Protect women's reproductive rights

Opinion editor's note: Editorials represent the opinions of the Star Tribune Editorial Board, which operates independently from the newsroom.

•••

Amid the horror of a 10-year-old girl forced to leave her state for an abortion after she was raped, and general panic among women that a full range of reproductive care might no longer be available to them, President Joe Biden has stepped in with some basic rules for the new reality this country now faces.

In a recent executive order, Biden appropriately directed the Department of Health and Human Services to widen access to abortion pills. The agency issued guidelines that remind health care providers in all states that they are expected to provide abortions needed for emergency care.

"Federal law preempts state abortion bans when needed for emergency care," HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra said earlier this week. The federal government, he noted, can penalize institutions or providers that fail to provide life-saving treatment for the mother, which can in some instances include abortion.

The situation is dire. Several states are moving toward near-total bans on the procedure. Even in states without such bans, doctors are unsure about the parameters of the new U.S. Supreme Court ruling. This is why Biden's clear directive — that saving the mother's life supersedes state laws — is so needed.

But in the ongoing Republican contest of which state can be the most extreme, Texas is challenging even these basic protections to a mother's life, lest, in the words of that state's attorney general, Ken Paxton, the federal government "use federal law to transform every emergency room in the country into a walk-in abortion clinic."

Be aware of what states like Texas are actually fighting for: the right of the state to impose its will on the individual. What happened to all those who once cried "My body, my choice" when the issue was whether or not to take a life-saving vaccine?

In the weeks following the Supreme Court's Dobbs ruling, we have fallen so far in terms of personal liberty that the federal government is now exploring whether privacy rights can be strengthened when it comes to the many women who use digital apps to track their menstrual cycle.

Biden, sadly, is correct when he says there are limits to what his administration can do. Congressional action is needed to reinstate the right to bodily autonomy and the reproductive rights of women.

"I don't think the court or for that matter the Republicans who for decades have pushed this extreme agenda have a clue about the power of American women," Biden said in signing the order. "But they're about to find out."

The Democratic House, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, on Friday voted to restore abortion access nationwide, though chances for Senate passage are bleak. In calling for the vote, Pelosi stated that "just three weeks ago the Supreme Court took a wrecking ball to the fundamental rights by overturning Roe v. Wade. It is outrageous that 50 years later, women must again fight for our most basic rights against an extremist court."

But we know who has the extreme agenda here. It is those who would force women — no matter the circumstances under which they were impregnated — to carry those pregnancies to term.

In Minnesota, thankfully, a district court has taken a strong stand in defense of reproductive rights. In 1995, the state Supreme Court ruled that the Minnesota Constitution guarantees the right to an abortion. Earlier this week, a district court judge ruled that many Minnesota laws restricting abortion access were unconstitutional.

The district court blocked enforcement of a 24-hour waiting period and dispensed with "informed consent" requirements, as well as two-parent notification for patients younger than 18. The court also found unconstitutional the requirement that only physicians perform abortions and the requirement that abortions after the first trimester be performed in a hospital.