Minnesota lawsuit argues coerced abortions violate parental rights
Today’s article is a guest submission, and the author asked to remain anonymous.
In November 2024, three mothers—each of whom were subjected to involuntary and unwanted abortions—filed suit in federal court challenging the constitutionality of Minnesota’s abortion laws. The mothers are joined by two pregnancy resource centers, two physicians, and NIFLA.
The claims were brought under Section 1983, which allows individuals to file suit in federal court against state employees who have allegedly deprived people of their constitutional or statutory rights. Here, the mothers allege that Minnesota’s abortion statutes subject women to “coerced, pressured, and uninformed terminations” of their right to a relationship with their children, a right that is constitutionally protected. Government officials, the suit asserts, have violated this right by denying due process and equal protection to the mothers.
Among the government defendants are Governor Tim Walz, Jodi Harpstead, (commissioner of Minnesota Department of Human Services), and Dr. Cheryl Bailey (president of the Minnesota Board of Medical Practice). In addition to the government officials, the lawsuit names three abortion clinics and their medical directors as defendants. The plaintiffs assert that these clinics were operating as state actors because the state of Minnesota has delegated authority to the abortion clinics to perform a traditional state function—namely, the termination of a mother’s right to a relationship with her child.
The plaintiffs base their arguments on other Minnesota laws which extend protections to women who are at-risk of either voluntary or involuntary terminations of the maternal relationship with their born children. The complaint details CPS requirements for termination of parental rights, as well as Minnesota’s teen-mom abortion laws. These laws act to protect the mother’s relationship with her child by requiring well-defined legal procedure before termination of rights.
Meanwhile, women who are either voluntarily seeking or being coerced into abortions are considered to be waiving their rights to the relationship with nothing more than a multi-page consent form that abortion providers are not required to discuss with them. The plaintiffs alleges that the form lacks sufficient information for a mother to provide truly informed consent. For example, the consent form does not even inform mothers that they are effectively waiving their constitutional rights by signing the form. The form also leaves out important biological information such as the fact that an abortion “terminates the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being,” that the pregnant mother has “an existing relationship with her unborn child,” or that her one simple signature will authorize the abortion provider to perform “what would otherwise be a murder.”
Plaintiffs are asking the court to view consent forms as instruments of state-sanctioned parental termination. As of July 2025, Judge Nancy Brasel is considering defendants’ motion to dismiss the lawsuit, so whether the case proceeds remains to be seen.
If you appreciate our work and would like to help, one of the most effective ways to do so is to become a monthly donor. You can also give a one time donation here or volunteer with us here.
