Kare11
Minnesota law for late-term abortions explained
In the vice presidential debate, Ohio Senator JD Vance claimed Minnesota law doesn’t require doctors to save babies born during abortion procedures.
ST PAUL, Minn. — Governor Tim Walz signed several bills affirming abortion rights in 2023, and none of them allow doctors to deprive healthy babies of medical care.
But that’s the unfounded charge being lobbed at Walz and fellow Democrats now that he has become Vice President Kamala Harris’ running mate.
In Tuesday night’s vice presidential debate, Ohio Senator JD Vance said to Walz, “As I read the Minnesota law that you signed into law, the statute that you signed into law, it says that a doctor who presides over an abortion, where the baby survives, the doctor is under no obligation to provide lifesaving care to a baby who survives a botched late-term abortion.”
Walz said it’s simply not true, but didn’t delve into the details of what the laws say.
Vance was apparently referencing a 2023 bill that amended a 2015 law known as the “Born Alive Infant Protection Act” that mandated doctors save the lives of babies born during an abortion procedure.
The DFL majority’s Omnibus Health Bill in 2023 amended the part of state law – Sec. 145.423 subdivision 1 — to remove references to babies born in abortions, but reinforced doctors’ responsibility to care for any infant born alive.
The amended law reads as follows:
- 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 original language of the 2015 “Born-Alive Act” reads as follows:
- A born alive infant as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and be accorded immediate protection under the law. All reasonable measures consistent with good medical practice shall be taken by responsible medical personnel to preserve the life and health of the born alive infant.
Republicans contend that removing the words “to preserve the life” means that physicians are no longer required to save lives. Democrats say that’s not true and fails to recognize the reason late-term abortions are performed in the first place.
Democrats pushed for the change, asserting doctors are already obligated by law to save the lives of any person that can be saved. She also asserted the very existence of the law created the false impression that otherwise healthy babies could be allowed to die without care.
During debate of the bill, Rep. Tina Liebling, a Rochester Democrat, said the “born alive” law ignored the reality that doctors aren’t allowed to commit homicide.
“You don’t need that born alive law to protect infants against infanticide,” Rep. Liebling argued during the floor debate on the omnibus health bill in 2023.
“Infanticide is, in fact, illegal. Infanticide will remain illegal.”
She was responding to Republican lawmakers, including Rep. Peggy Scott of Andover, who reminded fellow legislators that premature babies as young as 21 weeks of gestational age had survived.
“You should not be allowed to snuff out a healthy baby.” Rep. Scott remarked during the health bill debate.
During his debate with Vice President Kamala Harris, former President Trump claimed that babies born alive in states without restrictions on abortions were being “executed” after birth. The ABC moderators instantly fact-checked Trump, noting that it’s against the law in all 50 states for a doctor to kill a living infant.
Late-term abortions are extremely rare
That narrative became part of a long-running TV ad by Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, the state’s oldest and largest anti-abortion organization.
In the MCCL ad, a woman points to an online newspaper article on her phone and says to her friend, “It says right here the legislature passed that allows an unborn baby to be aborted at any time up to birth. Even healthy babies with healthy moms.”
It’s true that the PRO Act signed by Governor Walz has no restriction on gestational age, but that’s not a new development. The PRO Act codified the case law rules that were already in effect in Minnesota stemming from a 1995 Minnesota Supreme Court decision known as “Doe v. Gomez.”
The reality is that third-term abortions are extremely rare in Minnesota, according to the Minnesota Department of Health’s most recent Induced Abortions Report to the Minnesota Legislature, which covered the calendar year 2022. In that year, of 12,090 abortions performed in Minnesota only 1 happened in the third trimester.
The other reality, according to the Minnesota Medical Association, is that any abortion performed that late in pregnancy would involve an infant that wouldn’t be able to live very long after birth and a situation in which the mother’s health is threatened in some way.
These are not “botched” abortions resulting in healthy babies, as Sen. Vance contended.
Sen. Erin Maye Quade, an Apple Valley Democrat, said that in virtually every late-term abortion an induced delivery that recognizes the baby will have extreme abnormalities that prevent its survival.
“In those cases, the induction of childbirth is the method of abortion, it is the method of terminating a pregnancy. So, in those cases an infant being born alive is the goal. That’s the point. The parents hold and spend time with that child before it passes away,” Sen. Maye Quade explained.
“We changed the law to be appropriate so that all children access medical care that’s appropriate for them, and for some of these families the appropriate care is palliative care for their dying baby.”
Tippy Amundson credits her later-term abortion with making it possible for her to have children later. She learned during the 20-week checkup in her first pregnancy that her baby had stopped developing and wouldn’t survive outside the womb. She was also warned that continuing the pregnancy would result in a complication that could require removing her uterus.
“The only reason I have my three beautiful boys today is because I had an abortion. Without it, I might not have a uterus, and I might not have my family,” Amundson said during a reproductive rights press conference sponsored by the Harris-Walz campaign.
She wasn’t able to hold her aborted child but empathizes with parents who want that choice.
“The born alive statements that Trump keeps making are so hurtful to families like mine. What he does by saying those things in a very public way just rips out the souls of those mothers who want an opportunity to say goodbye to their baby.”
Conservative politicians have seized on the 2021 Born Alive Report, a subsection of the Health Department’s 2021 Induced Abortions Report. It describes five live births that occurred during abortions in Minnesota.
That report details the circumstances as follows:
- In one instance, fetal anomalies were reported resulting in death shortly after delivery. No measures taken to preserve life were reported and the infant did not survive.
- In two instances, comfort care measures were provided as planned and the infant did not survive.
