News Abortion

MN Gov. Dayton Vetoes RU-486 Restrictions, Calling It “Ideology Driven;” Senator Says Viagra is a “Drug for Life”

Robin Marty

Governor Mark Dayton vetoes another piece of anti-choice legislation, while the sponsor of a bill to ban RU-486 calls Viagra a "drug for life."

Last week, Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton vetoed a bill meant to increase the costs of running clinics that perform abortions, a move anti-choice politicians hoped would cause clinics to struggle and potentially close their doors. 

Now, Dayton has veto-ed another bill, this time to stop a ban on “tele-med” abortions by restricting RU-486 to only be used within a doctor’s presence.

Citing the safety of the drug, as well as the additional expenses that mostly rural women would incur if the Rochester tele-med program were banned, Dayton stated in his veto letter:

While patient safety should always be our top priority and can be addressed through state-level policy making, a veto is warranted on legislation driven by a specific political ideology rather than a broad-based concern for protecting all patients.

Like This Story?

Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Donate Now

If there was any doubt that the bill was based on politics versus medicine, the debate over the bill in the senate made the issue clear. When Democratic state Sen. John Marty asked why this drug needed to be regulated, rather than errectile dystfunction medications such as Viagra, Republican Sen. Paul Gazelka, the bill’s sponsor, responded that unlike RU-486, Viagra is a “wonderful drug” that “helps create life.”  When I asked Sen. Gazelka if he could clarify his response, he told me via email that:

comparing Viagra to RU-486 was comparing apples and oranges or more like comparing life and death. Viagra is a wonderful medical advancement in that can help couples with sexual disfunction issues…it can even help in producing life. RU486 always destroys life by taking the life of the unborn child.

I also asked Sen. Gazelka if, in light of its “wonderful” qualities, he himself used the medication, or would consider sponsoring legislation that would create a database of information such as name, address, medical history, familial history, phone number, age and sexual history for those who are prescribed Viagra, to be handed over to the state department of health, such as databases created in various other states to gather information on women who obtain abortions.

The senator told me no comment to both questions.

Minnesota Citizens Concerned For Life (MCCL) called the veto another sign of Dayton’s preference for the “abortion industry” over Minnesota women.

“Once again, Gov. Dayton has come to the defense of the abortion industry at the expense of women’s safety,” said MCCL Executive Director Scott Fischbach to LifeNews. “This is the seventh pro-life initiative that would protect women and unborn children that has been vetoed. The Dayton record is now clear: he is no friend of women or their babies.”

With both the House and the Senate in solid anti-choice hands since the 2010 sweep election that flipped both bodies, Governor Dayton has single-handedly stopped the state from passing restriction after restriction on a woman’s right to choose. Without Dayton’s vetoes, Minnesota would likely have gone down the same path as Wisconsin, Arizona, and so many other states that have spent the last two years declaring a war on reproductive rights.

News Abortion

Minnesota House Votes to End Coverage of Safe Abortion Care for Low-Income Women

Robin Marty

Anti-choice activists are trying to eliminate the right to choose, and are willing to destroy the state health care exchange in the process.

Among states, Minnesota has been notable for its longstanding policies to care for the health of the least advantaged. Even after Republicans took over both arms of the legislature in 2010, the administration worked to defend as much of the state support for insurance program for low-income women and children as possible, despite GOP attempts to gut it in favor of tax cuts.

When the Affordable Care Act allowed states to begin preparation for their own insurance exchanges, the Dayton administration responded eagerly to accept funds and begin to craft their own exchange. Now, anti-choice politicians are using Gov. Mark Dayton’s enthusiasm for the program as a means to try to codify abortion restrictions that they have failed for years to get through the legislature and into law.

Democratic Representative Patti Fritz, a long-time anti-choice legislator, has offered a new amendment to the health exchange bill which will not only dismantle the rights of low-income women to funding for  safe abortion care, but will also restrict abortion coverage in the state’s insurance exchange. Her amendment, which remained in the bill that passed the House, would forbid any plan in the exchange from covering abortions unless the procedure was necessary to save the recipient’s life, or if she was a victim of a sexual assault reported immediately to the police.

(2) when the pregnancy is the result of criminal sexual conduct as defined in section
1.9609.342, clauses (c), (d), (e), item (i), and (f), and the incident is reported within 48
1.10hours after the incident occurs to a valid law enforcement agency for investigation, unless
1.11the victim is physically unable to report the criminal sexual conduct, in which case the
1.12report shall be made within 48 hours after the victim becomes physically able to report
1.13the criminal sexual conduct; or
1.14(3) when the pregnancy is the result of incest, but only if the incident and relative are
1.15reported to a valid law enforcement agency for investigation prior to the abortion.

