Controversial reproductive privacy bill back at Capitol

(Sources: Minnesota Historical Society, Wikipedia)

A simple but powerful reproductive health bill is up for consideration in the Minnesota Legislature this year, and it has anti-abortion activists concerned. The Minnesota Reproductive Privacy Act (SF 115) states that the government has no business interfering with the constitutionally protected privacy rights set forth in Roe v. Wade. Anti-abortion advocates say this law would cripple their efforts to make abortion illegal, while reproductive rights proponents say this bill not only protects women’s privacy but also their lives.

The bill reads, in part: “The state may not deny or interfere with a woman’s right to choose to bear a child, to terminate a pregnancy before viability, to terminate a pregnancy after viability when termination is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman, or discriminate against the exercise of rights set forth in clause in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information.”

The Reproductive Privacy Act was introduced at the end of the 2007-08 session and did not leave committee. This year, the bill has the support of two contenders for the state’s top office. Presumed gubernatorial candidates Sens. John Marty and Tom Bakk are among the five coauthors. Sens. Scott Dibble, Sandy Pappas and Ellen Anderson are also authors.

Staunchly pro-life Gov. Tim Pawlenty is unlikely to sign such a bill should it reach his desk.

Anti-abortion groups say that could jeopardize their efforts to end abortion in Minnesota. “The Reproductive Privacy Act is a giant step backward in the effort to protect unborn children and their mothers from an aggressive, predatory and profit-driven abortion industry,” Scott Fischbach of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life told anti-abortion news outlet Lifesite.com. “Removing all limits on a deadly industry in decline is a stimulus package that Minnesotans don’t want.”

Supporters of the bill say that protecting privacy rights from government intervention is crucial to preventing the erosion of those rights — and preventing the deaths of women.

“The difference between a society with legal abortion and one without is not about the number of abortions performed, but is about the number of women’s lives saved,” said Linnea House, executive director of NARAL Pro Choice Minnesota. “The goal of this bill is to ensure that we continue to protect women’s lives.”

When reproductive health care is restricted, women pay the price, says House. “In countries without access to safe and legal reproductive health care, women suffer from infertility or die as a direct result of illegal, unsafe and unsanitary abortions. We also know that in countries where abortion is illegal, there is not always a decrease in abortion rates; there is, however, an increase in the number of women dying from unsafe medical procedures.”

The bill would make it more difficult for the state to continue waiting period laws or for reproductive health care workers with religious objections to decline to provide services.