Equal Rights Amendment

If the ERA passes, judges would likely interpret the state constitution to protect the forcing of females to share private spaces such as restrooms, locker rooms, and dorms; state grants; scholarships; athletic opportunities; prison facilities; and women’s shelters with males who reject sexed identity and cosplay women and girls. It also would likely create constitutional protection for taxpayer funding of sex-rejecting procedures.

In states where other ERAs have passed, judges have interpreted the state constitution to protect taxpayer funding of abortion. Since the state constitution is the highest legal protection of the state (beside federal law,) protecting abortion access and funding and public accommodation of sex rejection would be given the highest legal protection in Minnesota.

In Minnesota, proposed state constitutional amendments must pass majorities of both the state House of Representatives and the state Senate before voters in a general election must approve of the amendment to the constitution. Overturning a part of the constitution is a generational undertaking, unlike regular state statutes, which are more easily changed from legislative session to legislative session by lawmakers alone.

As ERA is antithetical to protecting life, family, and religious freedom, MFC opposes this proposed amendment to the state constitution and has lobbied and advocated session after session for protection of life, sexed identity, and religious freedom. Rep. Finke's HF501 (2025) was heard in the House State Government Finance and Policy committee and laid over as it would not have passed out of a split party committee.

‍