Court dismisses lawsuit challenging Minnesota abortion laws

A federal court has dismissed a lawsuit filed last year by several pro-life groups and women in Minnesota who argued that the state's pro-abortion laws violate the 14th Amendment’s due process clause — and that due to the laws, women do not receive informed consent before abortion.

Key Takeaways:

• A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed to overturn some of Minnesota's pro-abortion laws.

• The lawsuit argued that the state's laws terminate the right of pregnant mother to a relationship with her child.

• An attorney for the plaintiffs says they plan to appeal.

The Backstory:

In November 2024, several pro-life organizations — including Women’s Life Care Center, National Institute of Family and Life Advocates, Dakota Hope Clinic, David Billings, MD, and Dawn Schreifels, MD — along with three mothers, filed a lawsuit against the state of Minnesota.

The plaintiffs sued Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, Governor Tim Walz, Minnesota Department of Human Services Commissioner Jodi Harpstead, Planned Parenthood Minnesota, and several other organizations on the basis that the state’s current abortion laws “have the irreparable termination of the pregnant mother’s relationship with her child by terminating the life of her child without providing any due process protections or the equal protection of the law.”

In 25 years, more than 90,000 babies have been aborted at Minnesota taxpayers’ expense

The lawsuit further argued that abortion is not a medical treatment, but instead the “employment of a medical procedure to achieve a non-medical objective: the termination of a pregnant mother’s constitutionally protected relationship with her child."

The plaintiffs held a press conference in July to further detail the predatory and coercive nature of the abortion industry.

The Details:

On August 27, U.S. District Judge Nancy Brasel dismissed the lawsuit. In her ruling, Brasel said the plaintiffs were calling for a right between a “pregnant mother and an unborn child” that has not been recognized under the Constitution.

“The intellectually honest approach in this case would be for Plaintiffs to acknowledge that they are seeking to establish a new fundamental right under the Fourteenth Amendment’s substantive due process clause,” she wrote. “Plaintiffs are perfectly entitled to try and establish such a right. But they have continued to argue that such a right already exists in case law, which is simply not true.”

CBS News also reported court documents as saying "the crisis pregnancy centers and their owners have suffered no concrete injury as a result of Minnesota's choice not to impose the stringent abortion regulations the centers prefer."

Attorney General Keith Ellison praised the ruling.

"This latest attack on abortion access in Minnesota is a reminder that anti-choice interest groups are constantly seeking new ways to ban abortion or make reproductive healthcare services harder to obtain," Ellison said after the suit's dismissal. "I am pleased to have defeated this latest attack on abortion in Minnesota, and I will do everything in my power to defend Minnesotans' right to reproductive healthcare."

What's Next:

Harold Cassidy, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said he plans to appeal the ruling.

“In the end, the rights of the mothers in Minnesota will be protected,” he told Forum News Service. “The way they’re abused under Minnesota law must be brought to an end. There is coercion that must stop. The abuse of women must stop. Men forcing women to have abortions against their will must stop.”