- In two instances, the infant was pre-viable. No measures taken to preserve life were reported and the infant did not survive.
According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, a “pre-viable infant” is one that isn’t developed enough to survive outside of the uterus. For example, the baby may have a beating heart but is born without fully developed lungs and wouldn’t be able to breathe on its own.
That 2021 report came out two years before lawmakers changed the “Born Alive Infant Protection Act.”
Sen. Maye Quade said it’s wrong to speculate those five late-term live births involved babies that would’ve survived, or that the changes made in 2023 would encourage needless late-term abortions in this state.
“These lies are exactly kinds of rhetoric that scare people but also put shame onto these families that are going through some of the worst things they have heard, so folks need to know that they are capitalizing on the worst moments of these families lives to perpetuate a lie and a myth to voters.”
The Giving Voice Crosstown Chorus serenaded their audience Friday with a blend of traditional tunes and Christmas favorites.
EDINA, Minn. — A unique chorus and community added their voices to the holiday season on Friday.
The Giving Voice Crosstown Chorus serenaded their audience with a blend of traditional tunes and Christmas favorites.
Choir members also shared about the beautiful community they’ve created, as every member is either a person living with Alzheimer’s or other form of dementia or their care partner.
KARE 11’s Karla Hult was honored to join the festivities as a featured speaker, adding that this concert is a “highlight of my holiday season,”
To learn more about Giving Voice – and the opportunity to support this organization or become part of a choir yourself – just click here.
You can also learn about the benefits (and joys) of music for those living with dementia in Karla’s conversation with Giving Voice Artistic Director Debbie Richman on Karla’s podcast, Hello Alzheimer’s. You can find the conversation here or wherever you get your podcasts.
On the eve of a big holiday event in downtown Northfield, someone cut down a tree in the center of town. It wasn’t down for long.
NORTHFIELD, Minn. — On the morning of the annual Winter Walk event in downtown Northfield, the brightly colored Christmas tree at the center of it all was in shambles.
“I got a text from one of the city streets guys saying the Grinch has been downtown and took out a tree,” said Jane Bartho, president of the Northfield Chamber of Commerce and Tourism. “I’m like, are you sure the wind didn’t take it out?”
After seeing a photo of the tree, Bartho had a definitive answer to her question.
Jane Bartho: “Yeah, clearly it was not the wind. It looked like a chainsaw took it off. You could see a path where somebody dragged the tree across the street.”
Kent Erdahl: “So you see the path and then you think, ‘Okay, it is the Grinch.’
Bartho: “It was the Grinch because who else? Who else would do it? I just can’t imagine. I cannot imagine who… who would have done that.”
But dwelling in ‘who?’ville wasn’t an option for Bartho, not with a event just hours away, which would draw thousands of people into downtown.
“Honestly, most of my focus yesterday was about the event,” she said.
Though the city crew was able to trim the base of the tree and get it upright again, the decorations were in disrepair.
“I mean, even the lights were cut,” Bartho said.
“Yeah, they cut the lights,” said Zandra Bornhauser, who was part of the team with Home Town Credit Union who sponsored the tree and had decorated it. “So we had to redecorate it fully, pretty much.”
“We were just shocked,” said Kurt Halverson, who helped with the tree repair. “It was just hard to understand who would take the effort on such a cold night to come down here in such a public space and cut down something that’s just meant to be a symbol of good and cheer.”
Thanks to their quick work, the team of helpers made sure that Grinch didn’t rob anyone of that cheer. The tree was back shining bright by the time the festival began Thursday night.
“It was magical,” Bartho said.
“It was so inspiring to see how everybody rallied around to wish us good luck in re-setting up the tree,” Halverson said. “It really did bring the community closer together on such a cold evening.”
As for the cold-hearted grinch, Bartho says they’re still checking security cameras and asking around.
“To see if anybody was looking out,” she said. “If anybody saw anything.”
And if they are eventually identified?
Bartho: “Maybe the punishment would have to be to decorate the tree every year in this frigid weather.”
Erdahl: “If you’re going to keep with the theme, you’ve got to invite them down and sing with them, right? You’ve got to warm that cold heart.”
Bartho: “At the end, yeah, his heart was warmed by the people in his life, so maybe the punishment would be to come down and have hot chocolate, feel the Christmas spirit and never do that again.”
Almost 80 percent reported that they have less than a year before they face financial distress.
MINNESOTA, USA — Despite Give to the Max Day breaking donation records, nonprofits tell us they still need help to keep up the demand for their services.
According to a recent survey by the Council of Nonprofits, 73 percent of Minnesota organizations reported they have grown programs and services to meet the demands of Minnesotans.
Almost 80 percent reported that they have less than a year before they face financial distress.
Open Arms is a nonprofit that delivers food to critically ill people. It said December is a crucial month for donations, because they will make decisions on their programs and services for the next year.
“Wages and the cost of ingredients have gone up 30% since the end of COVID or the end of the COVID years, and so that is really, really hard on all nonprofits,” said CEO Leah Hébert Welles. “And then the second thing, government funds have dried up.”
“It’s almost kind of like the way that the tide works and a big body of water where there is still significant need, but that wave of resources from 2020 has backed up, and the need for nonprofits is still right there,” said Jake Blumberg, the executive director of GiveMN, the organization in charge of Give to the Max Day.
Blumberg says 30% of donations for nonprofits happen in the last six weeks of the year.
“We have to make really hard decisions about what we can do next year, how many more people we can help, how many more staff we can hire,” said Welles,
To consider donation or volunteering to Open Arms of Minensota, click here.
To explore more nonprofits, visit GiveMN.org.
