ST. PAULO, Minnesota – Minnesota Democrats have introduced far-reaching legislation to add abortion and LGBTQ rights to the state constitution, hoping to make it much more difficult for future lawmakers to repeal these and other rights in the future.
The Minnesota Equal Rights Amendment was introduced last week and has its first legislative hearing on Monday. It would be among the broadest protections for abortion and LGBTQ rights in the country if approved by lawmakers this session and then voters on the 2026 ballot.
“It’s not just about reproductive justice,” said Betty Folliard, whose group ERA Minnesota has been pushing for such a measure since 2014. “It’s also about pay inequality, historical stereotypes and discrimination that continue to be ignored, from generation to generation. generation.”
Minnesota already has an anti-discrimination law, the Human Rights Act, which applies to individuals, businesses, schools and other institutions. The constitutional change would apply to state government and protect certain laws — including recent ones that have made Minnesota a haven for out-of-state people seeking abortions and gender-affirming care — from being repealed by future lawmakers and administrations.
House Majority Leader Jamie Long, a Democrat from Minneapolis, said in a statement that he strongly supports the ERA proposal, saying it would “uphold our core values of equity, non-discrimination and reproductive freedom.”
Republican leaders have not said whether they will support or oppose the proposal.
Opponents — including anti-abortion groups, religious organizations and conservative lawmakers — say the measure is overreaching and divisive.
The wording of the amendment would prohibit the State from discriminating against anyone on the basis of race, color, national origin, ancestry, disability or sex – including gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation. The state also could not discriminate against a person “who makes and effects decisions on all matters relating to her own pregnancy or the decision to become or remain pregnant.”
If approved by the Legislature, voters in 2026 would be asked: “The Constitution of Minnesota will be amended to say that all people shall be guaranteed equal rights under the laws of this state and shall not be discriminated against because of race, color, national origin, ancestry, disability or sex, including pregnancy, gender and sexual orientation?”
If approved, the change will come into effect on January 1, 2027.
Groups opposing the proposal include the Minnesota Family Council, a Christian advocacy group; Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, an anti-abortion group; and the Minnesota Catholic Conference, a political organization of the Catholic Church.
Moses Bratrud, spokesperson for the Minnesota Family Council, said in a previous statement: “The new ERA is about abortion and gender ideology, not protecting the rights of Minnesotans. And while previous versions of the ERA included “creed”-based protections, the new version removes any protections for religious freedom. This is worrying for miners of all religious backgrounds.”
Last year, a proposal other than Minnesota’s ERA passed the Senate but did not receive a final vote in the House.
Democratic Rep. Kaohly Vang Her, the lead author of the proposals last year and this year, said several Democrats had already raised concerns that the ERA proposal needed to do more to protect the transgender community and reproductive rights.
She, from St. Paul, said the increasing attacks on transgender people in recent years and the overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022 for the U.S. Supreme Court has been a priority for many Democrats.
Democrats have only narrow majorities in each chamber — their margin is just one vote in the Senate — so they need support from a majority of their parties if Republicans oppose legislation. If put to a vote, the constitutional amendment would need to be approved by a majority of all voters who voted, not just a majority of those who vote on the issue.
The proposed change would be different from the state’s Human Rights Act, said Megan Peterson, executive director of Gender Justice, a gender equality advocacy organization that was involved in drafting the ERA proposal.
Minnesota’s ERA would amend the state’s constitution, which determines what types of laws are acceptable for state legislators to pass or enforce. Peterson said the language about abortion and gender expression is intended to prevent the state from prohibiting abortion or gender-affirming care.
___
Trisha Ahmed is a corps member for the Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues. Follow her on X, formerly Twitter: @TrishaAhmed15
This story originally appeared on ABCNews.go.com read the full story
