REGIONAL— Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs eliminated a constitutional right to abortion in the U.S., Republicans have generally been on the defensive as sizable majorities of the public in states across the country have expressed support for continued access to the full range of reproductive services.
Yet, part of the GOP’s response to the abortion question has been to accuse Democrats of supporting abortion at any stage in a pregnancy, including even after birth. It’s an effort, led by former President Donald Trump, to paint Democrats as the true radicals on the question of abortion.
Both in presidential debates and in interviews with conservative media, Trump has made wildly inaccurate claims, including alleging that states like Minnesota allow for the execution of babies after they are born.
Anti-abortion groups have picked up on the theme. Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, or MCCL, the state’s oldest anti-abortion organization, has run political advertisements claiming that Minnesota now allows infants born alive, whether prematurely or as a result of an abortion, to be left to die. Those claims have been included in recent letters to the editor and social media posts, including some to the Timberjay. Because the Timberjay makes efforts to fact-check letters, those letters have not appeared in this newspaper.
While the Legislature and Gov. Tim Walz did make changes in Minn. Statute 145.423, it appears that groups like MCCL are misrepresenting those changes. Among the claims by MCCL and others is that the changes to law eliminated the right of infants born alive to receive medical care and have claimed that health care providers are now only required to provide the infant a blanket.
In an ad produced by MCCL, the group claims: “every Minnesota House DFL incumbent on the ballot voted for abortion up to birth and leaving babies to die.”
That claim appears to be false on its face. The changes made to what is known as the “Born Alive Infants Protection Act,” did include the repeal of certain definitions in the act as well as detailed descriptions of disciplinary action that could be taken against health providers, the legal status of infants born alive, and protection of privacy in related court proceedings, the changes do not appear to have affected the recognition that any infant born alive is entitled to full legal status as a human being.
The language approved by the Legislature in 2023 (in Minn. Stat. 145.423, Subd. 1) states: “An infant who is born alive shall be fully recognized as a human person, and accorded immediate protection under the law. All reasonable measures consistent with good medical practice, including the compilation of appropriate medical records, shall be taken by the responsible medical personnel to care for the infant who is born alive.”
The Timberjay reached out to MCCL with questions regarding the inconsistencies between the organization’s claims and the actual language of the statute at issue, but the organization’s communications director only referred the newspaper to an explanation on the group’s website.
The explanation claims that under the new language, viable, living babies can be “allowed to die,” but it remains unclear how the change in language would enable family or health care providers to make such a decision, given the requirement that “all reasonable measures consistent with good medical practice” be taken to care for an infant born alive.
MCCL notes that the changes approved last year eliminated a requirement that medical personnel take all appropriate steps to “preserve the life and health” of an infant born alive.
Yet, DFL Rep. Tina Liebling, who authored the changes, argued at the time that the old law limited the ability of health care providers and family to make decisions on whether life-saving care is justified. “Whether life-saving care is warranted really depends on the situation,” said Liebling during floor debate on her proposed changes. “Just like at the end of life, there might be a situation where someone is terminally ill, or there is a bad accident and the chance of surviving is so low that the family decides not to proceed [with medical intervention]. There are many situations and every situation is unique. The issue here is that what care should be provided should not be decided by you or by me but by those people most closely involved, namely the person who just gave birth and their family and whoever they choose to rely on in the most difficult situations that people face.”
Such cases are extremely rare
The entire debate centers around a vanishingly small number of abortions that occur in Minnesota after what is considered the point of viability, generally considered to be 22-24 weeks for a healthy infant with full medical intervention, including months in intensive care.
Yet, abortions of a healthy baby late in pregnancy are very difficult to obtain in Minnesota, except in cases where the life or health of the mother is at serious risk.
Pregnancies in the so-called third trimester, considered from weeks 26-39 of a pregnancy, are almost non-existent in Minnesota. The Timberjay reviewed Minnesota Health Department data from 2018-2022 (the most recent available), and over that five-year period, a total of seven third trimester abortions were reported in the state, or an average of 1.4 per year.
Of the 50,621 abortions reported during that five-year period in Minnesota, 69 percent were performed at under nine weeks, 83 percent were performed at ten weeks or less, and 98 percent were performed at 20 weeks or less.
Given the grievous fetal abnormalities that invariably accompany abortions late in a pregnancy, Liebling argued that parents should have a right to decide how they wish to spend time with an infant that may only have hours to live outside the womb.
“If infants are going to die, should we be forced to whisk it away and have a tube shoved down its throat?” asked Liebling. “Minnesotans do not want us deciding what should happen in these very personal, very intense, and very tragic situations,” she said.