Minnesota GOP introduces three more bills to ban state funding for abortion
Monday, February 07, 2011 at 2:33 pm
Two weeks ago, Republican leadership in the Minnesota Senate introduced a bill to ban state funding for abortion, and on Monday, two more bills with identical language were introduced in the Senate and another in the Minnesota House.
The text of all three bills reads, “Funding for state-sponsored health programs shall not be used for funding abortions, except to the extent necessary for continued participation in a federal program.”
The bill also includes language that anticipate a court challenge. A ban on state funding for abortion has already been ruled unconstitutional in Minnesota in the case of Doe v. Gomez in 1995.
When the issue originally came up in late-January, reproductive rights advocates said the bill was a distraction.
“Minnesotans know that we have different views on issues like abortion, and even though we may not agree on all points, our state Constitution has made sure all women have had the right to choose for more than 15 years,” said Linnea House, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Minnesota. “The anti-choice lawmakers want to focus on this issue at the expense of our state’s other priorities. They are overstepping in trying to force an anti-choice agenda that weakens our state’s Constitution. The budget crisis is critical, which makes it even more unbelievable that some lawmakers are attacking choice.”
She added, “Making the option of abortion accessible to all women did not create a budget crisis. In fact, this is a distraction from the state’s priorities.”
The bills now have 41 sponsors — all Republicans — in the House and Senate combined.
SF 265 was introduced by Republican Sens. Al DeKruif of Madison Lake, Michelle Benson of Ham Lake, Sean Nienow of Cambridge, Benjamin Kruse of Brooklyn Park and Joe Gimse of Willmar.
SF264 was introduced by Republican Sens. Warren Limmer of Maple Grove, John Carlson of Bemidji, LeRoy Stumpf of Plummer, Julie Rosen of Fairmont, and Paul Gazelka, R-Brainerd.
HF391 was introduced by Republican Reps. Peggy Scott of Andover, Ron Shimanski of Silver Lake, Bob Dettmer of Forest Lake, Greg Davids of Preston, Mike LeMieur of Little Falls, Roger Crawford of Mora, Kathy Lohmer of Lake Elmo, Steve Drazkowski of Mazeppa, Mike Benson of Rochester, Bruce Anderson of Buffalo Township, Doug Wardlow of Eagan, King Banaian of St Cloud, Tony Cornish of Good Thunder, Joyce Peppin of Rogers, Mary Franson of Alexandria, Paul Anderson of Starbuck, Joe McDonald of Delano, David Hancock of Bemidji, Tim Sanders of Blaine, Kurt Daudt of Crown, Debra Kiel of Crookston, Rich Murray of Albert Lea, Paul Torkelson of Nelson Township, Rod Hamilton of Mountain Lake, Gene Pelowski of Winona and Mary Liz Holberg of Lakeville.
7 Comments
Comment posted February 7, 2011 @ 3:28 pm
I thought this sesion was going to be all about the budget and jobs. Way to stick to your promises gop.
Comment posted February 7, 2011 @ 3:30 pm
As has been said before and will continue to be said until these “leaders” (HA!!) are out of office: Jobs? The budget?
Comment posted February 7, 2011 @ 5:39 pm
Three additional bills? I guess the jobs are for the clerks writing out all these separate pieces of paper. All joking aside, Doe v. Gomez is a legal decision based on the inherent unfairness of denying poor women access to a legal medical procedure that is available to women of means. The MCCL feels comfortable going after the “choices” of poor women, because they’re unlikely to come to the capitol to make a big stink about it. This is economic discrimination, with women’s lives on the line. I’m disgusted.
Comment posted February 7, 2011 @ 9:17 pm
The State GOP are following in the footsteps of the GOP in Congress….Forget their pledge on jobs! Let’s do Social Issues instead!!!
People want Jobs!! They want to work!!!
Comment posted February 10, 2011 @ 10:59 am
Why not Republicans-you just need to outlaw the very thing that causes pregnancy. It would be a twofer-no abortions, no welfare, no food stamps. The religious right would approve, I am sure.
Comment posted February 15, 2011 @ 3:42 pm
Social conservatives rode in on the coattails of fiscal conservatism, but the problems of the state are irrelevant to them next to their agenda of religious persecution.
This is why religion and democracy do not mix. Rational arguments and the rights of others are no match for blind faith.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.







