Abortion and lower voting ages

Posted at 2:47 PM on January 26, 2012 by Bob Collins (12 Comments)
Filed under: Politics

You can set your legislative watch by the filing of some bills and proposed constitutional amendments whenever the Legislature returns to session. Two of them made their appearance today in the legislative "inbox."

ABORTION BAN
HF1928 would add another constitutional amendment to the ballot banning the use of state funds for abortion:

State funds shall not be used to fund abortions, except to the extent necessary for continued participation in a federal program. For purposes of this section, "abortion" means the use of any means to terminate the pregnancy of a woman known to be
pregnant with knowledge that the termination with those means will, with reasonable
likelihood, cause the death of the fetus. "Fetus" means any individual human organism
from fertilization until birth.

Under federal law, abortions need to be publically funded when there arelife-threatening complications for the mother or fetus and cases of rape or incest.

In 1995, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that public funds are required to be used when necessary for abortions, because failing to do so violates a woman's privacy

It is critical to note that the right of privacy under our constitution protects not simply the right to an abortion, but rather it protects the woman's decision to abort; any legislation infringing on the decision-making process, then, violates this fundamental right. In the present case, the infringement is the state's offer of money to women for health care services necessary to carry the pregnancy to term, and the state's ban on health care funding for women who choose therapeutic abortions. Faced with these two options, financially independent women might not feel particularly compelled to choose either childbirth or abortion based on the monetary incentive alone. Indigent women, on the other hand, are precisely the ones who would be most affected by an offer of monetary assistance, and it is these women who are targeted by the statutory funding ban. We simply cannot say that an indigent woman's decision whether to terminate her pregnancy is not significantly impacted by the state's offer of comprehensive medical services if the woman carries the pregnancy to term. We conclude, therefore, that these statutes constitute an infringement on the fundamental right of privacy.

Here is the entire 1995 court ruling.

LOWERING THE VOTING AGE

Rep. Phyllis Kahn has dusted off an old proposal that changes the state and local election voting age from 18 to 16. HF1951 proposes a constitutional amendment that would allow anyone in the U.S. for at least three months to vote at the lowered age:

The question submitted must be: Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to allow persons 16 or more years of age to vote in state and local elections?

In the past, Kahn has noted that the state allows 14-year-olds to operate firearms and 16-year-olds to drive. She previously has said the voting age should be as low as 12.

---

Comments (12)

How about a constitutional amendment that permanently bans Republicans from "serving" in the state legislature?

Posted by Disco | January 26, 2012 3:26 PM

---

If one was to look at the majority of republican-sponsored legislation, we would conclude that their respect for life begins at fertilization and ends at birth. ( It's not my line, but I can't find who to source :-)

Posted by Jim Shapiro | January 26, 2012 3:38 PM

---

@Jim,
I believe that line is attributed to the late George Carlin.

Posted by Jay Sieling | January 26, 2012 3:53 PM

---

Indeed, Jim.

Phyllis Kahn's idea is not a good one. I think we should maybe RAISE the voting age. I knew almost NOTHING about the world when I was 16.

Posted by Jamie | January 26, 2012 4:19 PM

---

If we are going to lower age limits, why not lower the drinking age to 18. You can die for your country at 18 but you can't have a beer.

Posted by Aaron | January 26, 2012 4:24 PM

---

You can die for your country at 18 but you can't have a beer.

Oddly enough the reason you can vote at 18 is because "you can die for your country" at that age. When the federal voting age was lowered to 18 in 1971 it was in part in response to complaints that 18 year old young men could be drafted and forced to serve in the military but had no means of impacting the political process that led to us going to war. The history shows that at that time the drinking age in many states was lowered to 18 as well.

In the 1980s in response to the increase in drunk driving fatalities a commission appointed by President Reagan recommended a uniform age of 21 for the purchase and possession of alcohol. Congress passed a law that tied raising the legal age to highway funds from the Federal government.

To be precise your statement above should read "...but you can't buy a beer."

Posted by JackU | January 26, 2012 4:49 PM

---

Jamie - I believe that the right to vote should not be granted according to age, but rather should be dependent on a sufficient knowledge of the issues.

A series of simple, factual questions should be asked. For example:

True or false: President Obama is a socialist Moslem who was not born in the US..
True or false: Iraq and Saddam Hussein were responsible for the attack on 9/11.
True or false: The US should attack Iran to prevent it from getting a nuclear weapon. ( If you answered True, find Iran on the map.)
True or false: It is logical that the servants of millionaires should have to pay a larger percent of their income in taxes than their employers.
True or false: The bible is a legitimate source of scientific information, and should be taught in the schools as such.

Stuff like that.

Posted by Jim Shapiro | January 26, 2012 5:12 PM

---

I'm with ya, Jim.

And I'll add another question:

True of false: "Trickle-down economics," the same concept recommended by Reagan and by conservatives today, works for everybody.

Answer is "False" of course.

Posted by Jamie | January 26, 2012 5:29 PM

---

yeah, literacy tests, that sounds genius. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_test

Posted by Kassie | January 26, 2012 9:27 PM

---

Nice idea Jim, but your test is biased because you obviously made all the answers "True". BTW 9 years from now I'm going to be living on the moon.

Posted by The Big Dog | January 26, 2012 11:01 PM

---

"Nice idea Jim, but your test is biased because you obviously made all the answers "True". BTW 9 years from now I'm going to be living on the moon.

Posted by The Big Dog | January 26, 2012 11:01 PM "

...if someone doesn't send you there first...

Posted by Alice K | January 27, 2012 8:24 AM

---

Kassie - The only Americans that my test would disqualify from voting would be those who were ignorant or brainwashed beyond the point of return.

The remaining 37% of the population could vote, regardless of age, gender, race, carnal proclivities, or favorite flavor of ice cream.

Big Dog - Cool! Which side of the moon? Don't forget: location, location, location.

Posted by Jim Shapiro | January 27, 2012 10:49 AM

---

Post a comment

The following HTML tags are allowed in your comments:
+ Bold: <b>Text</b>
+ Italic: <i>Text</i>
+ Link: <a href="http://url" target="_blank">Link</a>
Fields marked with * are required.

Name*:

E-mail Address*:

URL:

Remember personal info?

Comments*:

Comment Preview appears above this form upon pressing the "preview" button. Edit your comment and press "preview" again, until you are satisfied with your comment.

Your comment may not appear on the blog until several minutes after it was submitted.

• E-mail this page
• Print this page
• Tweet this page
• Share this

Services

• Hourly Newscast
• HD Radio
• iPhone App / Mobile
• E-mail newsletters
• RSS feeds
• Podcasts
• Submit your photos
• Videos
• Weather
• Most e-mailed stories