What Doe v. Gomez means for future of abortion in Minnesota

[WhiskeyGrinder]

https://www.startribune.com/what-is-doe-v-gomez-and-why-is-it-so-important-to-minnesotas-abortion-debate/600182341/

At the heart of the argument from women's groups was the fact that medical assistance couldn't be used for abortion under most circumstances, yet it could be used for childbirth-related medical services. They argued that funding scheme denied women medical benefits established as a constitutional right in Roe v. Wade simply because the state did not approve. For that reason, state law violated Jane Doe's privacy and equal protection under the law, they argued.

Defendants in the case argued the Minnesota Constitution doesn't require the state to fund the exercise of every fundamental right and that there's a distinction between "a government action that creates an obstacle to abortion and government action that simply fails to remove a preexisting barrier."

In the Dec. 15 ruling, penned by Minnesota Supreme Court Chief Justice Alexander Keith, he wrote that a woman "cannot be coerced into choosing childbirth over abortion by a legislated funding policy...In reaching our decision, we have interpreted the Minnesota Constitution to afford broader protection than the United States Constitution of a woman's fundamental right to reach a private decision on whether to obtain an abortion," he added.

That ruling meant the right to abortion would remain protected in the state even if Roe v. Wade were overturned. But it went further than that opinion, allowing abortion coverage for low-income women who receive state assistance.

The article goes on to say that even though there is a constitutional protection in Minnesota, it would be difficult but possible to remove it.