Minnesota Lawmakers Consider Constitutional Amendment to Protect Abortion, LGBTQ Rights

ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) — Minnesota Democrats have introduced sweeping legislation aimed at adding abortion and LGBTQ rights to the state constitution in hopes of making it much more difficult for future lawmakers to repeal these and other rights in the future.

The Minnesota Equal Rights Amendment was introduced last week and its first legislative hearing will take place Monday. It would be one of the nation’s broadest protections for abortion and LGBTQ rights if approved by lawmakers this session and then by voters on the 2026 ballot.

“It’s not just about reproductive justice,” said Betty Folliard, whose group ERA Minnesota has pushed for such a measure since 2014. “It’s also about pay inequity, historical stereotypes and of discrimination which continue to be neglected, from generation to generation. generation.”

Minnesota already has an anti-discrimination law, the Human Rights Act, that applies to individuals, businesses, schools and other institutions. The constitutional amendment would apply to state government and protect certain laws — including recent laws that have made Minnesota a haven for out-of-state people seeking abortion and life-affirming care of gender – against repeal by future legislators and administrations.

House Majority Leader Jamie Long, a Minneapolis Democrat, said in a statement that he strongly supported the ERA proposal, saying it would “uphold our key values of fairness, non-discrimination and reproductive freedom.

Republican leaders have not said whether they would support or oppose the proposal.

Opponents – including anti-abortion groups, religious organizations and conservative lawmakers – say the measure goes too far and is divisive.

The amendment’s language would prohibit the state from discriminating against anyone on the basis of race, color, national origin, ancestry, disability or sex – including gender identity, gender expression and sexual orientation. The state also could not discriminate against a person “making and carrying out decisions on all matters relating to his or her own pregnancy or the decision to become or remain pregnant.”

If the Legislature approves it, voters in 2026 will be asked: “Shall the Constitution of Minnesota be amended to provide that all persons shall be guaranteed equal rights under the laws of this State and shall not be not discriminated against because of race, color, national origin, ancestry, disability or sex, including pregnancy, sex and sexual orientation? »

If approved, the amendment would take effect on January 1, 2027.

Groups opposed to the proposal include the Minnesota Family Council, a Christian advocacy group; Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, an anti-abortion group; and the Minnesota Catholic Conference, a political organization for the Catholic Church.

Moses Bratrud, a spokesperson for the Minnesota Family Council, said in an earlier statement: “The new ERA addresses abortion and gender ideology, and does not protect the rights of Minnesotans. And while previous versions of the ERA included protections based on “creed,” the new version removes all religious freedom protections. This is troubling for Minnesotans of all religious backgrounds.

Last year, another Minnesota ERA proposal passed the Senate but failed to get a final vote in the House.

Democratic Rep. Kaohly Vang Her, a lead author of last year’s and this year’s proposals, said several Democrats had already raised concerns that the ERA proposal needed to do more to protect the transgender community and reproductive rights.

She, of St. Paul, said increasing attacks on transgender people in recent years and the overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022 by the United States Supreme Court were a priority for many Democrats.

Democrats have only a slim majority in each chamber — their margin is just one vote in the Senate — and so they need the support of most of their party if Republicans oppose the legislation. If placed on the ballot, the constitutional amendment would have to be approved by a majority of all voters who voted, not just a majority of those who voted on the issue.

The proposed amendment would differ from the state’s human rights law, said Megan Peterson, executive director of Gender Justice, a gender equity advocacy organization that helped craft it. of the ERA proposal.

The Minnesota ERA would amend the state constitution, which determines what types of laws are acceptable for state lawmakers to pass or enforce. Peterson said the language on abortion and gender expression is intended to prevent the state from banning abortion or gender-affirming care.

___

Trisha Ahmed is a corps member for the Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues. Follow her on X, formerly Twitter: @TrishaAhmed15