A budget agreement being hammered out by Gov. Mark Dayton and Republicans in the Minnesota Legislature aimed at ending a state government shutdown came under fire from the state’s largest anti-abortion group over the weekend. Dayton and Republicans made an agreement late last week to resolve Minnesota’s budget impasse, in part by avoiding controversial social issues such as abortion and focusing on fiscal matters. A representative for Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life told reporters that he now questions the pro-life credentials of GOP leaders and told Republican legislators to vote no on any budget agreement that does not ban abortion.

In a veiled threat to Republicans, MCCL’s Scott Fischbach told Minnesota Public Radio that his group will be taking a second look at Republican leaders.

“We had operated under the assumption that we had pro-life leadership in both the House and the Senate. I think that there are many pro-lifers that are devastated now to the point of questioning some of that leadership,” he said. “And we’re going to have to address that down the road.”

Fischbach’s wife is one of those in leadership. Sen. Michelle Fischbach, R-Paynesville, is the president of the Minnesota Senate.

MCCL has pushed for a ban on certain types of stem cell research, a ban on abortion after 20 weeks gestation and a ban on the use of state subsidized health care for abortion procedures. Those measures were included in the Republican’s budget bills but were vetoed by Dayton in May.

Politics in Minnesota reported on Saturday that MCCL had also sent a letter to Republican legislators urging them to vote against the agreement being drawn up between Dayton and Republican leadership.

Already, abortion politics has been viewed as a partial cause of the government shutdown when Republicans included the controversial policies as part of negotiations a day before talks with Dayton failed and the state began a shutdown.

The Catholic church is also insistent that any budget solution include bans on abortion and some types of stem cell research.

Proposed bans on somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), a technique used in some forms of stem cell research, continue to wind their way through the legislative process as the debate over the provision has spread to the pages of newspapers statewide, mostly in opposition to the ban. Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL) has vociferously defended the ban and has attacked reporters it says have not gotten the facts right.

Currently, a ban on state and federal funding for SCNT is contained in the higher education omnibus bill that passed both the Minnesota Senate and the House, and a provision to make SCNT a crime is in the health and human services omnibus bill that awaits further debate.

In the Senate, the ban is being promoted by Sen. Michelle Fischbach (R-Paynesville), whose husband Scott Fischbach runs MCCL, an affiliate of the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC).

The American Council on Science and Health questioned the motives of those supporting the ban. The group cited a recent Minnesota Independent article that sorted out facts and myths surrounding the debate, particularly some assertions by MCCL that appear to muddle the facts surrounding the issue.

ACSH’s Dr. Gilbert Ross came up with some possible reasons for Sen. Fischbach’s motivation: “Well, she may not be intentionally trying to mislead the public — she may just be ignorant,” he quips. “When I read stories like this about legislators ruling on scientific issues, I realize why we have all of these bans of safe and useful products — because these people have no idea what they’re talking about. They get hundreds of letters from card-toting members of the NRDC, EWG and who knows which other fringe groups, saying, ‘We need to ban this chemical for the sake of our children!’ and then, lo and behold, the legislature votes to ban it. In this case, the Minnesota Senate has been presented with the science, and yet the majority are making the issue into a moral one, although if they listened to the science, they would know it’s not even a moral issue. There is neither a scientific nor a moral reason why you should be against SCNT. Embryos aren’t harmed in the process, and it provides a vast potential to treat illnesses that are currently incurable.”

Minnesota’s major media outlets have covered the ban this week. MCCL called the Star Tribune’s Wednesday feature on the issue “hopelessly confused,” said the paper was “terribly at fault for publishing” the article and added, “The reporter, Jenna Ross, is uneducated and obviously not qualified to be writing about this subject.” They offered the same criticism of a Pioneer Press article on Thursday.

The University of Minnesota held a press conference on Thursday with families who have been helped by stem cell therapy, and although no SCNT stem cell treatments have yet been used, the university asserted that it could and that efforts to curtail research could prevent future treatments.

