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.