It is the common messaging of Minnesota Republicans in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court reversal of Roe v. Wade: They, not we, are outside the mainstream of where state and national voters are on the issue.
While polling shows strong support for abortion access, especially within the first three months of pregnancy, most Republican candidates support bans on the procedure — sometimes even if the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest or if the life and health of the mother is at risk. The GOP candidates for governor and attorney general oppose abortion and wouldn’t have won the party’s endorsement otherwise.
But statements issued after the federal court ruling, while endorsing the court action, attempted to flip the issue on Democrats.
“Minnesota values are not ‘up-to-the-moment-of-birth’ abortions as Tim Walz and Peggy Flanagan support,” said Republican-endorsed candidate for governor Scott Jensen.
“Although Keith Ellison embraces taxpayer funded abortion at any time of pregnancy and for any reason, most Minnesotans support limits on abortion,” said GOP endorsed candidate for attorney general Jim Schultz.
[image_credit]MinnPost photo by Tom Olmscheid[/image_credit][image_caption]Scott Jensen[/image_caption]
Is that true? Do Democrats Walz and Ellison support abortion at “any time for any reason?”
First, the easier question on taxpayer-funded abortion. The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled in the 1995 Doe v. Gomez case that state medical assistance must pay for abortions done for medical reasons, and most Democrats support that provision in their endorsement of legal access to abortion. Medical reasons is a different standard than for the life and health of the mother and has been interpreted to require state medical assistance funding for most abortions.
GOP-controlled legislatures have twice passed bills blocking state funding but both bills were vetoed by then-Gov. Mark Dayton.
In the annual report on abortions in Minnesota, the state Department of Health noted that of the 9,127 abortions performed on state residents in 2021, 4,602 were paid for via public assistance programs, the rest were either paid by private insurance (2,040) or paid for by the patient (2,474). In 11 cases, the source of funding is unknown.
But do the DFL incumbents support third-trimester abortion “for any reason?” Both say they do not and neither of their political opponents produced evidence that they do or have supported no-restriction abortion.
[image_credit]REUTERS/Eric Miller[/image_credit][image_caption]Attorney General Keith Ellison[/image_caption]
In 2021, the state reported one abortion conducted on a woman who was between 25 and 30 weeks of gestation and MDH reported no abortions for women past the 30th week. In that same year, 93.6 percent of abortions in Minnesota were conducted at 15 weeks gestation or less.
Joel Hanson, the spokesperson for the Jensen campaign, attempted to support Jensen’s allegations by saying that Walz has described himself as a strong abortion rights congressman and governor, even joking at the 2018 DFL convention that “my record is so pro-choice, Nancy Pelosi asked me if I should tone it down.” Walz has also said he would oppose any additional restrictions on abortion in Minnesota.
Hanson noted that Walz voted yes on a 2018 GOP bill called the “Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act” that called for medical steps to be taken if a baby survives a late-term abortion. He was one of six Democrats voting in favor. But Walz, then the 1st District congressman, immediately sent a notice to the House speaker — and tweeted on his congressional account — that his yes vote was a mistake and he had meant to vote no.
Current Minnesota law requires all but first trimester abortions be done in hospitals, and that a second doctor be available to respond to a live birth after a fetus could be viable.
[image_credit]MinnPost photo by Peter Callaghan[/image_credit][image_caption]Jim Schultz[/image_caption]
Minnesota law does have restrictions on abortion access that have been challenged in court by advocates organized as Unrestrict Minnesota. That includes a 24-hour waiting period for abortions. Ellison, as attorney general, is defending the state law against the lawsuit. Walz said through a campaign spokesperson that he could not comment on the case because he is a named defendant.
Walz does not dispute his pro-abortion rights bona fides. When asked about the allegation by the Jensen campaign that he supports abortion at any time for any reason, Walz responded with some anger.
“No, I respect where (the) law is written now,” Walz said. “I have been in this office, I’ve done a thousand of these (press conferences) as a member of Congress and as governor. Not one time have I ever said that. So again coming from someone who lied about the election, lied about COVID, is unvaccinated, hell, lied about a cabin I supposedly have … one putting into this debate is so disrespectful to providers, to women, to what the debate is about but I expect nothing different.
