a woman's right to get an abortion and to receive state funds for it, finding that there is a right to privacy that covers reproductive rights, and further refused to follow a U.S. Supreme Court case, McRae, holding that refusing to provide government funding for abortions doesn't violate the federal constitution. Instead, the Minnesota court relied on Justice Brennan's dissent in that case. The state court isn't bound by US Supreme Court precedent when interpreting the state's constitution.
"This court has long recognized that we may interpret the Minnesota Constitution to offer greater protection of individual rights than the U.S. Supreme Court has afforded under the federal constitution. ... In some cases, we have in fact interpreted the Minnesota Constitution to provide more protection than that accorded under the federal constitution or have applied a more stringent constitutional standard of review. We find that this is one of those limited circumstances in which we will interpret our constitution to provide more protection than that afforded under the federal constitution."
http://users.soc.umn.edu/~samaha/cases/women%20of%20mn%20v%20gomez.htm
The GOP will keep trying, but this case and the state constitution will make it very difficult for them.
= new reply since forum marked as read