Faith leaders and opponents of abortion rights are raising concerns about Minnesota’s equal rights constitutional amendment

ST. PAUL, Minn. — Faith leaders and opponents of abortion rights raised concerns Wednesday about a proposal moving through the state Legislature to put an equal rights constitutional amendment on the ballot within a few years after a change in the DFL-led House. its scope this week.

Last year, the Minnesota Senate, with some bipartisan support, proposed a version of the Equal Rights Amendment — or ERA — to enshrine in the state’s constitution that “equality under the law shall not be abridged or denied by this state or one of its cities, provinces. or other political distinctions based on race, color, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, disability, ancestry or national origin.”

But now an updated version includes new provisions aimed at strengthening abortion rights – and removes “faith,” which includes religious beliefs, from the proposal. There is no mention of religion.

The language adopted Monday during a hearing in the House of Representatives says the definition of “sex” also includes “making and carrying out decisions about all matters relating to one’s own pregnancy or the decision to become or remain pregnant ‘ includes. In the two years since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Roe vs. Wade overturned, abortion ballot measures have appeared in several states across the country and abortion rights advocates have been successful.

The Minnesota ERA proposal includes the question that would be put before voters should both chambers approve the amendment: “Shall the Constitution of Minnesota be amended to say that all persons shall be afforded equal rights under the laws of this state, and that will not be so.” discriminated against on the basis of race, color, national origin, ancestry, disability, or sex, including pregnancy, gender, and sexual orientation?”

Critics of the changes on Wednesday said adding abortion protections to the amendment is “extreme” and accused Democrats of misleading voters who, under the current language, would see only “pregnancy” in the ballot question. They condemn the doubling of abortion rights.

“They should be two separate questions. A separate question – whether all men are created equal, which was in our founding documents of this country, versus enshrining abortion, which is our most extreme abortion policy until the moment of birth. Rep. Marion Rarick, R-Maple Lake, said at a news conference. “Those are two completely different questions that have now been put together in one constitutional amendment for the people and are not clear.”

Meanwhile, Minnesota Democrats believe that explicitly enshrining abortion access in the Minnesota Constitution is essential, even if a state Supreme Court decision determines constitutional protections and state law that codified these rights last year.

“It’s actually not just about abortion, it’s really about reproductive outcomes. There are a lot of reasons why people want to make plans for their families,” said Rep. Kaohly Vang Her, DFL-St. Paul during a hearing Monday. “And as we have seen in states across the country, the case law is not strong enough to protect our rights.”

At a separate news conference Wednesday, faith leaders said they are concerned about the consequences of not explicitly including religion in the list of protected classes in the ERA. The Minnesota Constitution provides people with the right to freely practice their religion under the Bill of Rights.

If religion is not explicitly included in the ERA, two constitutional provisions could be at odds, they argue. The Rev. Steven Lee, pastor of North Star Church in Mounds View, said the language “could be weaponized against those who want to express their deeply held beliefs.”

“Most Minnesotans have religious beliefs that should be protected from discrimination. This amendment does not do that,” Lee told reporters. “This amendment pits the constitutional guarantee of all Minnesotans to worship according to the dictates of their own conscience against these newly defined so-called rights to pregnancy, gender identity, gender expression and sexual orientation.”

The new House bill would put the amendment before voters in 2026. It would have to pass the House and clear the Senate again with the changes for that to happen; the governor does not sign any amendments.

But it’s unclear whether the ERA will cross the finish line this year as the session winds down. It came to a standstill last year, amid the collapse of other policy proposals and a sweeping budget plan.

Lawmakers have just a handful of days to vote on bills in the left chamber and the constitutional deadline for adjournment is May 20.