“I respect the law as it’s written now and as medical providers have defined,” Walz continued. “There is not, again, a single word of me ever saying so and I would ask all of you to find the research of how many of those there are, as opposed to 13 year olds being raped and asked to carry a pregnancy.”
Question over ‘viability’ standard
But saying he supports state law as written isn’t, in itself, definitive. State law establishes a standard that prohibits abortions when a fetus is potentially viable except when a mother’s life or health is in danger. That section of state law, however, was invalidated by a 1976 U.S. Court of Appeals decision known as Hodgson v. Lawson. That case struck down as unconstitutional the viability standard as written, as well as a law saying abortion to be performed “under circumstances which will reasonably assure the live birth and survival of the fetus.”
Still, abortion providers in Minnesota act as though the stricken statutes are still in effect and many abortion rights organizations list the viability standard as being in effect in Minnesota. “An abortion may be performed at or after viability only if the patient’s life or health is endangered,” says the Guttmacher Institute website.
The Unrestrict Minnesota lawsuit does not challenge the viability standard. An attorney for Gender Justice, Jess Braverman, said it wasn’t included in the suit because that provision was enjoined by the federal courts in 1976 and is not enforceable.
Doe v. Gomez, the 1995 state Supreme Court case that found protections for abortion under privacy provisions of the state constitution, used viability as the point when state restrictions could apply. But it didn’t impose that standard and the Legislature never enacted one post Doe.
The ‘PRO’ Act
Walz does support what’s known in the Legislature as the PRO Act, which aims to codify access to abortion and contraceptives into law as a backstop should Doe v. Gomez be overturned.
Ellison campaign spokesperson Faisa Ahmed said Ellison supports and will defend the legal precedent established in Doe v. Gomez. She said he also endorses the now-overturned standards in Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which “ensured the right to privacy to attain an abortion while also establishing viability as a threshold for state interest.” For abortions after 21 weeks of gestation, Ahmed said the incumbent “Would never want to limit doctors and patients who may need to perform or receive life-saving care.” Ellison supports the PRO Act.
“AG Ellison trusts women to make their own reproductive choices and his opponents do not,” Ahmed said. “That’s the issue. Opponents won’t be allowed to muddy the waters by making up fake stories about his positions.”
[image_caption]Rep. Kelly Morrison[/image_caption]
“It’s kind of a double layer of protection,” she said. The bill also says it applies to every state law, regulation and policy, meaning it could be read to potentially supersede any viability standard should it be passed into law.
But Morrison downplayed that, saying the measure is “silent” on the state’s enjoined viability standard limiting late-term abortions and does not attempt to change or remove it, Morrison said.
Morrison, a physician, did introduce a separate bill that would unwind some abortion restrictions, including nixing a requirement that a script detailing medical risks of abortion that Morrison said is medically inaccurate. But that bill doesn’t reference the viability standard either.
Minnesota is considered by advocates for abortion access to be a relatively restrictive state. Several have no time limits on when someone can have an abortion, including the politically similar Colorado.
Morrison said she does believe reproductive health care has to be individualized for every person and their circumstances. But she said the vast majority of abortions happen in the first trimester and the ones after are largely in “horrifically tragic situations” where either the mother is in danger or something has gone wrong in the pregnancy.
Abortion up to the moment of birth is “something that just doesn’t happen,” Morrison said, arguing Democrats are “very focused on making sure abortion remains legal,” rather than altering the viability standards. In 2021, Colorado reported 60 abortions after an estimated 24 weeks of gestation, which was 0.5% of the 11,580 total abortions reported. Nearly 75% of abortions there were at 8 weeks or less.
So Walz does not support “my body, my choice?”
Thank you for the detail contained in the article on a very important subject.
Unfortunately false claims will continue to make headlines.
“[N]either of their political opponents produced evidence that they do or have supported no-restriction abortion.”
Does anyone think that this will so much as slow them down? Republicans have identified a strong wedge issue and intend to run with it, never mind its accuracy.
Ascribing any kind of good faith to these people is, at best, naïve.
Something really bothers me as I read this article: it seems to give credence to the lies told about Democrats and abortion by all Minnesota Republicans running for office (and the GOP party in MN).
It’s good to have a careful analysis, detail by excruciating detail, about how the GOP reduces abortion to “until the moment of birth” in order to falsely portray Democrats as favoring that.
