Opinion editor's note: Editorials represent the opinions of the Star Tribune Editorial Board, which operates independently from the newsroom.
•••
After the Supreme Court overturned abortion rights, Minnesotans elected a DFL state government trifecta in November that moved at lightning speed once in office to pass the PRO Act, legislation codifying abortion rights here.
Regrettably, voters who understand the importance of this medical procedure for women's health cannot relax their vigilance. A Texas judge's decision to revoke federal approval of an abortion pill — one used safely and effectively for more than two decades — serves alarming notice that the battle over abortion continues on multiple levels, with the impact potentially impeding access and choice here despite the commendable work by state legislators this session.
Congressional action is urgently needed to safeguard reproductive health care no matter which state you live in. While that's currently unlikely with the U.S. House controlled by Republicans, the work begins now to pave the way for when the politics turn more favorable. It's fortunate that Minnesota's Sen. Tina Smith is at the forefront of shouldering this important responsibility.
The Texas judge's controversial decision had long been anticipated but became public last Friday. It involves the drug mifepristone, which is typically given in combination with another drug to end a pregnancy. More than half of the abortions in Minnesota involve medication vs. more invasive alternatives, the Star Tribune reported this week.
The case culminating in the judge's decision was brought by a little-known anti-abortion group that appears to have incorporated in the Texas judge's district last year after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. Shopping for this judge, a Trump appointee less known for his legal scholarship than religious zealotry, paid off.
U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk's ruling takes issue with regulators' approval. The drug was first cleared in the United States for nonsurgical abortions in 2000. Kacsmaryk concludes the process was not rigorous enough. But his ruling also defies common sense by ignoring reality: This is drug has been used safely for decades.