Having trouble viewing this email?  [ [link removed] ]View it as a Web page [ [link removed] ].






MR




*May 14, 2024 *

Legislative Update

*School Groups Visit the Capitol*

I had the wonderful opportunity to welcome two school groups from Monticello to the Capitol where they received a tour of our beautiful Capitol building. The visit offers students a firsthand look at the democratic process in action. Such visits provide valuable civic education, helping students understand the roles of government institutions, the importance of civic engagement, and the impact of legislation on their lives. Additionally, these visits can inspire future leaders and encourage active participation in democracy. I always offer to the students and parents an opportunity to come back and spend the day shadowing me or visit me on the House Floor. Thanks for visiting, students!

56

*ERA: A Trojan Horse for Abortion Rights and Gender Ideology*

The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) has a long and complex history in the United States, dating back to the 1920s. The original text, aimed at guaranteeing equality of rights under the law regardless of sex, was first proposed in Congress in 1923. However, it was not until 1972 that Congress passed the ERA and sent it to the states for ratification.

Initially, Congress set a deadline of 1979 for ratification, later extended to 1982, but the amendment fell short of the required number of states. Despite this, activists continued to push for ratification, leading to recent approvals by Nevada, Illinois, and Virginia between 2017 and 2020. However, a U.S. District Court ruled in 2021, that because those states ratified the amendment after the set deadline, the process would have to restart. Over the years, variations of the ERA have been adopted in several states, including Minnesota's recent attempt in the 2023-24 biennial session to put an amendment on the ballot for the 2026 general election.

The text of the ERA is straightforward, stating, "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex." It also gives Congress the power to enforce this provision and specifies a two-year period for the amendment to take effect after ratification.

2

Opposition to the ERA has been significant, with concerns ranging from its potential impact on traditional gender roles to fears that it could invalidate labor regulations protecting women. Despite these challenges, supporters of the ERA argue that it is essential for guaranteeing equal rights and protections for all individuals, regardless of sex, and is a crucial step towards achieving gender equality in the United States.

The current language before the Minnesota House [ [link removed] ], however, is not your Grandma’s ERA from 1972. This amendment has a multitude of issues that must either be addressed before its passage and before it goes on the ballot for the entire state in 2026 or should be reason enough to vote no on this bill.​



4 [ [link removed] ]

One key area of contention revolves around the inclusion of provisions intended to enshrine abortion rights up to birth, for any reason, in the updated version of the ERA. Critics, including faith leaders and opponents of abortion rights, argue that this move is extreme and deceptive because they do this without even using the word abortion (see the press conference clip above).While abortion generally has public support, very few people believe in abortion up until birth. Indeed, most Minnesotans, and Americans generally, believe in some limitations, even though they’d like to ensure that the ability to have an abortion is protected. Up until recent years, even mainstream Democrats used to say, “Safe, legal, and rare.” This amendment not only enshrines abortion but allows for the termination of a fully developed child that can survive on its own outside of the womb. Another provision, passed last year, allows for a born-alive child – a child that survives an abortion procedure, usually when a mother is later in her term – to be left to die by removing language requiring that the child receive lifesaving care. This is not a pro-choice or a women’s rights issue at this point, it is extreme.



Democrats know that. While again, most people support allowing abortion with some limitations, very few support it as it currently stands here in our state. That is exactly why Democrats have different language for the ballot provision, which we would all vote on, than the language going into the Constitution. And again, absent from the ballot question is the actual word “abortion” which is clearly a deceptive tactic to trick the voters into enshrining the most extreme abortion law in the nation, they would otherwise not support. This lack of transparency has led to justified accusations of deception and a call for separate questions to address the issues of equality and abortion rights individually. The language that is proposed for addition to our state constitution is significantly different than the language that will go on the ballot for Minnesotans to vote on.

1

Furthermore, concerns have been raised about the removal of "creed," which covers religious beliefs, from the proposed amendment. Faith leaders argue that this exclusion would undermine religious freedoms guaranteed under the Minnesota Constitution's Bill of Rights. After what Democrats did to our faith institutions last year when they removed the religious exemptions from the Minnesota Human Rights Act, they rightly fear that without explicit protection for religious beliefs, individuals could face discrimination for exercising their faith or face legal consequences for hiring decisions in line with their mission and values.