“The authors of this bill are trying to confuse people into thinking stem cell research, that can save so many lives, is human cloning. It is not,” said Sherri Gunvalson, whose son has a fatal form of muscular dystrophy. “If they succeed in passing this horrible bill, it will be another step in an effort to ban stem cell research in the misguided belief that somehow this ban is pro-life.”

Following the press conference, MCCL put out a statement defending the bil:

“The stories of young people being helped by the University of Minnesota Stem Cell Institute are very compelling. All Minnesotans want cures to be found. It is important to note than none of the patients who shared their stories today were helped by human cloning. The legislation that is currently under consideration would in no way affect existing adult or embryonic stem cell research. The proposed ban on human cloning does one thing — it bans human cloning. Numerous countries across the globe have done the same thing, and the United Nations has also called for a ban on all forms of human cloning. We repeat our call for research to be done at the U of M that is ethical and life affirming.”

What MCCL leaves out is that the United Nations is currently reopening the debate on whether to ban the actual cloning of human beings while allowing SCNT, also called therapeutic cloning, to continue.

MCCL and Fischbach have rejected efforts to amend legislation to clarify the difference between reproductive cloning — the creation of a new human being through SCNT — and therapeutic cloning, which creates a low number of cells, for research.

As Sen. Ron Latz (DFL-St. Louis Park) notes in a recent press release, “Their so-called ban on cloning does nothing more than impose a very conservative religious definition of when life begins on the scope of scientific stem cell research in Minnesota.”

And the energy expended by the Legislature may be all for naught; MinnPost reported on Thursday that Gov. Mark Dayton is likely to veto any provision in the budget bills dealing with “human cloning” bans.

A ban on somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), a technique used in some forms of stem cell research, passed the House and Senate floors on Tuesday evening in a pair of higher education budget bills. The bills would prohibit state or federal funding from going toward SCNT stem cell research. The two bills are headed to conference committee, where the two bodies will hash out the parts of the bills that differ. Gov. Mark Dayton indicated in a letter to legislators that he would veto a bill that contained the stem cell bans, citing them as policy issues that don’t belong in budget bills.

In the House, Rep, King Banaian (R-St. Cloud) moved to amend the higher education bill with language banning SCNT, calling it “human cloning.”

“This is simply concerned with the funding of research into this. It is not an outright ban,” he said on the floor. “It does not ban a state institution doing it if it was able to find private funding to do so.”

In the Senate, the higher education bill was similarly amended in committee by Sen. Michelle Fischbach (R-Paynesville), whose husband, Scott Fischbach is executive director of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, which has lobbied for the ban.

DFLers on the Senate floor objected to the provision saying it would prevent important therapeutic research from happening in Minnesota.

“The effect of that would be very significant for our economy and jobs, and very significant for the potential to control or cure very sign diseases that affect all of our families,” said Sen. Ron Latz (DFL-St. Louis Park).

He said proponents of the bill weren’t being completely honest about its true motivations.

“It’s the agenda of [Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life] and the pro-life movement to move the line of where human conception begins,” said Latz. “I respect those who sincerely hold those beliefs, but we ought to be having it on terms that we understand that it’s not hiding behind scientific language when that’s not really what it’s doing.”

DFLers moved to amend the bill to have it ban the creation of human clones and to allow for therapeutic research.

Sen. John Marty (DFL-Roseville) said, “If you want to ban cloning but don’t want to stop the medical research, vote for the amendment, but don’t be pretending you want to do it because you want to ban human cloning.”

Those amendments were defeated.

Gov. Dayton wrote Senate Majority Leader Amy Koch on Tuesday stating that like his predecessor, Republican Tim Pawlenty, he would likely send back bills that contained “extraneous policy” proposals that didn’t relate to the budget.

