ST. PAUL, Minn. - Legal experts are debating whether the U.S. Constitution will be changed after the Equal Rights Amendment cleared a big hurdle this week. Even if it is, supporters want a similar change in Minnesota.
The federal amendment, which prohibits discrimination based on sex, reached a milestone when Virginia became the last state needed to ratify the proposal. Legal challenges are expected before the amendment becomes final.
Heather Allison, president of ERA Minnesota, points out that Minnesota was one of the earlier states to join the federal movement, but it's been a struggle to get a similar change adopted here.
"There has been legislation introduced every session for many, many years," says Allison. "And last session, for the first time, the ERA bills were passed out of the Minnesota House. And so, that was a huge success."
She says the amendment continues to face hurdles in the Minnesota Senate so it can be sent to voters for consideration. It's unclear if a state ERA will be considered again in the upcoming session.
On the federal level, 38 states have ratified the amendment - the two-thirds majority needed to push it forward.
Allison says states that have already adopted their own Equal Rights Amendments have done so with variations as to which forms of discrimination are covered. She says that's why it's important to have the extra level of legal protection, even if the federal amendment becomes final.
"It's very important for each state to have its own Equal Rights Amendment so that, as you're having cases of discrimination come up to the state Supreme Court level, you know, again, it can receive that level of scrutiny, that level of review that gives the defendant a higher chance of being successful," says Allison.
State lawmakers who have raised questions about the amendment say because it includes the word "gender," it could open the door to debates about transgender individuals using facilities designated for the opposite sex. They also claim it could be used to expand abortion rights.
get more stories like this via email
New research shows more than six in 10 abortions in the U.S. last year were medically induced, and U.S. Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto - D-NV - is sounding the alarm over the Supreme Court's decision to hear a case that could restrict access to the abortion pill mifepristone.
It is the first major case related to women's reproductive rights since the Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022.
On Tuesday, after hearing oral arguments, the Court seemed likely to preserve access to the medication.
Cortez Masto said the country has witnessed what she calls "the tragic consequences of abortion restrictions," which started with the country's highest court.
"This just goes to show you," said Cortez Masto, "far-right extremists are going to stop at nothing to restrict women's rights when it comes to their reproductive freedom - that is why we can't give up."
Cortez Masto contended mifepristone is safe and effective and is also critical for miscarriage care.
But the case presented to the Supreme Court by anti-abortion doctors claim the Food and Drug Administration acted too quickly in removing restrictions on the drug.
If the court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, mifepristone access could stop immediately in all states - including those where abortion is legal such as Nevada.
Critics of the drug say it carries significant side effects, include bacterial infections and prolonged, heavy menstrual bleeding.
While mifepristone may not be prohibited all together, restrictions on the pill could be reinstated.
Cortez Masto argued conservative groups never planned to stop with just repealing Roe v. Wade, but adds they are aiming to roll back women's rights all together.
"That is why we can't give up," said Cortez Masto. "We have to continue to use our voices and be advocates to fight for women's rights."
The Supreme Court could make a decision on the case in June.
In the Silver State, a coalition is working to get an amendment on the ballot this November to enshrine abortion rights in the Silver State's constitution.
get more stories like this via email
State Rep. Susie Lee - D-Las Vegas - said she wants women in Nevada and across the country to wake up, as she contends far-right extremists are wanting to restrict in-vitro fertilization and other assisted reproductive technology.
Lee joined her Democratic colleagues in calling for the passage of the Access to Family Building Act, which would establish a legal right to IVF and other services - overriding the state's effort to limit or ban access as was achieved in Alabama.
As someone who used IVF to have her own family, Lee said she feels like it is an important piece of legislation.
"I feel that any Republican who says we support IVF should be signing on to that," said Lee. "Instead, what we've seen are these non-binding resolutions. Well, if you really believe that women should have a right and families should have a right to pursue and build a family, then sign onto the bill."
Lee said only one House Republican has signed on to support the Access to Family Building Act.
In the Silver State, a coalition of reproductive rights groups have launched an effort to place an amendment on the November ballot to safeguard abortion rights in the Nevada constitution.
Organizers say they'll also aim to use frustration over the recent Alabama ruling to garner support for their ballot measure.
Alexa Solis is deputy director for the nonpartisan and nonprofit organization called Planned Parenthood Votes Nevada.
She said while it is too early to say what the Alabama decision means for IVF as a whole, she says we live in a world where people travel to states like Nevada where abortion is legal.
"So if there were more rulings or legislation or other actions that would take us in the direction of this Alabama decision," said Solis, "you could see a world in which people are once again forced to travel for care that they should be able to get in their home state."
According to a recent CBS News-YouGov poll, an overwhelming majority of Americans believe IVF should be legal.
The poll was conducted following Alabama's court ruling which ruled that frozen embryos should be considered people.
get more stories like this via email
Nearly 80% of California women age 40 and older say they are highly motivated to vote, according to a new survey from AARP.
Researchers for the new "She's the Difference" California survey polled 1,600 women and found many are highly concerned about political divisions.
Kate Bridges, senior research adviser for AARP, said older women are an influential voting bloc.
"Not only are they sizable in number, but they consistently vote," Bridges pointed out. "In the 2022 election, they cast a third of the ballots, while only making up about a quarter of the full electorate."
Survey respondents' top issues, in order, are threats to democracy, voting rights, jobs, education, political division, and inflation. Also of high importance are gun violence, election security, crime, housing costs, abortion, racism, immigration and climate change.
Lucia Del Puppo, senior vice president of Los Angeles-based FM3 Research, reported almost half of women said they are less financially secure than they expected to be at this age and they want elected officials to focus on protecting Medicare and lowering the cost of living.
"The things that were most helpful were lowering the cost of food, protecting Social Security, lowering the cost of utilities, decreasing taxes, and lowering the cost of health care."
The survey found if the election were held now, 53% of respondents would favor Democrats, 29% prefer Republicans, 4% would go with another party and 13% are undecided. Among those survey, 92% said a candidate's values are the most important criteria when deciding who gets their vote.
Disclosure: AARP California contributes to our fund for reporting on Health Issues, and Senior Issues. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email