By Renee Carlson, General Counsel, True North Legal
While most of the country is working to conserve medical resources for hospital workers treating COVID-19 patients, the abortion industry in Minnesota and across the country is carrying on business as usual. In fact, as COVID-19 restrictions and Executive Orders continued to be introduced and adapted to meet daily medical changes and updates, Sarah Stoesz, CEO of Planned Parenthood North Central States, made clear the abortion industry will continue to provide abortions in this perilous time, stating “all abortions, if women seek them, are essential.” The national abortion front is not backing down either, as the Guttmacher Institute, a research and policy organization dedicated to advancing and preserving the right to abortions, actually encouraged abortion advocates to “guard against” the “coercive track record” of the current presidential administration, “against the possibility that [the administration] will seize the opportunity of COVID-19 to further restrict people’s fundamental rights and access to healthcare.”
Minnesota’s Governor Walz has made clear that the COVID-19 crisis represents an “unprecedented challenge to our state.” One of the gravest threats posed by the virus is that “local resources are inadequate to address the [COVID-19] threat…[as] cases in Minnesota are rapidly increasing and risk overwhelming the healthcare system.” The Governor’s Stay at Home order is specifically designed to lower the amount of infections so that there are enough masks and other protective equipment to keep patients and healthcare workers safe.
However, the Governor’s order includes “Reproductive health” in the list of “Activities and Critical Sector” work, which includes elective abortions. During this time of crisis when healthcare providers are postponing almost all elective medical treatment, abortion is deemed “critical” medical care in the state of Minnesota. It is completely unclear why abortion has been deemed a “necessary” procedure when other procedures, even some cancer treatments, are being postponed.
The abortion industry claims its services are necessary, using the same general rhetoric, citing risks to women’s health that necessitate abortions on demand, which are not the same as non-elective medical emergencies - inconsistent with current standards to determine which procedures are critical and which can safely be delayed amidst this crisis. The abortion industry has challenged state executive orders in federal courts, including orders in Texas, Ohio and Alabama, claiming that elective abortions deserve to be treated different from other elective surgeries, arguing that any limitation or restriction on abortions violates the constitutional right to an abortion, and further, imposes an undue burden on women seeking an abortion. While Minnesota Attorney General, Keith Ellison, along with other attorneys general in multiple states, have urged the federal government to cast aside critical FDA safety regulations relating to use of and access to abortifacients during this pandemic. This demand only increases the propensity for medical treatment, inconsistent with federal and state orders intended to reduce non-emergency medical care in order to increase availability for critical illness at this time.
It is sometimes hard to avoid the perception that the abortion industry believes itself to be above the law. No matter what the circumstance, the abortion industry never ceases to assert its exceptional status under the law with respect to basic health regulations as compared to other fields of health care. Just last month the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in June Medical Services v. Russo, a significant case in national abortion jurisprudence involving a legal challenge to a Louisiana law that aims to protect the health and safety of women and children by simply requiring abortion facilities and providers be held to the same regulatory standards as other medical providers and medical facilities. The June Medical case is important because it could have implications for Minnesota laws regulating (or failing to regulate) abortion. Whereas the current state of abortion jurisprudence in Minnesota insulates the abortion industry, and is further supported by Minnesota’s governor and attorney general.
The way we respond to crises often shows what we value the most. Both in Minnesota and across the country the abortion industry shows that it cares about revenue for its clinics rather than the well-being of patients and communities desperately threatened by a global pandemic. By continuing to provide abortions, the abortion industry has demonstrated its clear priorities - profits over people, individualism over the common good, elective procedures over critical care for COVID-19 patients. It is time that abortion providers be held accountable to the same standards as other medical procedures and professionals. Moreover, in a time in our country where many people are sacrificing for the good of all, when critical resources are scarce, the abortion industry should choose to do the same.