But one wonders if the fanatics in the GOP will pay any attention, while these two journalists take all kinds of time to go point by point–on a “there’s a this, and then there’s a that ” basis–through various historical features and bills, muddying and blurring the lines between a false assertion and a definitive denial of any truth to it. There are several points at which this article should have stopped and actually, categorically, denied any truth to what they present as rhetorical questions–but are really GOP lies.
In this case the journalist was able to get a great quote from Governor Walz showing that his opponent is a habitual liar.
Gentlemen (I do not choose to use persons. LOL) EXCELLENT article. Facts, numbers, quotations presented in a straight forward fashion. The FACTS of number, percentages of state paid, insurance paid and self paid. The number in Minnesota of late term abortions. I say again, excellent reporting. I am forwarding this article to many on my email list, both Republican, Democrat and independent.
Thank You for this reporting. I am tired of reporters that opinionate in their “reporting”. Thank you
Republicans, many of you believe abortions should not be available ever to a child or woman was made pregnant by rape or if the woman is certain to face long term health consequences, is at high risk of dying, or the child will be delivered dead or will die shortly after delivery. Not only that, you would deny access to contraception, include Plan B to rape victims.
You care not one bit when impregnators flee like scared little boys as you blame women for “tempting them.” These men avoid responsibility leaving a very large share of singles moms with poverty level incomes.
If the first child is born without the benefit of two incomes and two parents, it is likely successive pregnancies will be that way, particularly now as foolishly you want to deny access to birth control.
Biden introduced a child care credit to lift these children out of poverty. Republicans prefer tax cuts to spending funds to support “other people’s” poor children, often saying their PARENTS should support them. Parents plural. As if! If you want to say that, you cannot let deadbeat birth fathers off the hook and for rape victims, where the rapist should never see the child, vote to pay taxes to support the “rape orphan.”
Republicans, you want to hold others responsible, but you have endless excuses for your irresponsibility. Prime example – those who oppose abortions have often had one themselves, paid for one or fathered children you never acknowledged or support. Hershel Walker, Georgia Republican running for the Senate is such a man, with more than one abandoned child out there. Lionizing s sexual degenerate like Trump seems to have killed any meaningful family values.
Democrats believe that every child deserves two involved, loving and emotionally secure parents and that if they are living in poverty, that every opportunity to improve the chances that the child thrives rather than suffers should be seized. Our neglect of children is the root cause if so much that ails our country.
“Democrats believe that every child deserves two involved, loving and emotionally secure parents”
And yet, only the birthing person is allowed to make the decision.
Your quote is a copy of the Conservative opinion, not Democrats.
“It’s simple. I believe women should make their own reproductive decisions, not the government.” Senator A.K.
Maybe Senator Amy needs to be asked if she believes in “My body, my choice” or if she likes the rules established by nine men in black robes?
Apparently she does not like democracy.
I don’t really see why an edict issued by 6 people is representative of ‘democracy’. And I am quite sure that you, Ron, probably don’t believe in a great many other decisions issued by the Supreme Court, though I don’t care to hear which ones. Do you not believe in democracy, either? Surely believing in democracy does not mean believing in every law or every ruling that ever passes. What a simplistic piece of B.S.
What do you believe -“my body my choice” or the abortion restriction decreed by black robed men on the SCOTUS?
Same question for Senator Amy.
I won’t speak for Senator Klobuchar, but the “rules established by nine men in black robes” did not require anyone to have an abortion. Women are allowed to make their own decisions, because they are rationale human beings not to be belittled by fans of the patriarchy.
The bigger question seems to be, why don’t Walz and Ellison support equal reproductive freedom? Surely, they can’t be lying for political reasons.
I will probably regret asking this, but what is “equal reproductive freedom?” Do you mean the supposed power of a male to veto a woman’s choice to have an abortion?
No statute and no Minnesota Supreme Court opinion can be strong and certain enough to protect a woman’s personal autonomy in choices relating to reproduction. An amendment to the Minnesota Constitution is required, one that surveys repeatedly have shown the majority of Minnesotans support such a right. Let the people vote, as they resoundingly did on marriage, then let the anti-abortion forces muster enough votes to repeal it.
While we’re at it we can make it a fundamental right that extends to all matters of conscience regarding procreation, gender, and marriage. Put them on a par with the religious convictions that are so often marshalled against the exercise of one’s own conscience.
