After the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, Minnesota repealed and rewrote even the most basic common-sense abortion guidelines, making it one of the least restrictive states in the union.
In fact, Minnesota is so lenient on abortion that Republican Vice Presidential candidate J.D. Vance said last week that the state's abortionists are not obligated to provide life-saving aid to surviving children even after failed abortions. Some journalists even speculated that he was lying. .
But Vance is right.
Under the leadership of Gov. Tim Walz (D), Kamala Harris' running mate, Minnesota's laws regarding the care of newborn infants will either be repealed or replaced with ambiguous policies that do not explicitly include such requirements. The wording has been rewritten. Reporters just don't bother to check the facts.
“[T]he legislates it [Walz] We signed it into law,” Vance said. During the vice presidential debate on October 1st“The doctor who performs the abortion is told that if the baby survives, the doctor has no obligation to provide life-saving care to a baby who survives a failed late-term abortion.”
“It’s fundamentally barbaric,” the Republican candidate added.
Walz disagreed, accusing Vance of “trying to distort the way the law is written to get his point across.”
Prompted by Vance to explain what exactly was wrong with Minnesota's abortion law, Walz made his case again. “That's not how the law is written… [T]Hat is misread. And that was confirmed in the last debate. it's not. That's not true. That's not what the law requires. ”
After the debate, as members of the media were looking for new ways to address Walz's lackluster performance, one commentator pointed out that Vance wasn't wrong about Minnesota's abortion laws. There was shouting and chatter at the table. Upset panelists insisted it was both.rude“Everyone would want the infant to die (do you even know what abortion is?), which also implies “neither.'' [anyone’s] What women do is business. ”
But here are the relevant facts. In 1976, the Minnesota Legislature approved a bill (Section 145.423) to protect children who survive abortion. This statute declares that “a living child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human being and shall be afforded immediate protection under the law,” and that “a living child born as a result of an abortion shall be afforded immediate protection under the law.” All reasonable measures consistent with good medical practice will be taken.” Medical records shall be kept to protect the child's life and health. ”
Then, in 2015, the Minnesota Legislature Born Alive Infant Protection Actamong other things, defined a “live infant” as “all infants of the species Homo sapiens who are born alive at any stage of development.”
The law also made minor language adjustments to all three subdivisions of the original 1976 statute, including “civil penalties for health care professionals who fail to provide adequate care; Privacy Protection and the Status of Infants Born Live and Surviving After Abortive Procedures.” Dispatch's Alex Demas reports..
Fast forward a few years.
Between January 1, 2019 and December 31, 2022, the Minnesota Department of Health recorded and reported eight cases in which an infant was born alive during an abortion procedure. Not a single child survived.
Additionally, of the five live cases reported from Jan. 1 to Dec. 31, 2021, the Minnesota Department of Health said:No measures taken to save lives were reported.” to three people. A Roe vs. Wade match then broke out.
In 2023, Walz signed a bill that repeals all six subdivisions added to the 1976 state law by the 2015 Infant Protection Act. The post-Roe bill also removed two of the three original subdivisions included in the 1976 bill, leaving only one subdivision with significantly revised language.
The portion of this law that still stands today was originally written as follows (emphasis mine): All reasonable steps consistent with good medical practice, including compiling appropriate medical records. It shall be taken to protect the life and health of children.”
After Waltz's amendment, this remaining provision is now interpreted slightly differently. “Infants born alive are fully recognized as human beings and are entitled to immediate protection under the law. All reasonable measures consistent with good medical practice, including the compilation of appropriate medical records.” Responsible health care workers will care for infants born alive”
You will notice that the requirement for treatment to “protect the child's life and health'' has been omitted. This is no coincidence. Edits were intentional and made with consideration. Anyone suggesting that the wording change disallows what it clearly allows is not being honest with you.
While we're at it, on the one hand Georgia's very clear fetal heartbeat law is too vague to be understood by risk-averse physicians, and on the other hand, it's clear that Georgia's very clear fetal heartbeat law is too vague to be understood by risk-averse doctors, and on the other hand, it's a “modification to preserve fetal heartbeats.” I'm also concerned that this is what pro-abortion advocates would like us to believe. Moving from “life and health” to “caring for infants born alive” does not intentionally create an implicit permission structure.
And speaking of licensing, Walz also enshrined abortion into Minnesota law with a bill that includes a provision stating that “every individual who becomes pregnant…has a fundamental right to an abortion.” This bill does not contain any prohibitions or restrictions.
Therefore, Minnesota has no legal restrictions on abortion at any stage of pregnancy.
During the vice presidential debate on October 1, Walz flatly denied the details of the bill he signed into law. The debate hosts, CBS News' Norah O'Donnell and Margaret Brennan, who had previously attempted to “fact-check” Vance about illegal and legal immigration, took issue with Walz's repeated denials, saying, There was no effort even made to 'contextualize' it.
“Folks, there's a lot to discuss,” O'Donnell said, moving on to a series of questions about which laws can better protect children from gun violence. “We have to move on.”
As it turns out, the journey from “safe, legal, rare” to “unregulated, legal, no questions asked until month 9” was not a long one.
Beckett Adams was a Washington writer.National Journalism Center.
