Minnesota House delays vote on constitutional protections for abortion, LGBTQ rights

Alex Derosier, Pioneer Press
Updated ·4 min read

Members of the Minnesota House on Monday were set to take up a state version of the federal Equal Rights Amendment which would create constitutional protections for access to abortion and transgender medicine.

If the measure passes in both the House and the Senate, both with DFL majorities, Minnesota voters would decide in two years whether to change the state constitution to include the new language. The measure was expected to pass in the House, but the Senate passed a version of the ERA bill last year that doesn’t include abortion.

The House was scheduled to debate the bill Monday but tabled it shortly before midnight after hours of debate on other measures.

Under the current House bill, the ballot question will be:

“Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to say that all persons shall be guaranteed equal rights under the laws of this state, and shall not be discriminated against on account of race, color, national origin, ancestry, disability, or sex, including pregnancy, gender, and sexual orientation?”

Protections

In addition to language protecting against race and gender discrimination, the amendment also would protect “making and effectuating decisions about all matters relating to one’s own pregnancy or decision whether to become or remain pregnant; gender identity or gender expression; or sexual orientation.”

Protections that would go into effect on a constitutional level if voters approved the House version of the ERA already exist in state law. Last year, the DFL-controlled Legislature passed a bill codifying the right to an abortion, as well as protections for medical treatments for transgender minors. But DFL lawmakers, as well as abortion rights and LGBTQ activists say more needs to be done.

Ahead of the vote, Rep. Kaohly Vang Her, DFL-St. Paul, said the constitutional protections are necessary as political conservatives move to restrict access to abortion and transgender medicine for minors.

“Our work was not done,” she told reporters at a Monday Capitol news conference. “ We knew that in order to ensure that the work that we did last year would be protected regardless of who was in office, which power was which party was in power, that those rights would be protected in our state constitution.”

Jess Braverman, the legal director for the nonprofit advocacy group Gender Justice, said the U.S. Supreme Court ending 50 years of federal abortion protections when it overturned the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision in 2022 demonstrates the need for the change.

“If we do not tell the courts what rights we want protected, then it is up to judges, not voters to make that decision,” said Braverman, who noted the state of Texas had adopted an ERA of its own decades ago, but lawmakers there were able to pass a virtual ban on abortion because the Constitution didn’t specifically mention the procedure.

Republicans plan amendments

Republicans who oppose the bill say they plan to introduce amendments to include exemptions to protect religious groups from the requirements. Groups including the Minnesota Catholic Conference have spoken out against the bill, saying its provisions infringe on religious liberties.

“Republicans believe in equality. This bill doesn’t provide that. This bill guarantees equality to a few groups, while leaving out protections against religious and age discrimination,” House Minority Leader Lisa Demuth, R-Cold Spring, said in a statement. “Possibly most concerning, the ballot question leaves voters in the dark using vague references to pregnancy without informing voters that a yes vote would enshrine abortion up to birth for any reason in the state’s constitution.”

Anti-abortion groups say the bill will create a constitutional right to abortion up to birth. In anticipation of the House ERA language ending up on the ballot in the coming years, groups such as Minnesotans Concerned for Life have already been running ads opposing the move, calling it “extreme.”

In response to concerns about religious liberty, advocates say the state constitution already contains protections for religious groups and that the amendment will only apply to government groups, and doesn’t compel private groups to do anything.

Groups in support and opposition rallied at the Capitol on Monday ahead of the scheduled debate.

Senate version

Last year, the state Senate passed its own version of the ERA that did not include language relating to abortion or gender procedures.

Since that version is different from the version backed by the House, lawmakers from both chambers would need to reconcile the differences in a conference committee and hold a floor vote on the compromise version.

DFLers control a one-seat majority over Republicans in the Senate, and they haven’t taken up a similar bill this year. It’s not clear if they have the votes to pass the more expansive ERA backed by House Democrats.

The last day for the Legislature to vote on any bills is Sunday.

Related Articles