And Dayton’s commissioner of higher education, Sheila Wright, specifically called out the stem cell ban in a letter to Republican leadership.

“Language regarding Human Cloning is moving in a separate bill and should continue to do so,” wrote Wright. “Any policy provisions not tied to the budget should be removed so we can focus on the budget.”

Sen. Michelle Fischbach, R-Paynesville, is adamant that a certain kind of stem cell research be banned. Her bill to criminalize somatic cell nuclear transfer was included in the health and human services omnibus bill currently under debate in the Senate, and she was successful in getting a weaker ban included in the higher education omnibus bill. The proposal has sparked a heated debate about whether the bill — and the testimony surrounding it — is misleading to the public on the topic of embryonic stem cell research. Republicans, however, have rejected an effort to clarify the debate.

A common refrain at a Senate Higher Education Committee hearing last week was “I’m not a scientist” as members debated Fischbach’s amendment to the higher education budget bill that would prohibit taxpayer funds for somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), a technique involved in some kinds of stem cell research. The amendment calls SCNT “human cloning,” which some members of the committee found problematic.

There are two kinds of cloning, committee members discussed. “Reproductive cloning” would involve the creation of a new human being — limbs, hair and all. “Therapeutic cloning” involves the creation of eight or so cells to be used to treat disease. The amendment, perhaps purposefully, does not make a distinction between these types:

No state funds or federal funds the state receives for state programs may be used to either support human cloning or to pay for any expenses incidental to human cloning. For purposes of this section, “cloning” means generating a genetically identical copy of an organism at any stage of development by combining an enucleated egg and the nucleus of a somatic cell to make an embryo.

Sen. Michelle Fischbach

Sen. Sandy Pappas (DFL-St. Paul) expressed the concern that it was misleading. “I think it would be helpful if we could all come to a consensus that we oppose reproductive cloning,” she said. “We can’t send the message out that we are anti-research in Minnesota, and by passing these laws that don’t have enough thoughtfulness. Why do we want to ban therapeutic cloning? The therapeutic use of cells to treat disease?”

She added, “Let’s come up with a clear definition for human cloning.”

Sen. Kathy Sheran (DFL-Mankato) tried to do that with an amendment to Fischbach’s amendment to make clear that the law would ban both therapeutic cloning and reproductive cloning, but Fischbach and the panel’s Republicans were having none of it.

“I think we are really in danger of confusing the public about the difference between human cloning using stem cells for the creation of another human being and stem cells used for therapeutic purposes,” said Sheran. “They are very different and very separate, and this rolls them all in together and confuses the public into thinking this is all about human cloning when it isn’t.”

Fischbach said, “I think ‘human cloning’ is pretty clear.”

Sheran responded, “I know from your perspective it is, but we have heard testimony that there is a distinct difference between reproductive cloning and therapeutic cloning. It ought to be clear that your intent is to prohibit both, otherwise you will serve to create confusion in the public.”

Despite that plea, the amendment failed.

No scientists in the room

The science of SCNT was clearly an obstacle for just about everyone at the hearing. Pappas advised Fischbach, “You have to explain the biology here of what’s going on.”

But Fischbach couldn’t. “I will have to look that up. That’s beyond my scientific ability.”

Pappas shot back, “Mr. Chair, that’s our problem here today.”

Sen. Ron Latz (DFL-St. Louis Park) complained, “If we had a scientist here, if we had proper notice, some of these questions could be answered directly.”

With that the committee turned to Jordan Bauer of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, which is pushing for the ban. “I am, unfortunately, not a scientist,” she said.

She did accurately explain the process of SCNT, however — something that didn’t happen in earlier committee hearings. In the Health and Human Services committee on Mar. 15, MCCL representative Andrea Rau discussed SCNT:

What they were trying to get at with human cloning research was to be able to create various tissues and they have new found others ways to do that without cloning. Now, what this language [in the bill] talks about, it’s very specific, it refers to only the cloning of human embryos. Once you have a human embryo, you know, if you were going to try to derive some kind of tissue, you would have to grow that embryo. If you wanted to grow a heart then, you’d have to grow the embryo and have the whole thing grow, the whole body and then harvest the heart, now I don’t think anyone here would think that was appropriate, but that’s the only thing you could do with it if you were trying to get a heart from it.

