Dems answer GOP’s four anti-abortion bills with Reproductive Privacy Act
Wednesday, February 23, 2011 at 10:00 am
- 13 Comments
Republicans in the Minnesota Legislature have offered four identical bills so far this session to ban state funds from going to abortion services. The DFL answered back with a bill of its own on Monday. The Reproductive Privacy Act would ensure that rights to birth control, legal abortion and the choice of carrying a pregnancy to term are protected.
The bill, HF646, reads:
(1) every individual has the fundamental right to choose or refuse birth control; (2) every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child or to choose and obtain an abortion before fetal viability or to terminate the pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman; and (3) the state shall not deny or interfere with a woman’s fundamental right to choose to bear a child or to choose to obtain an abortion.
It also says that state, county and local governments cannot discriminate against the right to reproductive health care. Government entities can’t:
(1) deny or interfere with a woman’s right to choose:
(i) to bear a child;
(ii) to terminate a pregnancy before viability; or
(iii) to terminate a pregnancy after viability when termination is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman; or
(2) discriminate against the exercise of rights set forth in clause (1) in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information.
The Republican bills would allow the state to discriminate, specifically to ban certain medical procedures from being paid for with state subsidized benefits — in this case abortion.
The DFL bill also contains a severability clause similar to the four bills that have been introduced to ban state funding for abortion; the clause states that if part of the bill is ruled unconstitutional, the rest should still stand. Experts have noted that the language in these bills is intended to trigger a lawsuit at the Minnesota Supreme Court level.
The legislators introducing the Reproductive Privacy Act are Reps. Jim Davnie of Minneapolis, Rena Moran of St. Paul, Jean Wagenius of Minneapolis, Dianne Loeffler of Minneapolis, Mindy Greiling of Roseville, and Frank Hornstein of Minneapolis.
The bill is identical to one that has been introduced in past sessions.
Linnea House of NARAL Pro-Choice Minnesota told the Minnesota Independent back in 2009 that the bill is important to preserving the safety of abortion services.
“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,” she said. “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.”
Follow Andy Birkey on Twitter13 Comments
Comment posted February 23, 2011 @ 10:43 am
What a novel idea…keep the government out of our lives. Abortion is a legal medical procedure and will remain so. Denying coverage to some is paramount to wealth descrimination. We can’t deny insulin to someone that eats McDonalds every day and gets diabetes just because they are on Medicaid or Medicare.
If you want the amount of abortions to go down, allow our children to be properly educated on sexuality. This includes birth control as well as abstinence.
Comment posted February 23, 2011 @ 12:11 pm
Ah, the American Taliban strike again. When our Constitution crosses their bible we the people loose. We may get smaller government along the way but at least our uteri will still be full.
Praise Jebus, God hates a strong independent woman, Amen.
Comment posted February 23, 2011 @ 3:46 pm
So it’s the Democrats want to preserve freedoms, keep the government out of the personal lives of individuals, and promote personal responsibility, whereas the Republicans want to remove freedoms and interfere with the personal lives of individuals by telling them what they can and can’t do.
Comment posted February 24, 2011 @ 6:46 am
The religious right want to control who gets pregnant and how, but will not take care up to the point of getting pregnant, will not fund taking care of the pregnancy, will not fund the birth there of, but will enforce even in life threatening situations on the mother, the saving of the child, and then when the child is born, will not take care of the child.
Then will try to enforce laws that include death in the penalty of any crime even that of the giving of the birth if there is cause to think they tried to stop not getting pregnant, or any other crime through out the life of the “birth” they supported.
pro-life, only in action of conception, after that, to be damned with everyone, and if I don’t like what you do in that life, I will kill you.
Lets also talk about the actual Lies Michelle Bachmann told? Thats ok too?
Comment posted February 24, 2011 @ 9:20 am
Really Dennis??? That’s the best you got??? Your employers will be disappointed in you. I don’t think you will get paid with posts like that last one.
Abortion is a legal medical procedure and will reamain so. There has been no arguments based on our constitution that have even come close to banning abortion. This attack on Planned Parenthood by the neo-cons is nothing more than wealth discrimination and a tactical maneuver to distract their constituents from the fact that they have done nothing to help our economy or to create jobs.
Bark, little dog Dennis, bark. Your masters have ordered you to do so!! You must please your masters!!!
Comment posted February 25, 2011 @ 6:33 am
“There has been no arguments based on our constitution that have even come close to banning abortion.”
The constitution is a document that identifies the limits of government. But all states have a law against murder, none of which have been ruled unconstitutional.
Comment posted February 25, 2011 @ 6:36 am
And John, what the hell is “wealth discrimination?” Do you even read what nonsense you write before you click the Submit Comment button? lol
Comment posted February 25, 2011 @ 6:46 am
Dennis is merely a fascist (fascism is defined as a nationalist and militarist political philosophy in which corporate and state power are merged).
Comment posted February 25, 2011 @ 1:25 pm
What a disgrace that it takes a state law to defend a right clearly reserved to the people. If the right to control one’s own body is not a right reserved to the people, then how can any right be professed as reserved to the people?
Comment posted February 25, 2011 @ 2:47 pm
How does abortion funding differ from faith based funding?
Answer: The “Hyde amendment” forbids the first. The Constitution forbids the second
Comment posted February 26, 2011 @ 6:01 pm
It’s not a “fundamental right” if someone else has to pay for it.
Comment posted February 27, 2011 @ 4:46 am
Dennis, does that mean I have to pay the judge and jury at my trial?
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
