In Minnesota, a proposed amendment to the state constitution is likely to come up for a vote on the House floor soon. The amendment aims to protect people on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex and other attributes including gender expression as well as making pregnancy decisions related to abortion.
Some religious leaders fear the amendment’s protections will infringe on the religious rights of Minnesota residents, and put women and girls at risk.
Equal Rights Amendment
The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) is a proposal that enshrines protections for several classes of people in the Minnesota constitution.
On Monday, the amendment passed through the House Rules and Legislative Administration Committee and will likely come up for a vote on the House floor in the upcoming days. If passed, the proposal would be put in front of voters to approve or reject during the November election.
Protected Classes
If it achieves voter approval, the ERA would change Article 1 of the Minnesota constitution.
“All persons shall be guaranteed equal rights under the laws of this state. The state shall not discriminate against any person in intent or effect on account of one or more of the following: (a) race; (b) color; (c) national origin; (d) ancestry; (e) disability; or (f) sex, including but not limited to: (i) making and effectuating decisions about all matters relating to one’s own pregnancy or decision whether to become or remain pregnant; (ii) gender identity or gender expression; or (iii) sexual orientation,” the ERA says.
‘Erosion Rights Amendment’
One group protesting the ERA, the Minnesota Catholic Conference (MCC), views it as an attack on religious liberty.
“The Equal Rights Amendment, more appropriately called the “Erosion of Rights Amendment,” would diminish the hard-earned rights and protections of women and could eliminate conscience rights and religious liberty of all Minnesotans,” the MCC said.
Protection Already Exists
The MCC argues that sufficient equal protection under the law has already existed “for decades.”
In their view, the amendment is a vehicle to impose gender ideology in school curriculum, disrupt womens-only spaces, and erode the religious rights of medical professionals to refuse “taxpayer-funded gender-affirming care.”
Insufficient Religious Protections
Another issue raised by the opponents of the bill is that the amendment notably does not establish any religious protections despite its wide scope.
“Today, on behalf of @NorthwesternMN, I joined fellow MN faith leaders at our state capitol in a unified effort to, at a minimum, include Religion in the proposed Minnesota Equal Rights Amendment,” said University of Northwestern VP Greg Johnson.
Redefining Terms
Another factor that opponents of ERA take issue with is the redefinition of “sex” in the amendment to include gender orientation and even pregnancy decisions.
According to the amendment, protections of sex will now include “making and effectuating decisions about all matters relating to one’s own pregnancy or decision whether to become or remain pregnant; gender identity or gender expression; or sexual orientation.”
Eroding of Women’s Spaces
The MCC worries that this broader definition of sex would have negative effects on women’s only spaces like sports, sex-separated shelters, and prison facilities that only house women.
“The ERA is a trojan horse to weaken women’s rights,” the MCC said. The issue of trans individuals in women’s sports and other areas has become an increasingly hot-button political issue in recent years.
Protestors Clash
The capital of Minnesota has recently seen groups of protestors clashing with each other, chanting either support or opposition to the ERA.
Opponents of ERA were clad in red shirts, while the amendment supporters have taken on green as their color.
Heated Debate
While shouting erupted outside the capitol building, a fierce debate was ongoing between lawmakers inside it as well.
Lawmakers argued about a religious exemption to allow discrimination against gay and transgender people in certain cases, which was ultimately added to the ERA Tuesday, which religious groups celebrated.
Disgusting Exemption
Representative Brion Curran called the exemption for religious organizations “disgusting” “infuriating,” and “disrespectful.”
“I am appalled that we are having this discussion,” Curran said. “Where’s the dignity in not recognizing our fellow neighbors?”
Compromise
Minnesota Representative Harry Niska felt that the agreement reached on the religious exemption was a compromise for both sides.
“Both sides had to be flexible in working to resolve this issue and I think the finished product respects all Minnesotans,” Niska said. “It protects institutional autonomy and the rights of association for people of faith.”
