With the legislative session only in its second week, pro-abortion lawmakers are working to fast-track abortion extremism with two bills that would establish a “right” to abortion in Minnesota law and remove all existing restrictions on abortion in our state.
HF 1, known as the “Protect Reproductive Options” (PRO) Act establishes a “fundamental right” to end the life of an unborn child for any reason up until birth. HF 91 builds on this horrifying disregard for human life by applying HF 1’s broad expansion of abortion to specific policies and repealing Minnesota’s existing abortion restrictions. The bill would gut health and safety restrictions on abortion and repeal the Women’s Right to Know Act which requires informed consent prior to abortion. It would also remove parental notification requirements when a minor seeks an abortion — a requirement that plays a vital role in protecting young girls who have suffered coercion, abuse, and even trafficking from further exploitation.
These bills would both be disastrous for preborn children in Minnesota, would harm women and girls by taking away informed consent and basic health and safety requirements, and would make Minnesota one of the most radically pro-abortion states in the U.S.
In committee, the bill author rejected an amendment that would have ensured that the bill would not allow the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortions. The bill would also remove protections for babies who survive a botched abortions. The state’s most recent annual abortion report found that five babies were born alive after surviving abortions in Minnesota in 2021, and it is suspected that two of them were denied life-saving care. Under HF 91, the legal requirement to provide lifesaving care to abortion survivors would be repealed along with reporting requirements, thus requiring no accountability for abortionists who perform botched abortions then leave the baby to die.
In her testimony on the bill, True North Legal General Counsel Renee Carlson wrote,
If HF 91 becomes law in Minnesota, cattle, pet horses, cats, dogs, birds, reptiles, and host of other animals in Minnesota will enjoy more legal protections than Minnesota’s vulnerable preborn children. That the legal penalties for animal cruelty in Minnesota range from misdemeanor up to felony, while there is no criminal penalty for leaving a preborn child to die on a cold metal table is incomprehensible.
Additionally, HF 91 would remove restrictions on taxpayer funded abortions. Under current Minnesota law, taxpayer funds may only be used for abortions when the life of the mother is in danger or if her child was conceived in rape or incest. Minnesota Family Council’s Acting Director of Public Policy, Rebecca Delahunt, pointed out in her testimony for the House Health and Human Services Finance Committee that under HF 91, “[A]ll Minnesotans will be forced to pay for all abortion services through Medical Assistance… By repealing the statutes which limit taxpayer dollars to fund abortions in the above outlier circumstances, the Minnesota legislature is placing a burden on Minnesotans.”
She went on to note that only 30% of Minnesotans believe that abortion should be legal without limits. The other 70% would be forced to pay for something that they do not believe should be legal. “This extreme bill opposes the values of most Minnesotans,” wrote Delahunt.
Together, HF 1 and HF 91 seek to impose abortion extremism on Minnesota, going against the values of the majority of Minnesotans to do so. Our state is already the outlier among our neighbors after the fall of Roe v. Wade. The slim pro-abortion majority in the State House and Senate is actively working to make Minnesota one of the most extreme abortion states in the U.S., rivaling New York and California.
Law is a teacher, and when it comes to abortion over the past 50 years, it has been a terrible teacher, proclaiming that a person’s value and whether or not they deserve to live is based on their size, location, and abilities. HF 1 and HF 91 reinforce the terrible lies that life can be destroyed for the sake of convenience and that not all children deserve to be protected. As a state, we must reject these lies and stand for life.