Doe v. Minnesota:
Our first hearing in the case against Minnesota’s abortion restrictions
Yesterday Gender Justice, along with co-council the Lawyering Project, and plaintiffs First Unitarian Society of Minneapolis and Our Justice, a Twin Cities-based abortion fund, had our first hearing in the Doe v. Minnesota case to remove the abortion restrictions here in this state.
In Minnesota, we have a long history of being leaders in health care. And, we care about our neighbors – we trust them to make their own decisions about the direction of their lives. We value the health of our communities and our independence.
THE LAWS THAT WE’RE SPEAKING OUT AGAINST TODAY – AND WITH THIS LAWSUIT – GO AGAINST THOSE FUNDAMENTAL MINNESOTA VALUES.
More than that, they go against the Minnesota Constitution, which protects not only the right to have an abortion, but the right to decide to have an abortion without the government interfering that decision. In 1995, these basic rights to privacy and personal decision-making were upheld by the Minnesota Supreme Court, in a case called Doe v. Gomez.
And yet, anti-abortion politicians have been quietly chipping away at our rights for years. They’ve managed to pass laws that aren’t supported by the medical community, and don’t advance patient health or safety. Instead, they’re politically motivated measures designed to restrict access, intimidate providers and patients, and increase cost.
Minnesota’s abortion restrictions are medically unnecessary and legally untenable. We’re confident the court will once again uphold the state constitution’s promise of reproductive freedom and abortion rights, and unrestrict Minnesota once and for all.
We are in this case for the long haul. Yesterday’s hearing is really just the beginning of what will likely be a years’ long process to get these 13 unnecessary and unconstitutional laws off the books.
Pro-Life Action Ministries and the Thomas More Society are attempting to intervene in the case to also defend the laws. If they’re successful, the case may take even longer to wind its way through the courts.
We know Minnesotans, and folks traveling from out of state to access care, deserve better than this when it comes to matters of their personal health care.