Women of the State v. Gomez
1995 WL 739860, 1995 Minn. LEXIS 1036, 542 N.W.2d 17 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Minnesota Constitution's right of privacy, which provides broader protection than the U.S. Constitution, the government may not selectively fund childbirth-related medical services for indigent women while withholding funding for medically necessary, therapeutic abortion services, as this scheme unconstitutionally infringes on a woman's fundamental right to decide whether to terminate her pregnancy.
Facts:
- Minnesota's Medical Assistance (MA) and General Assistance Medical Care (GAMC) programs provided comprehensive funding for pregnancy and childbirth-related services for eligible low-income women.
- The same state programs, through a series of statutes, restricted funding for abortions to three narrow circumstances: 1) if two physicians certified it was necessary to save the mother's life, 2) if the pregnancy resulted from specific types of rape reported to law enforcement within 48 hours, or 3) if the pregnancy resulted from incest reported to law enforcement before the abortion.
- MA/GAMC-eligible women who sought abortions for serious health reasons not immediately threatening death (such as pre-existing conditions aggravated by pregnancy like heart disease or diabetes, or psychiatric disabilities) were denied public funding for the procedure.
- The statutory requirements for reporting rape and incest often excluded victims who were too traumatized or otherwise unable or unwilling to report the crimes to law enforcement within the specified timeframes.
- The statutes' definitions of rape and incest were narrower than the full scope of criminal sexual conduct, excluding situations like statutory rape or incest by a step-relative.
- Because of the funding restrictions, indigent women were forced to delay obtaining abortions while they sought alternative funds, a delay that increases the medical risks and potential health complications associated with the procedure.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs, including women eligible for public assistance, doctors, and health clinics, filed suit in Hennepin County District Court against the State of Minnesota.
- The complaint sought a declaratory judgment that the state's abortion funding restrictions were unconstitutional and an injunction to prevent their enforcement.
- The district court certified a plaintiff class of women eligible for state medical programs who seek abortions for health reasons.
- On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, striking down the statutes as unconstitutional and permanently enjoining their enforcement.
- The State's subsequent motion for a stay of the injunction was denied by the district court.
- The State, as appellant, filed a notice of appeal and a petition for accelerated review with the Minnesota Supreme Court, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do Minnesota statutes that provide public funds for childbirth-related medical services, but restrict funding for most therapeutic abortion-related services, impermissibly infringe upon a woman's fundamental right of privacy under Article I, Sections 2, 7, and 10 of the Minnesota Constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - Keith, Chief Justice
Yes, the statutory scheme infringes upon a woman’s fundamental right of privacy. The Minnesota Constitution affords broader protection than the United States Constitution for a woman's fundamental right to decide whether to obtain an abortion. While the U.S. Supreme Court in Harris v. McRae held that indigency, not government action, was the obstacle to abortion access, this court rejects that reasoning. By funding all expenses for childbirth but denying funds for therapeutic abortions, the state creates a powerful financial incentive that coerces an indigent woman's procreative decision, effectively removing her choice. This infringement on a fundamental right is subject to strict scrutiny, and the state's asserted interest in encouraging childbirth is not compelling before fetal viability. Therefore, the statutory funding restrictions are unconstitutional.
Dissenting - Coyne, Justice
No, the statutory scheme does not infringe upon a woman's right of privacy. There is a significant difference between the right to decide to have an abortion without fear of criminal penalty, as established in Roe v. Wade, and a right to compel the state to pay for that abortion. Constitutional rights are limitations on government interference, not entitlements to government financial aid. The government must be selective in its funding, and its choice to fund childbirth but not all abortions is a permissible policy decision for the legislature, not the courts. This situation is analogous to the government funding public schools but not private religious schools; in both cases, the government's refusal to fund a constitutionally protected choice does not impermissibly burden the exercise of that right.
Analysis:
This decision establishes that the Minnesota Constitution's right of privacy provides broader protection for abortion rights than the U.S. Constitution, explicitly rejecting the U.S. Supreme Court's contrary holding in Harris v. McRae. The ruling shifts the legal analysis from whether the government is creating a direct 'obstacle' to abortion to whether its selective funding scheme impermissibly 'infringes' on the decision-making process itself by creating coercive financial incentives. This precedent makes Minnesota one of several states finding a state constitutional right to public funding for abortions when other pregnancy-related care is funded, significantly impacting healthcare access for low-income women within the state.
