the people they demonize. It’s a lot harder to hate someone if you’re looking them straight in the eyes. After all, if they all knew that their neighbors, friends, and relatives had abortions, it would be a shock but shouldn’t be since nearly 25% of all women have an abortion by age 45 (about 1% of all women of child bearing age in any given year). Although the rates go down the further they are from an abortion provider, that still means a significant number of rural women have abortions. They just don’t talk about it.
I think it might be more insidious than that. It’s not that they don’t “know” that folks have had abortions, they do. It’s that “other” people are. They need to be able to be superior to that “other”, it’s just about the only defining characteristic about rural folks, across all areas, ages, and demographics, the need to punch down at someone to feel better about oneself. They think THEIR lives will continue on as it does today, abortions amongst their friends and kin happening invisibly to outsiders, while they get to harangue and imprison all those immoral, wanton, lazy (insert epithet of ones choosing). It’s just who they are.