Minnesota lawmakers on Monday advanced a plan to let voters decide if two complicated issues should be written into the state Constitution: prohibiting transgender discrimination and protecting reproductive rights.
In a split vote, the House Committee on Rules and Legislative Administration moved the Minnesota Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) out of committee. The single bill covers both issues. Next it will go to the floor for a House vote. If approved, it will move to the state Senate. The measure does not require a signature from the governor. With Senate approval, the next stop would be on the 2026 General Election ballot for Minnesota voters to decide. If approved by voters, it would go into effect in January 2027.
The amendment says the state, agency, or political subdivision of the state shall not discriminate against any person based on race, color, national origin, ancestry, disability, or sex, including but not limited to making and effecting decisions about all matters relating to one’s own pregnancy, or the decision whether to become or remain pregnant; gender identity or gender expression, or sexual orientation.
Opponents of the amendment, mostly Republicans, say the measure is problematic on two levels.
First, Minnesota already allows abortion up until birth, which is broader than some Minnesotans want. Republicans don’t see a reason to put it into the Constitution, making it permanent. Several who testified against the measure asked why the word “abortion” is not in the amendment. Without that word, they say, voters may not understand what they are voting for.
“The apparent strategy is to dupe [voters] into voting for something they overwhelmingly oppose,” testified Cathy Blaeser of Minnesotans Concerned for Life.
“This bill cloaks abortion up to birth under the guise of ‘pregnancy,’ permanently enshrining unlimited abortion in our Constitution through trickery and deceit, because they know they can’t win an honest discussion on the issue.”
Betty Folliard is the founder of ERA Minnesota, a coalition of activists advocating for the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment into state constitutions.
“It’s time to … end the historic stereotypes and systems of suffering, to recognize the full dignity and humanity of all Minnesotans,” Ms. Folliard testified. “The ERA is for all—and all means all. Equality has no qualifiers. And let me just add that as a person of faith. My faith informs my politics. I’m an elder in the Presbyterian Church.”
But the bill she champions does not offer any protection to unborn persons.
The second problem Republicans expressed about the amendment is that granting gender equality for transgender people creates numerous controversial issues, and it is unclear how they will be settled.
“It’s no mystery how self-identification of gender plays out in society. Males get priority access to women- and girls-only spaces such as restrooms, locker rooms, domestic violence shelter placement, and prison,” testified Rebecca Delahunt, director of public policy at the Minnesota Family Council.
Unpredictable Outcome
Republican Rep. Marion Rarick asked the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Kaohly Vang Her, a member of the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party, about various legal implications of the bill.Would the bill require the state to pay for in-vitro fertilization treatments for women who are otherwise unable to have children? Would the state have to pay for prisoners to gender change medicine and surgery? Would women running businesses seeking state grants still be eligible for such grants?
With each question, Ms. Her said she was not sure how the law would apply in specific circumstances. She suggested the law would have to be passed first, and then the courts would interpret it.
“I can’t predict, in any law that we pass, how is the court going to interpret that in the future? How is it going to be applied? How are people going to be impacted by that? That is why court case law exists,” Ms. Her said.
“I think it is important for us to pass this so that we can figure out in the future how well some of these situations in which…women who’ve been discriminated against—not being able to access certain rights—how does that apply to them as well. This language is important for us to pass so that we can see what plays out in the future, depending on what situations arise.”
Rep. Lisa Demuth, a Republican, said the committee was trying to pass the amendment before knowing how the law applies.
Ms. Rarick called for several votes to table the matter or send it to other committees for consideration, but the committee voted against those requests every time.
As in other states trying to get easy abortion access into the state Constitution, Minnesota Democrats fear the laws will be restricted if Republicans retake political control.
“We will not be one of those states where women are sitting in parking lots going into sepsis because their doctors are afraid to help,” Ms. Her said. “Anyone who believes women are protected right now, you are sorely mistaken.”
