Faith leaders, abortion rights opponents raise concern with Minnesota equal rights constitutional amendment proposal
ST. PAUL, Minn. — Faith leaders and opponents of abortion rights on Wednesday raised concerns about a proposal advancing in the state legislature to put an equal rights constitutional amendment on the ballot in a few years, after the DFL-led House changed its scope this week.
Last year, the Minnesota Senate advanced with some bipartisan support a version of the equal rights amendment — or ERA — to enshrine in the state's constitution that "equality under the law shall not be abridged or denied by this state or any of its cities, counties, or other political subdivisions on account of race, color, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, disability, ancestry, or national origin."
But now an updated version includes new provisions intended to bolster abortion rights—and removes "creed," which covers religious beliefs, from the proposal. Absent is any mention at all of religion.
The language adopted Monday in during a House hearing says the definition of "sex" includes "making and effectuating decisions about all matters relating to one's own pregnancy or decision whether to become or remain pregnant." In the two years since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe vs. Wade, abortion-related ballot measures have appeared in several states across the country and pro-abortion rights supporters have been successful.
The Minnesota ERA proposal includes in it the question that would go before voters, should both chambers approve the amendment: "Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to say that all persons shall be guaranteed equal rights under the laws of this state, and shall not be discriminated against on account of race, color, national origin, ancestry, disability, or sex, including pregnancy, gender, and sexual orientation?"
Critics of the changes on Wednesday said adding abortion protections to the amendment proposal is "extreme" and accused Democrats of deceiving voters who, under the current language, would see only "pregnancy" in the ballot question. They condemn doubling down on abortion rights.
"It should be two separate questions. A separate question — whether or not all people are created equal, which was in our founding documents of this country versus enshrining abortion, which is our most extreme abortion [policy] up until the moment of birth," Rep. Marion Rarick, R-Maple Lake said during a news conference. "Those are two completely different questions that are now put together in one constitutional amendment for the people and it's not clear."
Meanwhile, Minnesota Democrats believe enshrining abortion access explicitly in the Minnesota Constitution is essential, even with a state Supreme Court decision determining constitutional protections and state law that codified those rights last year.
"It is actually not just about abortion, it is really about reproductive outcomes. There are many reasons why people may want to plan for their families," said Rep. Kaohly Vang Her, DFL-St. Paul during a hearing Monday. "And as we've seen in states across the country, case law is not strong enough to protect our rights."
In a separate news conference Wednesday, faith leaders said they're worried about the implications of not having religion explicitly included in the list of protected classes in the ERA. The Minnesota Constitution under its Bill of Rights affords people the right to freely exercise their religion.
Without explicitly listing religion in the ERA, that would potentially put two constitutional provisions at odds, they contend. Rev. Steven Lee, pastor at The North Star Church in Mounds View, said the language could be "weaponized against those seeking to exercise their deeply held beliefs."
"Most Minnesotans have some religious faith that should be protected against discrimination. This amendment doesn't do that," Lee told reporters. "This amendment pits the constitutional guarantee of all Minnesotans to be able to worship according to the dictates of their own conscience against these newly defined so-called rights of pregnancy, gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation."
The new House bill would put the amendment before voters in 2026. It would need to pass the House and clear the Senate again with the changes for that to happen; the governor does not sign amendments.
But it's unclear if the ERA will make it over the finish line this year as the session winds down. It stalled last year, amid the crush of other policy proposals and a sweeping budget plan.
Lawmakers only have a handful of days to vote on bills on the floor left and the constitutional deadline for adjournment is May 20.
