MINNEAPOLIS — A lawsuit filed in federal court last Friday seeks to nullify Minnesota’s laws protecting access to abortion, arguing they violate the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Plaintiffs argue that the laws terminate parental rights without due process.

Women are not being informed about their rights when it comes to the procedure, the lawsuit alleges, resulting in thousands of “involuntary” abortions a year.

The lawsuit, filed by the Women’s Life Care Center, National Institute of Family and Life Advocates and several women who have had abortions, comes after Minnesota Democrats passed a law to protect abortion in the wake of Roe v. Wade being overturned and a 2022 court ruling overturned the state’s restrictions on abortion services, eliminating a mandatory 24-hour waiting period. In April 2023, the Minnesota Court of Appeals rejected an attempt to appeal the decision. 

The filing says Minnesota’s current abortion laws do not provide any due process protections or equal protection in the termination of the mother and child’s relationship.

Among those being sued are Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison; Gov. Tim Walz; Department of Human Services Commissioner Jodi Harpstead; Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota; Planned Parenthood North Central States; Red River Women’s Clinic and several other doctors and health officials.

“Minnesota has a legal and regulatory scheme implemented, administered, and enforced by various state officials, which delegates the state function of terminating a pregnant mother’s rights and interests in her relationship with her child to defendants…all of which have interests in direct conflict with those of the pregnant mother and the child she wants,” the lawsuit states.

The Minnesota Attorney General’s Office said it will respond to the lawsuit in court. 

The Department of Human Services said it does not comment on pending litigation.

WCCO has contacted the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates, Walz’s office and Planned Parenthood North Central States for comment but has not heard back.

“It’s about the women’s rights and what it comes down to, in short, is that some of the greatest rights mothers have in all of life are being destroyed. The complaint sets forth some of that,” Harold Cassidy, one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs, said in a statement provided to WCCO.

Women are terminating their pregnancies due to coercion or pressure, the lawsuit claims, and there needs to be more safeguards to ensure women are voluntarily getting the procedure, including a full court hearing and counseling beforehand that provides information on their rights and other available resources.

Three women who all say they are victims of abortions they did not want are also plaintiffs in the lawsuit. According to court documents, all women were pressured by the father of the child to have the procedure and allegedly did not receive counseling or assistance from their abortion providers.

The lawsuit demands abortion providers stop operating under “current post-repeal” abortion laws until there are laws in place that do not violate the 14th Amendment and ensure the patient completely understands the process.

“The basic argument in this suit is that they want to characterize an abortion as a termination of parental rights under constitutional law,” University of Minnesota law professor Jill Hasday said.

Pregnancy help centers

A big piece of the lawsuit includes the role of pregnancy help centers such as Dakota Hope Clinic and Women’s Life Care Center, two of the plaintiffs. The lawsuit claims these centers are “the protectors of the 14th Amendment rights of pregnant mothers,” and that the state is working with abortion providers to defeat “efforts to protect them.”

In August 2022, Ellison issued a consumer alert against crisis pregnancy centers, saying they “may pose as reproductive healthcare clinics despite not providing comprehensive reproductive healthcare to consumers,” and that pregnant women should instead consult with a licensed reproductive health care provider.

The consumer alert cited a study that found that more than 90% of pregnancy help centers do not have a licensed physician on staff and more than 95% do not provide prenatal or wellness care to pregnant women.

The lawsuit claims much of the alert contains inaccurate information and is harmful to the mothers’ rights and interests.

The lawsuit alleges that abortion providers have “waged war” against pregnancy help centers because the centers result in a loss of so-called abortion sales. It goes on to say that Minnesota’s abortion laws harm pregnancy resource centers’ financial, reputational and professional interests.

Abortion in Minnesota today

Abortion access is protected by a 1995 Minnesota Supreme Court decision and a state law guaranteeing a “fundamental right” to the procedure.

Minnesota officials have touted the state as a haven for abortion seekers and providers — having a “shield” law designed to protect people who come to the state for access and the doctors who provide the procedure. Additionally, the number of out-of-state abortion patients jumped from 9% in 2020 to 30% in 2023, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports abortion rights. 

In May, the Minnesota House passed the Equal Rights Amendment that protects “making and effectuating decisions about all matters relating to one’s own pregnancy or decision whether to become or remain pregnant.” That amendment goes before voters in 2026.

What’s next

University of Minnesota law professor Jill Hasday says she expects similar lawsuits to pop up in federal court going forward.

“For the anti-abortion movement, the overruling of Roe in 2022 isn’t the end, it’s the middle,” she said. “Their ultimate goal is to have abortion be illegal throughout the United States, either through federal legislation or through a federal court finding that abortion is inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution.”

Any ruling will take a while. Hasday says it could take months if not years for the case to move through federal district court.

“It’s very hard to predict the future, but my own prediction is that the suit is exceedingly unlikely to succeed, in part, because just of the many differences between abortion and involuntary termination of parental rights,” Hasday said. “Don’t see this case as this is the case that’s going to end legal abortion in Minnesota.”

HOYT LAKES, Minn. (Northern News Now) – A setback for plans to mine copper and nickel on the Range.

The Minnesota DNR is delaying a decision on NewRange’s NorthMet facility permit to mine until next summer.

The company, formerly PolyMet, has been pushing to mine copper and nickel just south of Babbitt for nearly 20 years.

In 2018, the DNR gave the company the green light to issue a permit to mine.

However, after pushback from environmental groups, the Minnesota Supreme Court reversed the permit in August 2023.

Now back in the DNR’s hands, the agency is mulling whether to reissue NewRange’s permit to mine in light of the company considering changes to its original mine plan.

The DNR announced on Monday it will delay a decision until August, which would mark a year from when NewRange said it planned to spend a year studying potential changes.

Environmental groups like Friends of the Boundary Waters are celebrating the decision to delay.

Executive Director for Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness Chris Knopf released the following statement after the decision:

“The people of Minnesota should be thrilled by DNR’s decision to pause the proceedings on PolyMet’s permit to mine. Months ago, when PolyMet, or NewRange Copper Nickel, announced it would look into changing its mine plan, it confirmed what we’ve known all along: the project is fundamentally flawed and cannot meet environmental standards.

We have been frustrated to see state agencies such as the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and Department of Natural Resources (DNR) spend millions of taxpayer dollars defending shoddy permits PolyMet now wants to revisit. PolyMet and these agencies have wasted public resources on a project that should never have been permitted in the first place.

We are happy to see DNR make the right decision to stop defending the indefensible. We hope that DNR will take additional steps to put Minnesota’s water first and throw out this dangerous mining proposal that, time and time again, has been shown to not meet legal or environmental standards.”

Northern News Now reached out to NewRange for comment but has not heard back.

Click here to download the Northern News Now app or our Northern News Now First Alert weather app.

Copyright 2024 Northern News Now. All rights reserved.