The Minnesota Independent ran that statement by several researchers, none of whom had heard of such a process, let alone of anyone attempting it.

“No one is trying to do that,” Don Gibbons, spokesman for the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, told the Minnesota Independent. “I’ve never heard of anything like that. All organizations that support SCNT strongly oppose anything that would result in the implantation in a uterus,” the only way an embryo could grow large enough to harvest organs.

“SCNT is used to create new stem cells,” he added.

MCCL responded to a question by the Minnesota Independent asking for clarification. The spokesperson asked not to be quoted, but stood by the organization’s statement.

Pro-life versus science?

“The fact that it’s the MCCL that’s here testifying on this bill tells us a lot about the motivation of this bill. This is the pro-life movement trying to move the envelope based in large part on religious belief,” said Sen. Latz. “I think it’s a broader debate than we’ve had. I think we ought to be honest and candid about what’s on the table here and not pretend what’s going on here despite testimony that doesn’t specify that.”

He continued, “I respect that religious belief, but ennobling it in state statute is a different question, and doing it without notice and opportunity to be heard by everyone who might be concerned about this… that’s terrible.”

Dr. John Wagner

MCCL hasn’t been shy about its opposition to “human cloning,” but the motivation appears to be the fact that an eight-cell unfertilized embryo is created in SCNT research and that the group considers such an eight-cell embryo human life and worth protecting from destruction.

The group, which is run by Sen. Fischbach’s husband, Scott, distorted the position of leading stem cell researchers to make their case. In every committee where MCCL representatives have testified, they’ve cited world-renowned stem cell researchers Drs. Rudolf Jaenisch and Ian Wilmut.

“Leading researchers and scientists, including Ian Wilmut who cloned Dolly the sheep, and many others have turned away and against human cloning even for so called therapeutic purposes,” said MCCL’s Bauer at one committee meeting. “Ten years ago there was a lot of discussion about human cloning,” MCCL’s Rau said at another committee meeting. “They’ve tried that and, like Jaenisch and like others, they are continually turning away from that.”

But that’s not the whole story.

Dr. John Wagner of the University of Minnesota Stem Cell Institute talked directly to the researchers about their positions.

He told the committee, “When [Jaenisch and Wilcut] make statements that they are against cloning, they are talking about reproductive cloning not SCNT.”

“I am sure that it is no one’s intention to speak incorrectly about the science,” said Wagner. “I did call Dr. Wilmut on Saturday and Dr. Jaenisch, who was brought up, and they support my position entirely despite what you have heard. It’s misunderstanding what they are saying. They agree with the ban on reproductive cloning but not SCNT. There is certainly no question that there should be a ban on reproductive cloning.”

Sen. Fischbach and MCCL have cited a United Nations declaration numerous times in committee hearings as an example of international agreement on banning “human cloning,” but the UN declaration is nonbinding and the international body working on changing its position to allow the very research that Fischbach wants banned in Minnesota.

The Senate Higher Education Committee on Wednesday adopted an amendment by Sen. Michelle Fischbach, R-Paynesville, that would prohibit state or federal money from going to somatic cell nuclear transfer, a type of embryonic stem cell research, in Minnesota. A broader bill, which would criminalize that type of stem cell research, awaits a vote on the Senate floor. The full omnibus bill passed out of key committees on Thursday and has moved to the Senate floor for a full vote.

The amendment offered by Sen. Fischbach to the higher ed bill states:

No state funds or federal funds the state receives for state programs may be used to either support human cloning or to pay for any expenses incidental to human cloning. For purposes of this section, “cloning” means generating a genetically identical copy of an organism at any stage of development by combining an enucleated egg and the nucleus of a somatic cell to make an embryo.

