Perhaps the most contentious political issue in the Minnesota Capitol remains abortion. And despite a budget deficit topping the legislative agenda, proponents of a woman’s right to choose and opponents of legalized abortion will be putting forward initiatives and playing politics to advance their causes in the coming months.
The divide doesn’t split neatly by party. Even with a DFL-dominated legislature, anti-abortion and pro-choice numbers are close, as many greater Minnesota DFLers side with Republicans on the issue. Perhaps no other issue could cause a DFLer to break ranks and vote against the re-election of House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher, but that’s what happened last week when DFL Rep. Mary Ellen Otremba from Long Prairie was the lone DFL objector because Kelliher is pro-choice and Otremba anti-abortion.
Pro-choice advocates see an opportunity this year to promote family-planning programs. Anti-abortion groups look to stop taxpayer funds for such initiatives and put controversial bills up for a vote.
Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life launches its legislative agenda each year at the March for Life at the Capitol on the anniversary of the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision which legalized abortion. Each year the event brings out big-name politicians. Last year featured Republican U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann. Democratic Reps. James Oberstar and Collin Peterson often send letters of support that are read to the gathered crowd. It’s rare that Gov. Tim Pawlenty doesn’t make an appearance.
This year, MCCL has an agenda that includes protecting Positive Alternatives, a state-funded program that helps women with unintended pregnancies find alternatives to abortion. The group says that the program has helped reduce the rate of abortion in the state. Supporters fear its funding might be cut in order to close the state’s budget deficit.
With little possibility of moving out of DFL-dominated committees, several other MCCL initiatives serve a different purpose: to embarrass pro-choice legislators in swing districts. A ban on saline abortions tops their agenda. This rarely used abortion technique has fallen out of favor with most physicians and constitutes 0.8 percent of procedures in the United States.
The bill to ban the procedure, which was introduced last session, didn’t make it out of committee. But the MCCL often cites votes against it, either in committee or if it makes it to a floor vote, in its campaign literature.
MCCL representatives declined to talk with the Minnesota Independent about the group’s legislative agenda or their take on what the session has in store for the anti-abortion movement.
On its Web site, the group claimed it had achieved “nearly all pro-life” goals in the 2008 elections, increasing the number of state legislators opposed to abortion and defeating pro-choice legislators.
Tim Stanley, senior director of government and public affairs for Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota, explained the strategy behind a bill such as a saline abortion ban:
“They use these to try and make legislators look bad. That’s been their agenda for some time. They offer these bills that have no chance of passing and then use the votes against opponents.”
And, despite a strong year for progressive voters, the strategy worked.
“They ran campaigns against [Rep.] Ken Tschumper [DFL-La Crescent] and [Rep.] Shelley Madore [DFL-Apple Valley] saying they took ‘19 votes to kill babies,’” said Stanley. “They make it difficult for people in close legislative districts.”
The MCCL Web site says the group targeted Tschumper and Madore because of their efforts to de-fund Positive Alternatives.
With a looming budget battle, fiscal issues will take priority in the politics of abortion. Planned Parenthood hopes to save the Prevention First Initiative, a state-funded program that provides family planning services as a tool to prevent abortion and unintended pregnancy. It’s a program signed into law in 2007 by Pawlenty, who is a strong supporter of MCCL.
“I give the governor credit for that one,” said Stanley. “I think the governor recognizes that you save money in the long term when you make an investment to prevent unintended pregnancy.” Stanley said programs like Prevention First save $4 in social services costs for every dollar spent.
With a budget battle in which leaders say “everything is on the table,” Stanley hopes to keep the program going. He says that 86 percent of the families and individuals have low incomes and are able to take advantage of the program at little or no cost.
For both sides, the Legislature is close. The Senate has a more pro-choice lean, while the House is closer with several DFLers whose commitment to either side is questionable and whose votes could make the difference. In short, the politics of abortion will remains highly contested in St. Paul.













9 Comments »
Comment posted January 13, 2009 @ 9:42 pm
There is massive evidence that the abortion rate does not change whether abortions are legal or illegal. The only thing that is different is that where abortion is illegal, women who get the abortions are injured, maimed or killed. Or is that what the “pro-lifers” are really after?
It’s not like the State is facing a major recession and deficits or anything. Can we please move on to important issues please?
