Reproductive rights groups anticipate tough legislative session
Thursday, December 16, 2010 at 9:07 am
- 9 Comments
Advocates for reproductive rights are concerned that new socially conservative leadership in the Minnesota Legislature could curtail those rights in the upcoming biennium. While Republicans, who’ll control both houses come January, say that jobs and the economy will come first, there’s little doubt that they’ll also press for restrictions on abortion within the next two years — especially with Sen. Michele Fischbach as President of the Senate. Fischbach’s husband, Scott, is the executive director of Minnesota’s largest anti-abortion group, Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life.
Tim Stanley, senior director of government public affairs at Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, said that his group will be playing defense. “The social conservatives have taken over the Senate and its leadership. Now they dominate both legislative bodies and have the ability to set the agenda,” he said. “Because they are in power and can set the agenda, this changes the dynamic and tools they have at their disposal. We are committed to protecting the hard-won gains of Minnesota women and families in the year ahead.”
In other states, including Colorado, North Dakota and South Dakota, social conservatives have tried constitutional amendments to grant “personhood” status to fertilized eggs. Stanley said such an effort would go too far in Minnesota.
“I think any legislation or constitutional amendment that broad that would affect literally thousands of Minnesota laws and put the government, lawyers and courts in the personal lives of Minnesotans and goes much too far,” he said.
Linnea House of NARAL Pro-Choice Minnesota said there are several efforts she thinks anti-abortion forces like MCCL will try to put forward.
“They have so many things in their arsenal to use — starting with an outright ban on certain types of abortion procedures (saline abortions have been a favorite target in the past) to banning abortion insurance coverage in the still- to-be-developed health care exchanges, to preventing any state funding to go to organizations that provide, refer or support abortions, to overturning the Doe v. Gomez case, which provides funding for abortions for women on Medicaid,” she said.
Some of these initiatives could come in the form of a constitutional amendment, she said, which would bypass Gov.-elect Mark Dayton, who opposes abortion restrictions.
“While all this is frightening, this last one, or the ‘Taxpayer Protection Act’ is incredibly troubling, as it could be offered as a constitutional amendment,” she said.
House said that pro-choice initiatives will likely go nowhere in the upcoming session: “Of course, any forward momentum on getting comprehensive sexuality education will be stalled out over the next year, and we’ll probably see an increase in funding and policies for abstinence-only education. And programs that prevent unintended pregnancies will also probably see decreases in funding due to the budget deficit.”
Ultimately, Stanley hopes that the GOP will focus on jobs in the next biennium. “I’m sure they know – like we do – that this election was not about abortion or women’s health. It was an election that revolved around the economy, jobs and change. In tough economic times Planned Parenthood needs to be supported to serve the women and families that count on us for critical, life saving care.”
House echoed those sentiments. “I’m going to be working hard to hold our elected officials accountable for their recent statements — that this election was about jobs and the economy and not social issues,” she said. “They need to hear from their constituents time and again that we are watching them and expect them to tackle the huge issue at hand, and not act as if they have a mandate from Minnesotans to strip away the rights of women in Minnesota.”
She added, “I will also be working hard to expose any and all anti-choice activities as the extremist agenda it is — and hope to educate a lot of people that we do have a lot to lose in the next two years, and then a lot of work to do to change the tides in 2012.”
Sen. Fischbach told MPR she won’t try to use her new position as a launching pad for her husband’s anti-abortion group. “It’s no big secret that I’m pro-life. And I think that most of our elected senators or our incoming senators are pro-life, and I think that there’s probably a majority in the Senate,” Fischbach said. “So, I don’t see it as a problem or should be a concern for anybody.”
MCCL did not return the Minnesota Independent’s request for comment on the upcoming session.
Follow Andy Birkey on Twitter9 Comments
Comment posted December 16, 2010 @ 3:23 pm
Pawlenty was not shy with the veto pen, now it is up to Dayton to use that same tool to defend our rights from the tyrants of conservatism.