The higher ed bill with the SCNT ban passed the Senate Higher Education Committee on a party line vote on Wednesday.

Sen. Terri Bonoff, DFL-Minnetonka, told the Senate Finance Committee Thursday, “We want to be a leader on research and development and to have this provision in here will curtail our ability to do that research. It’s a pretty sweeping thing that’s been put in this bill.”

The bill passed the finance committee and will now head to the Senate floor.

The watchdog group Americans United for the Separation of Church and State sent a letter to Minnesota Senate leadership Monday warning the chamber that Pastor Dennis Campbell‘s prayer last week was unconstitutional. Addressed to Senate President Michelle Fischbach, Majority Leader Amy Koch and Minority Leader Tom Bakk, the letter also urged the leaders to either refrain from allowing prayers in the Senate or to ensure that if it continues to do so it does in a way that respects other traditions.

The letter — which was signed by Ayesha N. Khan, Americans United’s legal director; Gregory M. Lipper, the group’s litigation counsel; and staff attorney Ian Smith — stated that numerous courts have ruled the type of prayer that Campbell gave, one that quotes Christian scripture and invokes Jesus Christ, unconstitutional.

“Pastor’s Campbell’s prayer was unconstitutional because it was sectarian and proselytizing,” the letter states. “The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Constitution permits prayers at the beginning of legislative sessions if those prayers do not contain language or symbols specific to one religion.”

The letter, which cites reporting by the Minnesota Independent, goes on to state that several lower courts have allowed even broader leeway than the Supreme Court, and the type of prayer given by Campbell was of the sort that those lower courts have ruled against.

“Pastor Campbell’s prayer was unconstitutional even under the more permissive standard adopted by” other courts, wrote the attorneys.

The letter concluded, “Because the Senate is designed to represent all Minnesota citizens, regardless of faith, we urge you to refrain from opening future sessions with any type of prayer. If the Senate does continue open meetings with prayers, however, the Constitution requires you to ensure that they do not advance any particular religion.”

The prayer raised the ire of non-Christian senators and departed from longstanding tradition that allowed clergy from different faiths to offer prayer so long as the prayer is inclusive of all senators’ beliefs. Over the weekend, Campbell addressed those concerns, especially by Jewish lawmakers who commented, stating that he wasn’t “seeking to offend anybody but seeking to show respect for Jesus Christ, the creator, redeemer, savior and one day our judge, and we know the founders of the constitution were very supportive of Jesus Christ and the Bible.”

The letter, which appears below, echoes sentiments shared with the Minnesota Independent last week by Rob Boston, senior policy analyst at Americans United:

2011-03-21-minnesota-senate –

Committees in both the Minnesota Senate and House passed a bill this week that would criminalize the somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) process in embryonic stem cell research as well as prohibit the products of that research from entering the state of Minnesota. Despite expert testimony that the bill would hamper medical research in Minnesota, it passed three key committees this week.

The Senate’s Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety heard the bill on Thursday.

John Wagner, professor of pediatrics at the University of Minnesota and the Stem Cell Institute, said the bill would harm research at the university. He also implied that the bill’s title, The Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2011, was misleading.

There are two kinds of uses for SCNT, he told the committee: one is to create a living, breathing human clone, also called “reproductive cloning,” and another is to use SCNT for “therapeutic cloning” to create stem cell treatments for treating disease. Wagner said that no one is trying to create whole human beings with the reproductive cloning, but many researchers are using SCNT to create stem cells for medical purposes.

“Human cloning should be prohibited. Everyone is in complete agreement with that,” Wagner told the committee. “However, there is language in here that could be construed that this is also prohibiting embryonic stem cell research. And that’s the part that I think we need to make very clear.”

