Minnesota Family Voter scrubbed the item in question, but Internet Archive kept it online: https://web.archive.org/web/20220927144652/https://www.mnfamilyvoter.com/candidate/schultz-jim/
The item asks, "1. Should abortions be banned after fetal heartbeat is detected (around 6 weeks gestation)? The item posts a Schultz response, "Y" for Yes.
Schultz has disavowed that response. Minnesota Family Voter's public position is it "inferred" the response.
DFL posted about it, and Schultz is reputed to have threatened suit. Ken Martin's reputed response, "Bring it on."
Can you imagine Schultz actually suing? That would be a hoot. Discovery under oath. Schultz asserting that Minnesota Family Voter falsified things, asserting that under oath, not as a claim made to the public via campaign spokespersons.
"Bring it on" clearly was the appropriate response. And DFL would be the deep pocket. It was a clear absurdity for the Schultz camp to actually assert a will to litigate. It borders on unbelievable that they took that step.
Meanwhile the Attorney General, Ellison, is doing his job while Shultz has been posting video.
__________UPDATE_________
MN DFL has posted this Twitter tweet thread. It is focused on Schultz, while a sidebar item references another, separate MN DFL tweet thread. They are separate and different tweets, both by MN DFL.
The above cited Schultz-centric tweet might confuse. The item has been archived by Internet Archive, and while the originating political operation took down its publication of the Schultz questionaire response it had earlier published, on their active website; as of the date of this Crabgrass post Internet Archive retained it online. The archived page tells its story; the backing and filling from Schultz and the item originator notwithstanding, it was posted, Schultz is documented in video saying he'd go on the offense about abortion, "Offense, offense, offense," with that offenseive aimed against the Minnesota Supreme Court's decision in Doe v. Gomez, (with that case based upon the Court's holding of Minnesota Constitution privacy rights, which the MN GOP wants to destroy).
Minnesotans deserve privacy, including in reproductive decision making as well as in other contexts, even if Ailito and Clarence Thomas have the will to undermine privacy as a U.S. Constitutional right of all of the nation's citizens. And Minnesotans retain their privacy rights, under Doe v. Gomez. And that remains important, now and in the future, with the evidence showing that for the upcoming election the MN GOP as a pure election tactic, wanting to falsely soft peddle their stance due to the unpopularity of that stance among voters. In essence, they belie the truth.