Minnesota legislators consider constitutional amendment to protect abortion and LGBTQ rights
ST. PAUL, Minn. — Minnesota Democrats have introduced sweeping legislation to add abortion and LGBTQ rights to the state’s constitution, hoping to make it much harder for future lawmakers to revoke 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 one of the most comprehensive protections of abortion and LGBTQ rights in the country if approved by lawmakers this session and then by voters on the 2026 ballot.
“This isn’t just about reproductive justice,” said Betty Folliard, whose group ERA Minnesota has been pushing for such a measure since 2014. “It’s also about wage inequality, historical stereotypes and discrimination that have been overlooked generation after generation. generation.”
Minnesota already has a nondiscrimination law, the Human Rights Act, that applies to individuals, businesses, schools and other institutions. The constitutional amendment would apply to state government and would ensure that certain laws — including recent laws that have made Minnesota a haven for out-of-state people seeking abortion and gender-affirming care — are repealed by future lawmakers and administrations .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 key values of equality, 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 it goes too far and is divisive.
The language 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 and sexual orientation. The state may also not distinguish between a person who “makes and carries out decisions on all matters relating to one’s own pregnancy or the decision to become or remain pregnant.”
If approved by the Legislature, voters in 2026 would be asked: “Shall the Constitution of Minnesota be amended to say that all persons shall have equal rights under the laws of this state, and shall not be discriminated against on account of race, color, national origin, ancestry, disability or sex, including pregnancy, gender and sexual orientation?”
If approved, the change would take effect on January 1, 2027.
Groups opposing the proposal include Minnesota Family Council, a Christian advocacy group; Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, an anti-abortion group; and Minnesota Catholic Conference, a policy organization for the Catholic Church.
Moses Bratrud, a spokesperson for the Minnesota Family Council, said in an earlier statement: “The new ERA is about abortion and gender ideology, not about protecting the rights of Minnesotans. And while previous versions of the ERA provided protections based on “creed,” the new version removes all religious freedom protections. This is troubling for Minnesotans of all religious backgrounds.”
Last year, another Minnesota ERA proposal passed in the Senate but did not receive a final vote in the House of Representatives.
Democratic Rep. Kaohly Vang Her, lead author of the proposals last year and this year, said several Democrats had previously expressed concerns that the ERA proposal should do more to protect the transgender community and reproductive rights.
She, of St. Paul, said increasing attacks on transgender people in recent years and the U.S. Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022 are top priorities for many Democrats.
Democrats have only a slim majority in each chamber — their margin is just one vote in the Senate — and so will need the support of most in their party if Republicans oppose the legislation. If the constitutional amendment is placed on the ballot, it would have to be approved by a majority of all voters casting ballots, not just a majority of those voting on the issue.
The proposed amendment would be different from the state’s Human Rights Act, said Megan Peterson, executive director of Gender Justice, a gender equality advocacy group that was involved in drafting the ERA proposal.
The Minnesota ERA would amend the state constitution, which determines what types of laws are acceptable for state legislatures to pass or enforce. Peterson said the language on abortion and gender expression is intended to prevent the state from banning abortion or gender-affirming care.
___
Trisha Ahmed is a staff 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