Sen. John Marty (DFL-Roseville) asked Fischbach if she would approve an amendment to protect the medical research uses of SCNT. “I’m willing to work on an amendment to try and limit it to banning reproductive cloning and to protect stem cell cloning,” he said. “If that’s not the intent I’d just be wasting time.”

“The intent off the bill is to ban human cloning,” Fishbach responded. “I think what the doctor was describing in very scientific terms was either you clone a human to make a baby and implant it into a women or you clone a baby to use it in experiments”

She added, “I think what we are trying to do here is to prevent a human from being created for experiments and reproduction.”

Dr. Wagner indicated that that was not quite accurate. “None of us are creating a baby. Once you insert a nucleus in to that oocyte you get an embryo,” he said. “The intent is not to create a baby, the intent is to create an embryo. I think it comes down to what you think an embryo is. We are talking about eight cells here.”

Wagner added that the University of Minnesota currently does not use the SCNT technique and does not create new embryos; instead researchers use embryonic stem cell lines created in different states and countries. He said there was concern, however, that the bill would ban the importation of cells and products created by SCNT in Minnesota and that it would impact the university’s research.

But according to testimony by Andrea Rau of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, much of the bill may not matter because the type of research the group is trying to ban is already illegal.

“It is already not allowed under Minnesota law,” said Rau, citing laws related to “human conceptus.”

“If it’s already unlawful then I don’t see why we need this legislation,” Marty said. “Then this is not to stop a cloned human being, this is to stop research into cures for Parkinsons, ALS and other diseases.”

The University of Minnesota provided legislators with a fact sheet that calls the bill a “law to make stem cell research a crime.” The university also created a website to oppose the bill.

Its author, Sen. Michelle Fischbach, said the penalties for such research under the bill have been reduced from a felony charge to a misdemeanor. Fischbach is the wife of Scott Fischbach, the executive director of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, a group that is working to draft and pass the bill.

The bill passed the committee by a 8-5 vote on Thursday. And on Tuesday, the bill passed the Senate Health and Human Services Committee. The House Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety passed it by a voice vote on Tuesday as well.

Members of the Republican leadership in the Minnesota Senate have introduced legislation to ban state funding for abortions, just weeks after saying that creating jobs and fixing the budget deficit would be the party’s top priorities. The bill was offered on the eve of Minnesota Citizens Concerned For Life’s (MCCL) March for Life at the State Capitol grounds.

The bill, SF103, states, “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 legislation is a reaction to a 1995 Minnesota Supreme Court case, Doe v. Gomez, which said that if the state offers pregnancy services to low-income women it cannot discriminate between which procedures it offers, and the bill anticipates a constitutional challenge.

“If any one or more provision, section, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this section or the application of it to any person or circumstance is found to be unconstitutional,” the bill reads, “it is declared to be severable and the balance of this section shall remain effective notwithstanding such unconstitutionality.”

MCCL, the state’s largest anti-abortion group has been sharply critical of the 1995 ruling. “The Doe v. Gomez ruling by a handful of extremist judges has been disastrous for Minnesota women and their babies,” Scott Fischbach, MCCL’s executive director, said in a statement.

Fischbach’s wife, Sen. Michele Fischbach of Paynesville, is President of the Senate and cosponsor of the bill. Another GOP leader, Majority Leader Amy Koch, has signed on to cosponsor the bill, a move that contrasts her previous statements about making jobs a priority.

“There’s a lot of important issues and we will get to them. But the priority now is the budget, jobs, and the economy,” Koch told MPR just before the legislative session started.

Sen. David Hann of Eden Prairie, who serves as Assistant Majority Leader and chair of the Health and Human Services Committee, is also a cosponsor of the bill. It has been referred to his committee.

The other sponsors of the bill are freshman Sen. Dave Thompson, R-Lakeville, and Sen. Claire Robling, R-Jordan, who is also chair of the Finance Committee.

Reproductive rights groups assailed the introduction of the bill.

