Editorial Counterpoint: DFL abortion bill is one of America's most radical

It doesn't represent the views of most Minnesotans.

By Renee Carlson

January 11, 2023 at 11:45PM
Protesters at the U.S. Supreme Court on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade in January 2005. (Pete Souza, TNS file/The Minnesota Star Tribune)

Opinion editor's note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes a mix of national and local commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

In "Codify abortion rights with 'PRO Act'" (Jan. 9), the Star Tribune Editorial Board made some astounding claims about the so-called Protect Reproductive Options Act. While the board usually seeks to strike a note of moderation, the PRO Act is one of the most radical abortion bills ever proposed in Minnesota — or indeed, to my knowledge, in any American state.

Following the bill's first hearing last week, the Editorial Board suggested that PRO Act opponents are the extremists. Let's talk about that. If opposing the PRO Act is extreme, the Star Tribune must believe that a partial-birth abortion at 40 weeks gestation is perfectly moderate. The board must believe that under no circumstances should the state mandate that a pregnant woman receive unbiased information from her doctor that would help her make an informed choice.

The board must believe that allowing minor girls to get abortions without parental involvement is, again, a moderate and sane position. Abortion would then be one of the very few medical procedures that a minor girl could undergo without parental involvement. Anyone who opposes this is, apparently, an extremist.

To make matters worse, consider the Minnesota Supreme Court's constitutional interpretation in Doe v. Gomez, which currently provides not only so-called abortion rights, but also the right to have an abortion funded by taxpayers in some circumstances. It follows that if the PRO Act is passed, we may see legal arguments attempting to put Minnesota taxpayers on the hook for a whole host of "reproductive services" guaranteed in the bill — such as "fertility treatment." We cannot rule out commercial surrogacy, an inherently coercive and troubling practice.

The rushed consideration of the PRO Act (with DFL leaders pushing for passage by the end of January) is an insult to the legislative process, and surely an attempt to sneak this through before Minnesotans discover the true radical significance of this bill. If passed in its current form, it would quite possibly make Minnesota's abortion laws on par with the most extreme in the nation in some respects.

The PRO Act is out of step with Minnesotans' values, both those who call themselves pro-life and those who call themselves pro-choice. Even most pro-choice Minnesotans support common-sense protections for women and the ability of the state to regulate abortion after the first trimester, as all recent polling on this issue indicates. The PRO Act would bulldoze over these conscientious pro-choice Minnesotans in service of a radical, "shout your abortion" agenda that brooks no moral hesitation about abortion.

Make no mistake, the PRO Act is not about health care. It is political theater, its status as the first bill introduced in both houses of the Legislature displaying the priorities of DFL leaders, not Minnesotans. In supporting radical bills like the PRO Act, which drastically limits the state's ability to protect the safety and well-being of women and girls, or indeed regulate abortion in any way, the DFL needs to stop pretending that it is simply enacting the people's will, or, even more duplicitously, that it is merely codifying into law the "rights" Minnesotans already have.

As should be clear to anyone who reads the bill and thinks about its implications, the PRO Act goes far beyond Doe v. Gomez. Legislators should first explain to Minnesotans precisely what this bill does, and what it doesn't do. Rather than protecting women and girls, it creates an extreme abortion regime, and then some, in Minnesota.

Gone are the days of abortion moderation, of "safe, legal and rare." The new DFL majorities, now supported by the voice of the Star Tribune, are putting all their cards on the table for a brave new world in which anyone with moral concerns about abortion is an extremist. This does not represent the views or priorities of Minnesotans.

Renee Carlson is general counsel, True North Legal, an initiative of the Minnesota Family Institute.

about the writer

about the writer

Renee Carlson

More from Commentaries

card image

Details about the new “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE) that Trump has tapped them to lead are still murky and raise questions about conflicts of interest as well as transparency.