Women of the State of Minnesota by Doe vs. Gomez
In 1995, the Minnesota Supreme Court decided the case of Women of the State of Minnesota by Doe v. Gomez. This critical ruling struck down a law which limited state medical assistance funds for abortion to only certain women-those whose lives were endangered or who reported rape or incest-and allowed a broader interpretation of the situations in which medical assistance funds could be used for abortion services.
Finding that the state constitution provides greater protection for women's childbearing choices than the federal Constitution, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that state officials cannot selectively cover pregnancy-related services by funding prenatal care and childbirth expenses while refusing to cover abortion services.
By refusing to fund abortion services for low-income women, the state interferes with a woman's right to choose by adding undue financial constraints to her decision.
Since Gomez was decided in 1995, several states, including Florida, Texas and Arizona, have grappled with similar cases and have turned to the Gomez decision for clarification on legal precedent.
Minnesota is one of 16 states whose supreme court has ruled that its state constitution provides greater protection for reproductive choice than does the federal Constitution.
Any proposed legislation that includes cuts to, or complete bans on, state funding for abortion services is blatantly unconstitutional as a result of the Gomez decision and would be opposed by Planned Parenthood.
The language used in the decision has been interpreted by scholars on both sides of the abortion debate to declare the right to choose as a fundamental right in Minnesota.
Sign up to receive information alerts on Gomez as well as other reproductive rights issues.
Finding that the state constitution provides greater protection for women's childbearing choices than the federal Constitution, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that state officials cannot selectively cover pregnancy-related services by funding prenatal care and childbirth expenses while refusing to cover abortion services.
By refusing to fund abortion services for low-income women, the state interferes with a woman's right to choose by adding undue financial constraints to her decision.
Since Gomez was decided in 1995, several states, including Florida, Texas and Arizona, have grappled with similar cases and have turned to the Gomez decision for clarification on legal precedent.
Minnesota is one of 16 states whose supreme court has ruled that its state constitution provides greater protection for reproductive choice than does the federal Constitution.
Any proposed legislation that includes cuts to, or complete bans on, state funding for abortion services is blatantly unconstitutional as a result of the Gomez decision and would be opposed by Planned Parenthood.
The language used in the decision has been interpreted by scholars on both sides of the abortion debate to declare the right to choose as a fundamental right in Minnesota.
Sign up to receive information alerts on Gomez as well as other reproductive rights issues.