“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 bill’s Friday introduction was timed to precede Saturday’s March for Life, an MCCL event that brings about a 1,000 people to the Capitol to rally against abortion each year.

Saturday’s event drew the support of Minnesota’s Republican members of Congress as well as DFL Rep. Collin Peterson.

Rep. John Kline told the crowd that health reform legislation contained taxpayer funding for abortion. “You know that that awful legislation has language allowing taxpayer funding of abortion,” he said.

Despite Kline’s claim, independent fact-checkers, including FactCheck.org and Politifact, have frequently ruled “false” the that statement health care reform would pay for abortions.

Rep. Erik Paulsen said, “There is nothing more important than life,” while Rep. Michele Bachmann told the crowd, “We
can zero out that checking account with the stroke of a pen!” Rep. Chip Cravaack said, “This is just the start of a year dedicated to promoting and protecting a culture of life.”

Rep. Collin Peterson sent a written greeting to the rally. “I look forward to working with you over the next year as we continue to protect life for all human beings,” he said.

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.

Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s announcement earlier this month that he will not seek a third term has unleashed a political gold rush among Republican politicians in the state. Minnesota’s current political landscape includes an eye-popping 18 declared and possible gubernatorial contenders. With the list of Democratic contenders also reaching well into double digits, it promises to be one of the most wide-open gubernatorial campaigns in decades.

And if the slate of Democratic candidates was difficult to assess, the outlook for the GOP contenders is even more difficult to size up. With Pawlenty dominating the state party over the last six years, and the Republicans out of leadership in both legislative bodies since 2006, there are few household names in the bunch. In addition, the candidate that many political observers thought to be the odds-on favorite — businessman Brian Sullivan, who narrowly lost the GOP nomination to Pawlenty in 2002 — has announced that he’ll be sitting this contest out.

The Republicans’ endorsing convention is not until at least May of next year and by then the list of challengers will have undoubtedly been whittled down significantly. With Democrats holding all the down-ballot statewide posts, some of these contenders will likely turn their attention to those offices. But here’s a look at the emerging field for 2010.

Definitely in: Former Minnesota State Auditor Pat Anderson, former state Rep. Bill Haas, state Rep. Paul Kohls and House Minority Leader Marty Seifert.

Rep. Marty Seifert

Pat Anderson

Anderson and Seifert probably start out with better name recognition than any of the other contenders in the GOP field. The former is the only gubernatorial candidate to have previously won a statewide contest, but failed in her re-election bid for state auditor in 2006 in a tough year for the GOP. She’s since landed at the Minnesota Free Market Institute.

Anderson sees a change in the GOP base that has its roots in the 2006 Ron Paul presidential campaign, and that will influence the endorsement process. “It is a true libertarian Republican movement, and they’re changing the party,” she said in an interview. “There’s less discussion about social issues and more discussion about the Constitution.”

Seifert is still a relatively fresh face at age 37, but has more than a decade of experience at the state legislature, including two sessions as House minority leader. The Republican from Marshall earned notice for his cool-headed, if often caustic, opposition to the DFL majority.

Rep. Paul Kohls

Kohls is also among a cadre of prominent, young GOP legislators seeking to emerge as a statewide leader of the party. The Republican from Victoria figures Sullivan’s decision to stay on the sideline has made the race even more wide open. But he still believes the field will be winnowed down before next year’s state convention.

“I fully expect that some people will get in and not be able to raise money or generate support and will quickly get out,” he said. “I don’t think people can defer starting to raise money very long because it’s going to take some money just to put an organization together and get started.”

Former Rep. Bill Haas

Haas brings an impressive resume — 10 years in the legislature; two terms as mayor of Champlin — but has been out of the political spotlight for three years. He’ll need to ramp up his name recognition if he hopes to be a factor, but believes his status as something of an outsider could be a positive with voters. Haas said in an interview that he made the decision to run more than a year ago, dependent on whether Pawlenty bowed out.