Comment posted January 14, 2009 @ 7:38 am
Abortion is an important issue in regards to the economy. If we had more people there would be more of a demand for housing, food, services, etc. There would be more jobs to fill that need. There would be more people paying taxes – more people paying into Social Security. Instead we have destroyed the base for Social Security. (In Minnesota alone we have aborted 500,000 potential taxpayers) It was conceived on a pyramid plan and we as an “intelligent” nation have turned the pyramid upside down so less people are paying more than was ever intended. When are we as a nation going to wake up and realize we may have destroyed some potential scientists – who might have cured AIDS – or a composer, or artist or the next President of the United States.
Comment posted January 14, 2009 @ 2:32 pm
We are sick of the MCCL and Abortion politics being brought up each year. Good grief, if the pro-lifers were that concerned about abortion, why don’t those ass holes adopt some of the kids waiting for a permanent home and do something constructive for society? Why are these nut wings so busy sticking their noses in stuff that is none of their damn business? Funny that none of the pro-lifers that I know are willing to take in any kids that have mental, medical or emotional problems and give them a decent life. Just whine, whine, whine.
Comment posted January 14, 2009 @ 2:49 pm
“In Minnesota alone we have aborted 500,000 potential taxpayers.”
DianeR, your reasoning is seriously flawed in many ways. First of all, let’s look at statistics. In 2006, there were just over 14,000 abortions performed in MN. Of those, 5,020 cited economic reasons for the abortion, over 2,200 stated “other” including being a single parent of one or more children, a desire to finish high school/college, already have children and do not intend to have more, and relationship issues including abuse, separation, etc. Almost 1,600 women cited rape, incest, physical or emotional health, fetal anomalies, etc. as their reason. Those 1,600 abortions (roughly 11%) were all reasons that the vast majority of anti-abortion activists accept as viable reasons and do not wish to outlaw. So, of the roughly 12,400 women who obtained abortions for reasons other than those “acceptable” ones, roughly 7,200 of them listed reasons for abortion that imply that the woman simply could not afford to have more children or her home life is one that is, we will just say, not conducive to raising additional children in (i.e. abuse, still in high school/college, single parent with most probably limited income, etc.). This equates to roughly 58% of abortions performed in MN in 2006.
It is a probable assumption that these 58%, since citing economic and other reasons which can assume equate to a low economic status, would most likely rely upon state and local funding to RAISE the children that they would have had if MN did not have the abortion laws that it does. And, needless to say, raising a child is expensive. While I am most certainly not advocating for abortion as a means of decreasing government spending on low income womens’ families, you are in fact arguing the opposite and that reasoning is, looking at statistics and rational deductions from them, fundamentally flawed.
On the same note, look at the level of our education in this country. We rank 18th out of 24 nations studied in terms of education effectiveness, and in fact the rates of our education systems efficacy rate is steadily declining. Among adults, the US ranks 9th in relation to other industrialized nations in the share of its population that has at least a high school degree. Look at this data compared to what we, as a society, determine to be acceptable to spend on our education system. Our teachers are rank among some of the lowest paid in our society, and even with education women who hold university degrees make under 70% of what their male counterparts do.
DianeR, you should focus your time figuring out how to improve the health, education, and general welfare of those already in our society. By claiming that abortions actually financially cost our society by decreasing our population (and thus taxpayers) you have completely failed to acknowledge the fact that a substantial number of abortions performed would have, had they not been, reasonably contributed to increasing the number of people in our lowest socio-economic strata. Not to mention the numbers of women who would have possibly sunk further into low-income brackets by bearing offspring they could not afford. Our goals should be to encourage responsible family planning, including education our youth on sex education and making birth control accessible and affordable. This will increase our future contributions to society and our tax system.
Comment posted January 14, 2009 @ 4:43 pm
“We are sick of the MCCL and Abortion politics being brought up each year”.
Who’s “we”?
I am personally sick over the estimated 50 MILLION abortions performed since 1973.
Comment posted January 16, 2009 @ 4:47 pm
I’m sick of anti-choice “Democrats” like Otremba. Time to give that wingnut the boot.
Comment posted February 7, 2009 @ 5:36 pm
So abortion is not only good as a choice, but good also financially?
Pingback posted February 11, 2009 @ 9:55 am
[...] In 2008, he voted in support of a bill to allow state funding for stem cell research. He voted against a bill to prohibit any government funds from going to an organization that offers abortion. He voted against several overrides of Speaker of the House Margaret Anderson Kelliher when she deemed anti-abortion amendments not germane to certain bills. In other words, anti-abortion legislators put bills and amendments forward that had no chance of passing in order to use them against pro-choice legislators. [...]
Comment posted February 14, 2009 @ 2:39 pm
Should these no chance amendments actually help a pro choice legislator?
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
Leave a comment