HF 1, online here.
HF 91, online here, with it's Sec. 15 (the final bill section), being a repealer provision. Current statutory wording under the repealer would be expressly ended in effect, i.e. removed expressly as law, rather than implicitly superseded by new law.
The two bills aim to conform statutes with clarity in regard to "reproductive freedom" as defined in the HF 1 bill, and in accord with a recent decision of a Minnesota District Court.
MCC: The Minnesota Catholic Conference opposes both bills; see, e.g., here, here, and here. MCC also appears to oppose marijuana legalization inclusive of recreational use, under government regulation (HF 100, a lengthier bill than the two reproductive freedom items). MCC favors the Drivers Licenses for All bill, HF 4).
Strib has published relevant reporting and commentary re abortion issues; and re cannabis. Readers can do site-specific searches of other news outlets with similar subjective search words; per Google Advanced Search via specifying the "site or domain" entry field; e.g., https://www.twincities.com/ entered in that field.
Without researching, the Crabgrass understanding is that companion bills exist in the Minnesota Senate.
While other organizations besides MCC may oppose abortion and cannabis legalization, MCC has the greater gravitas. It is the heavyweight opponent.
Republicans can be anticipated to vote against the will of the DFL majority. How rapidly the issues are faced and resolved by the legislature is anyone's guess. Glacial action with much posturing both ways is the Crabgrass guess.
Crabgrass favors the proposed DFL bills, with the expectation that the two abortion related bills will progress largely unaltered to Gov. Walz for signature, while there may be substantial amendment of the cannabis bill; and that the cannabis bill will take a longer time to reach the Governor's desk.
A CONSIDERATION: Of interest in HF 1:
Subd. 4. Right to reproductive freedom recognized.
new text begin The Minnesota Constitution establishes the principles of individual liberty, personal privacy, and equality. Such principles ensure the fundamental right to reproductive freedom. new text end
Subd. 5. Local unit of government limitation.
new text begin A local unit of government may not
regulate an individual's ability to freely exercise the fundamental rights set forth in this section in a manner that is more restrictive than that set forth in this section. new text end
The legislative aim appears to be to specifically guide court interpretation on questions of Constitutionality and local control. With "principles of individual liberty, personal privacy, and equality" declared inherent within Minnesota's Constitution, whether or not expressly stated therein. The legislative intent being unambiguously stated is a major feature of the new bill.
NOTE - Short of rewording the Constitution by an express amendment process, a future legislature can repeal and amend a legislative intent to interpret the Constitution in a particular way, and lower courts can meddle around despite such provisions.
Without creating another Article 1 Bill of Rights express Sec. 18 on "reproductive freedom" by Constitutional Amendment, the DFL can always in the future run on protecting legislation passed this legislative session from alteration by Republican opponents, should they gain trifecta control - i.e., both legislative houses and the Governor's office.
Meaning the DFL might tactically want to not amend the Constitution, in our two party situation, to keep abortion law as an issue burning brightly with their way presently on top. Nailing things down by Constitutional Amendment might be viewed as counterproductive to keeping the flames burning for political gain.
Yet that way, there is risk and ongoing uncertainty. It is a decision for DFL inner party personnel, not for the public, unless a Constitutional Amendment ballot issue is put into play this session for the 2024 election (with clear GOTV implications at play).
Ballot issues do fail, so caution may suggest doing things as they are being managed by the new trifecta MN DFL government. Not for me to decide. I just live here, vote here, suffer here. Others decide stuff.
__________UPDATE__________
Lest anyone think I suggest MCC is indirect or at fault in how it advocates, apart from a question of accepting or rejecting Church position advocacy, MCC appears open to and encouraging public attention.
First they openly solicit entry into their email updating of issue positions of the Church in Minnesota, via its bishops and their staff personnel advocates.
At https://www.mncatholic.org/
all who access that site are encouraged to keep informed:
Having to be in agreement is not a requirement. Simply, join in getting email if interested in what the Church openly advocates when, where, and how. As an example of openness on advocacy, there is:
https://www.mncatholic.org/making_abortion_unthinkable_the_uphill_battle_on_capitol_hill
They publish, and are neither circumspect, equivocal, nor closed to public awareness of MCC policy. They are promotional of MCC viewpoints, which is fine, agree or disagree.
Likewise, CBA - https://catholicbar.org/
openly describes itself on the web
 |
| click image to enlarge and read |
with unequivocal links, e.g., here in one instance, and also a link over to here.
There is little to no circumspection. If the tone of some of the presentations seem authoritarian or patriarchal, (or dismissive toward alternative perspectives), the Church has historically had a regard for hierarchy and a belief of infallibility at its heart.