Comment posted December 16, 2010 @ 6:03 pm
Zera, don’t forget it’s also up to all of us that are pro-choice to stand up and be counted. We need to shout louder than those who don’t trust women and to campaign smarter. Our worst enemy isn’t republicans or the religous zealots, it’s our own apathy.
Comment posted December 16, 2010 @ 8:07 pm
Conservatives want smaller Government and complain about the intrudsion of Government in our personal lives at the same time.
But when it comes to Sexual matters, Conservatives want Government to dictate who gets funding and who does not when it comes to Sex Education and preventing pregnancy. Yet they want Government to intrude into a woman’s Uterus to make sure there is a developing fetus and by God, there should be no way to empty said Uterus.
Promote the use of Birth Control in preventing pregnancy and improving the opportunities of young women to make sound decisions. The less unplanned pregnancies takes place, that is less abortions.
Comment posted December 16, 2010 @ 8:20 pm
What always amazes me about these pro-lifers and usually Republicans/Tea Party/Religious Conservatives is that they raise holy hell about the unborn and their right to be born and want government involved in those efforts. But once the kids are born, it’s pretty much to hell with ‘em if they happen to be born into a family with no health care or very limited access to health care. In this case, life becomes a question of how much money you have and they’re fine with that. (Kinda weird in a way these folks would actually call themselves pro-life. I would assume that would apply to all human life – young, middle age or old. Obviously it doesn’t for them.)
I’ve actually listened to some conservative talk radio and these folks don’t hold back. When pressed, they will actually say if you don’t have health care you should simply die. It doesn’t matter if you’re a kid or old or anything. Just get it over with and die. It’s your responsibility and your own fault you can’t pay for your treatment. But again, when it comes to the unborn – bring out the National Guard.
Then there’s the question of “What would Jesus think about all this?” After all, he is a pretty central character in the whole Christianity thing and Christian Values thing isn’t he? I would think he would be pretty pro-life all the way around especially if the deciding factor centered around money and corporate profits.
Comment posted December 16, 2010 @ 9:33 pm
Kevin – it helps ease the mental disconnect if you stop calling them pro-lifers and instead call them anti-choicers. They are not really interested in the life of a fetus in a larger sense, they are only interested in taking the reproductive choices away from women.
Pingback posted December 17, 2010 @ 1:07 pm
[...] in many states, pro-choice organizations in Minnesota gear up to fight anti-abortion agendas in the 2011 legislative session. Tweet var [...]
Comment posted December 17, 2010 @ 3:08 pm
Alie, The time to stand up and be counted was last November. I have no expectation that the republicans will listen to those who challenge their ideology, let alone change their minds even in the face of overwhelming opposition.
They will say anything, do anything, betray any principle to have their way. Their position is based on religious belief, not reason. It is not open to debate or negotiation. At this point, only the courts and the veto pen stand in their way. This is what the courts and the veto are for.
The Constitution forbids a religious litmus test, but the republicans require it. Until the republican party returns to embracing the Constitution instead of hiding behind it, the country will remain in great turmoil.
“I esteem it above all things necessary to distinguish exactly the business of civil government from that of religion and to settle the just bounds that lie between the one and the other. If this be not done, there can be no end put to the controversies that will be always arising between those that have, or at least pretend to have, on the one side, a concernment for the interest of men’s souls, and, on the other side, a care of the commonwealth.”
John Locke
Comment posted December 20, 2010 @ 1:05 pm
These Tea Bag Republican Nutballs care as much about ‘Life’ as they do the National Debt..
THEY DON”T CARE!!
Unless it’s used as a political wedge to get their voters out of the trailer park and to the voting polls..
Comment posted December 21, 2010 @ 2:23 pm
I shall repeat what I wrote on the post about Republicans voting down the child marriage prevention bill: “If you’re a pre-born girl, you’re worthy of protection. If you’re a post-born girl facing a life of rape and abuse (aka “child marriage”), you’re out of luck.” In Minnesota, if you’re a post-born girl hoping for the tools to negotiate a healthy and safe sexual life, well…..you’re out of luck, too.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
