Minnesota Democrats: abortion until birth, no limits, no parental consent, nothing

Hotair ^ | 01/12/2023 | David Strom

[SeekAndFind]

The Minnesota Democrat-Farmer-Labor Party (Democrats to you and me) controls every level of government. The Minnesota House, the Senate, and the governorship. It can basically do what it wants.

What it wants is unlimited abortion for anybody, any time, until the moment of birth.

The bill is HF 1, which is always the bill that the majority party chooses as its highest priority. They aren’t sneaking this in some larger Health and Human Services Bill or anything like that. They are being loud and proud, shouting their abortions so to speak.

Here’s the bill. You don’t get much more extreme than this:

A few things pop out at you as you read the bill.

• Look at the definition of “reproductive health care.” While it does include services for women who carry a baby to term, the definition of “reproductive health care” is mostly about preventing the birth of children. “Preventing pregnancy.” “Terminating pregnancy.” “Pregnancy loss.” There is a reference to actually ensuring the health of the mother and child, but it is fourth in the list of four.
• And the “care” specified? “Contraception.” “Sterilization.” “Abortion care.” “Family planning.” “Counseling regarding reproductive health care.” At least they do include care for mothers in there as well, but the list is almost all about preventing the birth of children.
• Subdivision 3 is especially interesting, because it emphasizes something very important: it specifies that every individual has the same rights to reproductive health care autonomously. This implies that not only adults, but children of any age can get abortions, birth control, sterilization, counseling–the whole range of services specified–without parental consent or notification. Children have these fundamental rights, including abortion sterilization, without any limitations. At least that is how the bill reads.
• And Subdivision 5 ensures that no local units of government can exercise any limitations, such as zoning, time, place, and manner, etc. Most of Minnesota outside the Twin Cities region is very pro-life, with cities and counties using local powers to discourage Planned Parenthood from opening abortion clinics in their jurisdiction. This law would prevent that.

Representative Peggy Scott, a strongly pro-life Republican questioned the author of the bill on these matters and the discussion was instructive.

Teresa Colette, a law professor at St Thomas University in Saint Paul, testified to the committee that by ensuring that abortion and sterilization care are established as fundamental constitutional rights, the state will be forced to fund abortion and sterilization for anybody who receives state subsidized health care. It may also, subject to litigation, require state funding of “gender affirming” care.

Worst of all, abortion providers have sought exceptions to laws requiring the reporting of child sexual abuse, and the language of this law suggests they would have a strong case. Children, in this bill, are ensured a fundamental right to reproductive health care without limits, buttressing the case that children have absolute agency with regard to sexual matters. That implies that, if the child doesn’t want the abortion reported, it won’t be under HIPAA. That is a matter that is left ambiguous in the bill, so it would be up to the courts, making it not a certainty.

In Minnesota the courts have determined that in matters of reproduction the state cannot limit funding related to reproduction solely to providing pregnancy services; if the state provides subsidized reproductive services for pregnancy and birth, it must also provide subsidies for other forms of reproductive care including abortions. By expanding the definition of reproductive services, this bill sends a strong signal to both the courts and the agencies that all services outlined in the bill as “reproductive health care” would necessarily be covered by all our state managed health care plans.

Overall, the bill is a nightmare. The Democrats are swinging for the bleachers on this one. It may be that some of the language will be cleaned up along the way to set some limits, but right now the bill is as extreme as you can get.

The goal, I believe, is to put Minnesota in the same category as California and New York–a haven for abortion tourism. Given the broad scope of the language the state would become even more of a haven for human trafficking (we are already in the top 10% of states in this category of illegal activity), where children raped by abusers can get abortions without any limits or likely reporting.

For some reason the Left keeps pushing policies that enable and encourage the sexual exploitation of children. I would hope that few supporters of abortion would embrace the most extreme elements of the bill, but I fear that might not be the case.

There is something profoundly perverse about the reasoning of these people. For instance, here is a congresswoman who argues that since God places babies in the womb, it should be a woman’s right to rip it out. As a Christian, that is literally her argument.

I will admit, this is not my primary area of research, but I am puzzled at the leap from "I read this text saying God placed a child in a mother's womb, rendering it sacred" to "therefore the government should not prevent me and my doctor from determining it should die." https://t.co/GR6IZiyk3j

— Derek Rishmawy (@DZRishmawy) January 12, 2023

Democrats won’t even vote to protect infants who survive abortions–who are born alive, calling the legislation requiring that abortionists not kill babies out of the womb “extreme.”

BREAKING: The House has passed a bill that requires doctors provide medical care to babies that survive an attempted abortion.

Every Republican voted Yes.

Every Democrat voted No except two, one of whom voted present.


pic.twitter.com/a1HWs746j3

— Greg Price (@greg_price11) January 11, 2023

Liberals like to speak as if their positions are totally mainstream, but they are not. Denying health care to a born alive infant because the mother chose to abort it is literally endorsing infanticide. They deny it, but it is true.

Partial birth abortion, care for infants born alive, abortions for children without parental consent or notification, and even sterilization of children. Is there a single limit to the Left’s desire to kill babies and exploit children?

Now I don’t believe that most women seeking an abortion are evil or believe that they are killing a living human being. That would be monstrous, and I don’t think most people are monstrous. But women who “shout their abortions,” brag about using abortion as birth control, or anybody voting to deny health care to a living infant outside the womb–they are monstrous.

And as we have seen, there are many monsters in the world. Far more than I would ever have imagined.

Here in Minnesota, and in Washington DC, the monsters are powerful indeed.

[frank ballenger]

Michigan already has such ironclad “women’s health rights” in the Michigan Constitution since November’s ballot victory.

Parents don’t have to be told of abortions or of the hypodermic needles put into the children’s arms by the school nurse to start a gender change hormone program.

[KC_Conspirator]

At this point why dont they go all in Logans Run style and just make it the 120st trimester.

[joma89]

democrats are the party of death, murder, and chaos.

[From The Deer Stand]

And, by 2025 a requirement for a teacher license in Minnesota is to teach critical race theory and transgenderism.

[bigfootbob]

More reason to excise everybody who claims to be a dimocRAT from your circle of influence. All dimocRAT’s are immoral mendacious reprobates.

[If You Want It Fixed - Fix It]

May God extend to the dems the same mercy.

[Vision]

What about extending this to murdering any Democrat 18+ years old?