Pregnancy centers suing Minnesota clinics, politicians over abortion laws

(FOX 9) - Several pregnancy health centers, doctors and potential mothers have banded together to challenge Minnesota’s abortion laws, arguing they are in violation of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

What we know

Filed on Nov. 22, plaintiffs in the lawsuit include Women’s Life Care Center, National Institute of Family and Life Advocates, and Dakota Hope Clinic, as well as, David Billings, MD (on behalf of himself and his patients) and Dawn Schreifels, MD, and three mothers.

Together, the group is suing Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, Governor Tim Walz, Minnesota Department of Human Services Commissioner Jodi Harpstead, Planned Parenthood Minnesota and several other organizations.

The lawsuit makes a constitutional challenge to Minnesota’s abortion laws, which it claims, "have the irreparable termination of the pregnant mother’s relationship with her child by terminating the life of her child without providing any due process protections or the equal protection of the law," which it claims to be in violation of the 14th Amendment’s due process clause.

Argument outline

At its core, the lawsuit argues that an abortion in Minnesota is not medical treatment, but instead the "employment of a medical procedure to achieve a non-medical objective: the termination of a pregnant mother’s constitutionally protected relationship with her child."

A termination of pregnancy is only achieved by the intentional termination of a child’s life, the lawsuit alleges.

Further detailing its position, the lawsuit argues that medical treatment necessary to treat conditions that may have unintended or unavoidable consequences of a child’s death is not an abortion, and could be classified as "true medical care." However, an abortion has the only purpose the killing of the mother’s child as a method of terminating her parental relationship with her child.

Thus, Minnesota’s abortion laws violate a pregnant mothers’ right to "maintain their constitutionally protected relationship with their children, their right to procreate, their interests in their children’s lives and welfare and their right to the equal protection," the lawsuit says.

The lawsuit in turn argues that it is murder to intentionally kill an unborn child at any age after conception, which is punishable by mandatory life imprisonment in Minnesota.

Minnesota’s protections

In 2023, Gov. Walz signed legislation guaranteeing abortion access under Minnesota law, which at the time put Minnesota among the first states to implement abortion protections since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

The legislation created a "fundamental right" to abortion, making it harder for a court to roll back Minnesota's existing abortion protections resulting from a 1995 state Supreme Court decision in Doe v. Gomez.

‘Uninformed consent’

The lawsuit argues that Minnesota statutes have a "legal and regulatory scheme implemented, administered, and enforced" that delegates the terminating of a pregnant mother’s rights and interests to several "abortion businesses" listed as defendants – all which have "interests in direct conflict with those of the pregnant mother and the child she wants."

The partnership between the state officials and private abortion businesses accomplishes the termination by killing the mother’s child, the lawsuit says.

The termination of a pregnancy is often "involuntary, resulting from coercion or pressure from others placed upon the pregnant mothers who want to keep their children," the lawsuit states, while also claiming that, "most waivers of the mother’s rights and consents to abortions are uninformed."

Ultimately, Minnesota’s laws and regulations extend immunity from prosecution to the abortion doctors, facilities and employees, as well as, public officials "collaborating and partnering with the abortion providers whether or not the abortion that kills the mother’s child is voluntary, knowing, and informed."

What’s next?

The lawsuit ultimately requests a jury trial to seek so far unspecified compensatory money damages, and punitive money damage claims from the defendants listed.