Posted on 03/07/2006 1:48:02 AM PST by rhema
A pro-life group in Minnesota says it's prepared to lead the charge against a key state Supreme Court decision forcing the state's taxpayers to foot the bill for abortions for poor women. The state Supreme Court in a 1995 case called Doe v. Gomez required the state's health department to pay for abortions, despite lawmakers voting to prohibit that from occurring in virtually all situations.
Scott Fischbach, the director of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, called the case his state's Roe v. Wade and told the Associated Press that working to overturn the decision will be his group's next main focus.
"What they did in Doe v. Gomez was found an absolute right to abortion in the Minnesota Constitution, and that needs to be addressed," he said.
The pro-life organization could propose a state constitutional amendment to put before the voters but Fischbach says it would require a very expensive public campaign to pass the initiative.
Instead the organization is seeking legislative alternatives to counteract the decision.
The measure is expected to be introduced this week and, if approved, it would go straight to the state Supreme Court if abortion advocates challenge it with a lawsuit.
Fischbach hopes there have been enough changes on the state's top court to give pro-life advocates a chance at overturning the decision. In 1995, the court voted 5-1 in favor of forcing Minnesota to pay for abortions and just two members are left from that court's makeup.
Justices Alan Page and Paul Anderson, who both supported the abortion payments, are still on the court.
The decision, which also ruled that the privacy clause in the state constitution should be misused to protect a so-called right to abortion, would need to be overturned if Minnesota wants to prohibit abortions if Roe is ever reversed.
Planned Parenthood Minnesota spokesman Tim Stanley told the Associated Press the abortion business would almost assuredly file a lawsuit against the bill should the state legislature sign off on it. He claimed it is still unconstitutional.
Karen Smigielski, a spokeswoman for the Human Services Department, told the Associated Press that the state paid for 3,950 abortions in 2004 and spent $1.2 million paying for abortions in 2003.
Related web sites: Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life
Roe v. Wade, if strictly interpreted, would prohibit public funding for abortion since public funding for abortion is a form of societal intervention in reproduction - - the very thing prohibited by Roe v. Wade.
Nice to see the counter attack beginning in the courts.
despite lawmakers voting to prohibit that from occurring in virtually all situations ...is seeking legislative alternatives to counteract the decision...
If their Supreme Court ignored the law the first time why would they uphold it next time around?
poor woman: defined as any woman who will take the money.
"Women who have sex, get pregnant and seek free abortions at taxpayer expense is like someone taking a crap in the parking lot expecting someone else to pay to clean it up."
Taking a crap in a parking lot is illegal. Having sex isn't. However, saying that, I get your point.
"Taking a crap in a parking lot is illegal. Having sex isn't."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.