Like This Story?

Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Donate Now

The amendment would create a stark turn in access to abortion in a state, where a woman’s right to choose has not only been long-acknowledged, but as a result of the 1996 Doe v. Gomez ruling, has been a protected right enjoyed by all women, regardless of income.

The House bill will go to committee with a Senate version which has yet to pass, and any differences between the two will be negotiated for a final time. In that committee the amendment could be stripped. But should the Senate add the same amendment to their final bill, Governor Mark Dayton will be stuck with a decision that is essentially a win-win for anti-choice factions. He would have to either veto the full bill, which would destroy and exchange that they never wanted in the first place, or allow the exchange to go into effect with the new restrictions. If that happens, abortion opponents have the challenge to Doe v. Gomez that they have been maneuvering to get for years.

“The outcome of this would be that we would treat—for purposes of a medical procedure—poor women differently from rich women. And regardless of how you feel about abortion, I don’t think anybody in the body feels that poor women ought to be treated different from rich folks when it comes to any sort of medical care,” said Rep. Joe Atkins, the author of the health care exchange bill. But sadly, Akins is wrong to believe that anti-choice activists wouldn’t be happy to enforce their agenda on the poor even if they can’t ban abortion for the rest.

Alaska is a prime example of this: Sen. John Coghill has desperately tried to limit Medicaid coverage of abortions. Coghill also put a limit on which rape victims could have their abortions covered by insurance, although his bill offered an unspecific “prompt reporting” requirement rather than a tight, immediate 48-hour timeframe. Coghill’s vague reporting requirement was eliminated, but the debate over whether poor women should be allowed to use Medicaid to pay for abortions continues, with one bill supporter, Sen. John Dyson, even comparing allowing abortions to be covered to be equivalent to forcing taxpayers to pay for slaves to be returned to their owners under the Runaway Slave Act prior to the Civil War. “It’s morally repugnant,” Dyson stated in a recent hearing on the ban.

Of course, many would find it morally repugnant to force low-income women to give birth because they cannot afford abortions, especially if a pregnancy was the result of a sexual assault that wasn’t reported within two days, as would be the case under the Minnesota bill. “We are deeply disappointed in the Representatives who chose to vote in favor of this restrictive and damaging amendment. It is both degrading and heart wrenching to force a survivor of rape to report her traumatizing experience to the government in order to cover a legal medical procedure,” said NARAL Pro-Choice Minnesota in a statement. “It is our sincere hope that this amendment—which repeals existing healthcare coverage of abortion—will be eliminated from the final version of Minnesota’s healthcare insurance exchange.”

Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life is calling the ban a reflection of the will of Minnesota residents. “The health care exchange bill in the House now reflects the will of the Minnesota House of Representatives and the will of the people of Minnesota, the majority of whom oppose abortion and abortion coverage,” MCCL Legislative Associate Andrea Rau told Lifenews.  It’s unclear which “majority” Rau believes the bill represents, but as a Minnesotan I feel safe in saying that the true majority of the state is not in favor of forcing victims of rape to carry to term and give birth to their rapist’s baby against their will for the “crime” of not reporting her attack within 48 hours and not having the financial means to pay for an abortion.

News Abortion

Minnesota Governor Vetoes Medically-Unnecessary TRAP Law

Robin Marty

Governor Mark Dayton vetoed the bill saying it unfairly targeted abortion clincis.

If anti-choice politicians in Minnesota really want to put onerous licensing and regulations on clinics that provide abortions by reclassifying them as “ambulatory surgical centers,” they are going to have to apply the same rules to a whole lot of other health care providers, too, according to Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton.

Vetoing the TRAP law that was passed by both the Minnesota House and Senate, Dayton said:

The legislation targets only facilities which provide abortions. If regulation of clinics were the concern, the bill should have required licensing of all clinics, not just a select few. If the Legislature wants to create a new regulatory scheme for health care clinics, then all clinics should be treated equally. No clinic or procedure should be the focus of special and unique regulatory requirements.

Minnesota Citizens Concerned For Life accused the Governor of “putting women at risk” with his veto.

Like This Story?

Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Donate Now

“This veto highlights Gov. Dayton’s commitment to protecting the abortion industry, even when it results in putting women’s health at risk. Abortion is one of the most common medical procedures in Minnesota, and there is no way for women to know if they are going to be in a safe or clean facility.”

The Minnesota Medical Association, however, applauded the move, and hopes that Dayton will veto a second bill as well — this one targeting the drug RU-486. “The MMA’s concern, and the reason for the letter urging the vetoes, is that these pieces of legislation inappropriately intrude on the practice of medicine in the state of Minnesota,” said Janet Silversmith, the MMA’s director of health policy, via statement.