My guess is that the next abortion bill that might land on the governor’s desk is one making abortion a crime in Minnesota. If that governor is Walz I am pretty sure he would veto it.
As a Minnesota DFL political activist, I don’t have a legislative abortion agenda. In effect, I am strong advocate for doing nothing. If you are searching for someone to involved themselves in the most personal, the most intimate decisions of your life, don’t look at me, because I just don’t have anything to offer.
“As a Minnesota DFL political activist, I don’t have a legislative abortion agenda. In effect, I am strong advocate for doing nothing.”
This actually the problem with Democrats and the DFL here in MN. This business of doing nothing to protect abortion rights and keep women from being demoted to second class citizens with no privacy rights or personal autonomy is exactly how we just ended up this SCOTUS decision. Tens of thousands of women will now pay the price for this disinterest in women’s rights.
This wasn’t just political negligence by the way, it was outright fraud and dishonesty since DFL candidates never ran on doing NOTHING… on the contrary they always promised to be the champions of women’s rights especially when asking for women’s votes. Instead Democrats hid behind Roe as if it were an impenetrable wall that would in-and-of itself obviate any need for political, legislative, or even judicial action.
Meanwhile, whenever some billionaire wanted a new stadium or arena for their professional sports franchise DFLer’s always found a way to do SOMETHING didn’t they? And as we move forward will DFL activists step forward and admit they have no abortion agenda when they ask for campaign money and women’s votes? Such is the dilemma of “moderate” democrats eh?
The piece is a bit long, and so could use some editing. Let’s try this:
“The concepts of ‘truth’ and ‘lie’ have no meaning to the Republican candidates, who will say anything to manipulate the voters and agitate the base.”
Still a bit wordy. How about:
“The sun rises in the east.”
These are issues to which I give a lot of thought.
The Trump justices were each asked about their views on Roe during their nomination hearings. Each of them lied about their views. The question I have is, “How can we have confidence in the integrity and probity of the justices of the Supreme Court knowing they lied to get their jobs?”
To authoritarians, language is purely instrumental. They didn’t “lie,” they said the things that they judged would allow them to achieve the power they sought.
But to answer your question, no of course we can’t have confidence in the integrity and probity of the Supreme Court justices (at least six of them). The Supreme Court is a collapsed institution. Just one of many in the authoritarian project to dissolve our social norms and social capital.
What I believe is that abortion decisions are not a matter for lawmakers. I am against the slicing and dicing of the most intimate decisions of our lives at a legislation level. And just in case people haven’t notice, our insistence on politicizing this issue has both trivialized it, and contributed while undermining the legitimacy of our republic, two things it is very hard to do at the same time over the same issue.
Obviously we can have no confidence in these judges, they’re liars and hacks who perjured their way onto the court, they should be impeached and removed.
I think it’s very revealing that a DLF activist would openly state the belief that legislators have no role in protecting women’s rights, or promoting equality under the law. One would have thought that representing constituents and their constitutional rights would be an essential mission of the legislative branch. And again, the DFL always has a trunk load of reasons for getting involved whenever an billionaire wants a new stadium, abortion rights are irrelevant?
Well, I think he means he much prefers the previous national approach of granting abortion the status of a constitutional right, which we had under the now-defunct Roe/Casey regime. That abortion is (or should be) a decision for a woman and her doctor alone.
I suppose I shouldn’t speak for Hiram; no offense intended.
Please ignore; I see Hiram has posted his own defense!
In the immortal words of Travis Bickle, “Are you talking to me?”
But no, I don’t think abortion should be an issue for the legislature. We get caught up in six months this, seven months, a week and a half for the other thing. This kind of hair splitting is a form of political manipulation designed to unify or divide political coalitions as opposed to dealing constructively with real situations that real people face in their real lives. It is sad that such deep and important issues are reduced to the cheapest kind of politics.
Sure, legislating can be a hassle… why waste time on women’s rights. You DO know this isn’t just about abortions right?
Let me make this simple… the DFL position should be one of unapologetic and unconditional support for women’s rights and equality and the right to abortion. They should be more than willing to spend whatever time it takes, and hassle whatever hassle is required, to pass legislation that ensures equality, privacy, and sovereignty over their own bodies. If you’re willing to put the time and effort into funding stadiums and arena’s, you need to be willing to do that for women.