Dan McLaughlin does a good job explaining how Democratic vice-presidential nominee Tim Walz made abortion policy in Minnesota far more permissive. Historically, Minnesota pro-lifers have done well enacting protective pro-life laws in a liberal political environment.

During the late 1970s and 1980s, both the state legislature and the state judiciary prevented the state Medicaid program from funding elective abortions. In 1990, after a protracted legal battle, Minnesota started to enforce a strong pro-life parental-notification law. It was one of the few laws that required the involvement of both parents. In 2003, Minnesota started enforcing a Casey-style informed-consent law that was signed into law by Governor Tim Pawlenty.

Unfortunately, all of these protective pro-life policies have gone by the wayside. In 1994 a state court ruled that the state Medicaid program must pay for elective abortions. Data from 2022 indicate that 41 percent of all abortions performed in Minnesota were paid for by the state Medicaid program.

Similarly, during the summer of 2022, a Ramsey County district judge struck down the state’s pro-life parental involvement law. Finally, as McLaughlin mentioned, SF 2995, which Walz signed in May 2023, effectively repealed Minnesota’s informed-consent law. It should come as no surprise that media reports indicate that in April, May, and June of 2023 the number of abortions increased by 37 percent in Minnesota.

Get the latest pro-life news and information on X (Twitter). Follow @LifeNewsHQ

McLaughlin is also correct that SF 2995 went beyond repealing Minnesota’s informed-consent provisions. It eliminated Positive Alternatives, a grant program that provided over $3 million to pregnancy resource centers in Minnesota. It also increased state reimbursements for abortions covered by the state Medicaid program. It also repealed provisions preventing coerced abortions.

It gets even worse. Data from the Minnesota Department of Health indicate that since Governor Walz was inaugurated in 2019, eight babies survived abortion attempts in Minnesota. On five occasions, no measures were taken to preserve life. On three occasions, only comfort care was provided.

Tragically, all of these babies died. Instead of strengthening protections for these children, SF 2995 repealed the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, which was intended to provide legal protection for infants who survived abortions.

Finally, SF 2995 also reduced state oversight over abortion in another important way. It dramatically weakened Minnesota’s abortion-reporting requirements.

In 2016, my colleagues at the Charlotte Lozier Institute ranked Minnesota’s abortion-reporting requirements the second-best in the entire country. The state reports contained useful data about the reasons women sought abortions, the number of prior abortions women had, and the payment method for abortions. These reports also provided valuable information about the number of babies who survived abortion attempts.

However, none of this information will be available in future reports from the Minnesota Department of Health.

Overall, Tim Walz record on sanctity-of-life issues is clear.

He wants more taxpayer funding for the abortion industry.

He wants less taxpayer support for pro-life pregnancy centers that help pregnant women, families, and children in need.

He wants dramatically less government oversight over the abortion industry.

He opposes legal protection for infants who survive abortion attempts. These positions are clearly out of step with the views held by most Americans.

Unfortunately, they are similar to the positions held by Kamala Harris and countless other Democratic elected officials.

LifeNews Note: Michael J. New is an assistant professor at the Busch School of Business at The Catholic University of America and is an associate scholar at the Charlotte Lozier Institute. Follow him on Twitter @Michael_J_New