A Minnesota district court has ruled that some state laws restricting access to abortion violate the state constitution, a significant victory for abortion rights groups just weeks after the fall of Roe v. Wade.
On Monday, the court blocked the implementation of a 24-hour waiting period for abortion after a doctor’s consultation and a two-parent notification requirement for patients under 18, as well as an informed consent requirement. The ruling also found unconstitutional a mandate that only doctors can perform abortions, even those performed with medication, as well as a law requiring abortions after the first trimester to be performed in a hospital.
The court cited a 1995 state Supreme Court decision that found access to abortion a constitutional right.
“These abortion laws violate the right to privacy because they violate the fundamental right under the Minnesota Constitution to access abortion care and do not withstand strict scrutiny,” Ramsey County Circuit Judge Thomas Gilligan wrote in his ruling.
The decision comes after more than three years of litigation in a case brought by abortion rights groups that pushed to overturn more than a dozen abortion restrictions in one fell swoop. It can be appealed by the state, but the ruling appears to cement Minnesota’s status as a haven for abortion access in the Midwest after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down federal constitutional protections provided in Roe v. Wade. Neighboring states such as South Dakota and Wisconsin have different laws that prohibit abortion.
“With abortion bans in half the country set to take effect in the coming weeks and months, it’s more important than ever to use protections in state constitutions like Minnesota’s,” said Amanda Allen, director of the Lawyering Project and co -case counsel with the Minnesota legal non-profit organization Gender Justice. “Minnesota has the chance to be a safe place for people amid this national health crisis.”
The decision was quickly criticized by Republican lawmakers and groups opposed to abortion rights, who said the laws were modest measures that supported pregnant women.
“A lot of women were helped by these policies,” said Scott Fischbach, executive director of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, the state’s largest anti-abortion group. “Now they will be harmed because those protections have been taken away by an extremely flawed court decision that goes beyond Roe v. Wade.” This error must be corrected.’
Fischbach said previous U.S. Supreme Court decisions have upheld similar informed consent and parental notification laws. Republicans are already pressuring Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, whose office defended the state’s laws in court, to appeal the decision. Ellison, a first-term DFL attorney general facing re-election in the fall, has pledged to protect women traveling to Minnesota to seek abortion care.
The case was the world’s first major test since Roe v. Doe v. Gomez, a 1995 Minnesota Supreme Court decision that found access to abortion a constitutional right, going further than Roe v. Wade in ruling that it could be used and Medicare to pay for abortions for low-income women.
…
Add Comment