ST. PAUL 鈥� A Minnesota district court judge has blocked multiple restrictions on abortion in the state, including a 24-hour wait period and a requirement that minors inform both parents of a procedure.
Ramsey County Judge Thomas A. Gilligan Jr. ruled on Monday, July 11, that many of Minnesota鈥檚 abortion regulations violate fundamental rights to abortion and privacy under the state constitution. His ruling granted abortion rights groups' requests in a lawsuit to block multiple restrictions on the procedure and goes into effect immediately.
ADVERTISEMENT
In addition to the waiting period and parental disclosure requirements, the ruling means medical staff other than doctors can perform abortions and providers are no longer subject to felony penalties for violating state regulations on the procedure. Going forward, regulations will be enforced through civil and administrative penalties as other medical procedures are in the state.
"These abortion laws violate the right to privacy because they infringe upon the fundamental right under the Minnesota Constitution," Gilligan wrote. "Accordingly, this court is declaring those laws unconstitutional and permanently enjoining their enforcement."
by on Scribd
Gilligan also blocked a requirement for second-trimester abortions to be performed in a hospital and ruled the state鈥檚 requirement for health care providers to give abortion seekers an 鈥渋nformed consent鈥� statement to be in violation of free speech protections. Abortion providers must continue to report certain data on abortion to the state of Minnesota 鈥� something advocates were pushing for the court to block as well.
鈥淲ith abortion bans in half the country set to take effect in the coming weeks and months, it is more important than ever to leverage protections in state constitutions like Minnesota鈥檚,鈥� said Amanda Allen, senior counsel and director at the Lawyering Project, an attorney on the case. "Today鈥檚 ruling brings us one step closer to a Minnesota where everyone can get an abortion without the government getting in the way.鈥�
Despite the U.S. Supreme Court ending federal abortion protections last month by overturning Roe v. Wade, the legal right to an abortion remains protected by the constitution in Minnesota under the 1995 state Supreme Court ruling Doe v. Gomez. Minnesota鈥檚 protections have rendered the state an island for abortion access in the Upper Midwest, with neighboring states either banning abortion or appearing poised to ban the procedure.
While Gomez protects the right to an abortion, as well as state funding for the procedure, Minnesota鈥檚 Legislature had passed some restrictive laws. Abortion rights activists filed a lawsuit in 2019, Doe v. Minnesota, challenging Minnesota鈥檚 restrictions on abortion in a bid to expand constitutional protections for the procedure in the state.
Gilligan in his ruling said Gomez abortion protections would be "meaningless without the right to access abortion care."
ADVERTISEMENT
It was not immediately clear early if Attorney General Keith Ellison would file an appeal in the case. Ellison at an unrelated news conference said that he'd not yet reviewed the opinion but appreciated the judge鈥檚 thorough consideration for the issue in his 140-page ruling. The attorney general said he'd not yet decided whether to appeal.
鈥淲e will be taking a good look at it,鈥� Ellison said. 鈥淚 make no secret about it, I believe in women鈥檚 right to choose. I also have the duty to defend Minnesota statutes. Both of those are my job at the same time.鈥�
Ellison has 60 days to file an appeal, if his office chooses to do so.
Ellison, a Democrat, said his office would do everything in its power to protect abortion rights in Minnesota following the overturning of Roe v. Wade, including protecting women seeking abortion in Minnesota from legal action by states where abortion is illegal. Ellison鈥檚 office is responsible for defending challenges to state law in court.
Ellison鈥檚 Republican-endorsed challenger Jim Schultz, who favors restrictions on abortion, called the district court decision 鈥渞emarkable judicial activism.鈥� He questioned whether Ellison mounted an adequate defense of standing Minnesota abortion restrictions given his support of preserving women's access to the procedure.
鈥淗e's interested in voicing his personal beliefs on Minnesotans and was uninterested in aggressively defending Minnesota law,鈥� he said. 鈥淲hat I will do is defend Minnesota law every day of the week.鈥�
The Trust Project