“I’ve been watching the process and staying informed,” he said of the goings-on at the Capitol. “Minnesota is really sitting at a point now where we need to grow the economy. The backbone of our economy is small business owners and they’re hurting.”

Likely in: State Reps. Laura Brod and Morrie Lanning, state Sens. David Hann, Paul Koering and Geoff Michel, former House Majority Leader Speaker of the House Steve Sviggum and former Pawlenty Chief of Staff Charlie Weaver.

Sen. Steve Sviggum

Of this group Sviggum and Weaver are probably the best-known commodities. The former served as House Majority Leader Speaker of the House when Republicans controlled the house and has since joined the Pawlenty administration as commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry. The Kenyon Republican hasn’t officially entered the gubernatorial fray, but he’s made his interest no secret.

“I’ll do a little exploration, talk to some friends and some family over the next few days or a couple of weeks and see where it leads us,” Sviggum told Minnesota Public Radio earlier this month.

Charlie Weaver

Weaver also brings experience at multiple levels of state government. He spent almost a decade at the Capitol as a legislator, before unsuccessfully running for attorney general. Weaver then went on to serve as commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety during Jesse Ventura’s administration and as Pawlenty’s chief of staff. Currently he heads the Minnesota Business Partnership. Weaver isn’t quelling speculation that he’ll run.

“I am considering and will spend the summer looking at it very seriously,” he said. “No. 1, obviously, is my wife has to say ‘yes.’”

Weaver says the ability to raise large amounts of money will be important, noting that two prominent Democratic candidates, Matt Entenza and Mark Dayton, can utilize significant personal wealth in the contest.

Rep. Laura Brod

Sen. David Hann

Brod and Hann are among the Republican legislators who took up a more prominent leadership role in the just-completed legislative session. Both are seriously considering the gubernatorial contest, but could also be attractive options for down-ballot posts. The latter has stepped down from his leadership position in the state senate in order to test the waters, but hasn’t made his candidacy official.

“I don’t have a time-line,” Hann said of making a decision. “I’d like to come to a conclusion about that relatively quickly.”

Rep. Morrie Lanning

Lanning also confirms that he’s seriously considering the race. He’s in his fourth term at the legislature after serving as the mayor of Moorhead for 22 years.

“I’ve been very encouraged in the support I’ve been getting from around the state,” he says. “But I recognize it’s a big hill to climb.”

Sen. Paul Koering

Koering would face a unique hurdle if he decides to seek the GOP endorsement. As an openly gay legislator, many GOP activists would find his candidacy untenable. Nonetheless Koering said that he will abide by the endorsement if he ultimately decides to run. He also touts his out-state bona fides as a significant plus in a field dominated by metro-area legislators.

In the ether: Former U.S. Sen. Norm Coleman, state Rep. Tom Emmer, state Sen. Michelle Fischbach, Minnesota Chamber of Commerce President David Olson, former U.S. Rep. Jim Ramstad and businessman Mike Vekich.
How politically tainted will Coleman be after the never-ending U.S. Senate battle with Al Franken? Several polls have indicated that Minnesotans have lost patience with his court battle. While the GOP base may be thankful to Coleman for his persistence in preventing the Democrats from establishing a filibuster proof majority in Washington, D.C., the general public is unlikely to welcome another campaign.

Ramstand faces the opposite problem. The popular former legislator would likely be formidable in a general election but is unlikely to have much cache with the GOP base.

Emmer is a conservative firebrand who loves to stir the pot. He’d at least be a wildcard in any endorsement contest.

Vekich made a bid for governor in 2002, but bowed out when it became apparent that he couldn’t win the GOP nomination. Nonetheless he’s made noises about another bid.

Next Monday: A look at the potential Green and Independence party fields.

Earlier: Who’s in for 2010: Democrats eyeing the governor’s mansion