A group of anti-abortion activists from Minnesota is trying to intervene in the litigation that led to the court this summer striking down several of Minnesota’s abortion restrictions.
After Ramsey County District Judge Thomas Gilligan in July struck down many regulations regulating abortion, including a 24-hour waiting period and a requirement that minors inform both parents before obtaining the surgery, this is the second organization trying to intervene. Democratic Attorney General Keith Ellison, a supporter of abortion rights, refused to appeal the verdict on the grounds that his office had already spent three years and more than $500,000 defending the statutes in the Doe v. Minnesota case.
Tuesday, an anti-abortion organization called Mothers Offering Maternal Support announced its attempt to intervene in the case, putting the demand for parental disclosure front and center. Teresa Collett, an attorney for the moms organization and the head of the University of St. Thomas Prolife Center, spoke to media at the state Capitol and said that they are attempting to take action to safeguard parents’ rights to information about medical treatments.
She addressed the more than a dozen ladies gathered behind her at the press conference, saying, “We’re the actual individuals who will be hurt.” The ladies are listed here. And very simply, some of the males in this room will lose their parental rights.
Susan Neuville, a Minnesota politician and the daughter of Tom Neuville, a co-author of the notification rule, stated it was absurd to exclude abortions from notice when so many other aspects of a child’s life need parental consent.
“My kids cannot go on class excursions, get their picture taken, or get basic dental treatment without adult approval,” she added. I’m curious as to why it would be reasonable to let the same youngster make the decision of whether or not to undergo an abortion.
A patient may be in risk if her parents are violent, according to opponents of the parental notice rule, who claim that not all young patients are aware of their parents. Patients might be excused from the notification requirement while it was still in force if they openly reported mistreatment to authorities.
According to Gilligan’s judgement on July 11, Minnesota’s abortion laws violate the state constitution’s basic rights to privacy and access to abortion. In addition to the waiting time, other limitations included criminal fines for violators, parental notification requirements for children, and limits on which medical personnel might conduct abortions.
The decision also invalidated the state’s requirement that second-trimester abortions be conducted in a hospital and declared that the need that medical professionals provide abortion seekers with a “informed consent” statement is an infringement on their right to free expression. Advocates argued that the court should also prevent abortion providers from continuing to submit specific statistics on abortion to the state of Minnesota.
After Ellison allowed Gilligan’s ruling to stand, the organization of anti-abortion moms filed a request for an appeal on the final day that could be used in the case. Following Gilligan’s denial of their motion to intervene in district court last week, the Traverse County Attorney Matthew Franzese and the conservative legal advocacy organization Thomas More Society are still attempting to become involved in the case.
An appeal has now been submitted to the Minnesota Court of Appeals by Franzese and his counsel.
Despite Roe v. Wade being overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in June, Minnesota’s state Supreme Court judgment in Doe v. Gomez from 1995 still upholds the right to abortion.