Overall, this is not an equal rights amendment. It is no longer about equality. This is especially true when we limit protection against discrimination to those the state chooses and not all Minnesotans. Noticeably absent from this bill are protections for the elderly, our most vulnerable citizens, and once again limited religious freedoms. Even more worrisome, under the current language, it could be unconstitutional to have locker rooms and bathrooms separated by sex. Similarly, it could be unconstitutional to have men’s and women’s sports, leading to the complete elimination of space for women athletes to compete. Unlike Democrats, Republicans support equality, and this amendment does not provide it. My colleagues and I plan to offer a bevy of amendments to refocus this bill and make it more inclusive and equitable.


* DE5 – Would change the bill back to the 1970s language guaranteeing equal rights based on sex.
* A6 – Adds “religion” to the list of those whose rights are protected. An important provision for securing religious freedom.
* A8 – Adds age, where the person is over the age of majority (18+) to the list of those whose rights are protected. This amendment is in line with federal law.
* A34 – An amendment to the A8 that protects minors and specifically precludes recognizing the rights of adults attracted to minors (pedophiles).
* A35 – An amendment to the A8 that allows the state to pass laws in compliance with federal law.

* A11 – Clarifies that “state” does not include private or non-state entities receiving public funds, further protecting our religious institutions.
* A12 – My Amendment – Clarifies the confusing ballot language by changing “pregnancy” to “the decision to become or remain pregnant”.
* A13 – Creates an exception that allows for separate athletic teams, programs, and events, protecting women’s athletics and women’s spaces.
* A21 – Allows schools to provide students with privacy in facilities and programs based on their biological sex. This is in regard to locker rooms, specifically protecting those under 18 from changing in areas with those of the opposite sex.

Additionally, Rep. Wolgamott (D) introduced the same amendment as the A6, but Majority Leader Long (D) will amend that amendment to say that a law would not be invalid if it “accidentally” infringes upon religious beliefs. Of course, this provision should be terrifying as it would allow the state to “not intentionally” discriminate against religious organizations, leading to legislation that could not only be discriminatory, but constitutional too.

At the end of the day, this amendment is extremely problematic. It would enshrine the most extreme abortion law in the country, including abortion up to birth. It is intentionally deceptive in the actual language that would be added to the Constitution versus the language that would appear on a ballot. It would constitutionally eliminate spaces for boys and girls clubs, eliminate separate bathrooms, locker rooms, and changing spaces based on biological sex leaving your daughter to have to change in front of boys or vice versa, and force women in prison to live with biological men. It once again, under the Democrat trifecta’s watch, puts religious freedom in jeopardy. Finally, it gives specific protections only to those hand-picked by the Democrats, not all Minnesotans. To reiterate, *this is not your grandma’s ERA.* This so-called “equal rights amendment” is discriminatory and will lead to major issues for all Minnesotans.

The amendment was scheduled to be heard by the House yesterday, but will likely come up again Wednesday for amendments and debate.

*I was quoted in the following articles*


* Kare 11: Equal Rights Amendment divides lawmakers [ [link removed] ]
* KSTP 5 Eyewitness News: Minnesota House moves closer to sending constitutional amendment on abortion to voters [ [link removed] ]
* CBS News: Faith Leaders, abortion rights opponents raise concern with Minnesota equal rights constitutional amendment proposal [ [link removed] ]





Please Contact Me

As always, if you need assistance on an issue pertaining to state government or have concerns or ideas about legislation, my office is available to you. You can e-mail at [email protected] or call my office at 651-296-5063 [ tel:6512965063 ]. You can also write a letter to me. My office address at the Capitol is 357 State Office Building, 100 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd, St. Paul, MN 55155.

MR












357 State Office Building
100 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.
Saint Paul, MN 55155
651.296.5063







________________________________________________________________________

Update your subscriptions, modify your password or email address, or stop subscriptions at any time on your Subscriber Preferences Page [ [link removed] ]. You will need to use your email address to log in. If you have questions or problems with the subscription service, please visit subscriberhelp.govdelivery.com [ [link removed] ].

This service is provided to you at no charge by Minnesota House GOP [ [link removed] ].

________________________________________________________________________

This email was sent to [email protected] using GovDelivery Communications Cloud on behalf of: Minnesota House GOP · 100 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. · Saint Paul, MN 55155 GovDelivery logo [ [link removed] ]