Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL) is backing under Minnesota law legislation to restore protection for born-alive infants, including those who survive abortion and those with disabilities. But many people find it hard to believe that protection was ever lost in the first place.

Did Minnesota lawmakers and Gov. Tim Walz really repeal the right to lifesaving care for born-alive infants? Is it true that babies can be left to die? Here are the facts you need to know.

What was Minnesota’s previous law?

Minnesota’s bipartisan Born Alive Infants Protection Act (MN Statutes 145.423) was first enacted in 1976 and updated in 2015, when it was signed into law by Democratic Gov. Mark Dayton. It protected babies who survive abortion procedures and are born alive. Among other things, the law required that “reasonable measures consistent with good medical practice” be taken “to preserve the life and health of the born alive infant.”

LifeNews is on GETTR. Please follow us for the latest pro-life news

What did Walz and the legislature do?

In 2023, a narrow DFL-only majority in the legislature passed—and Gov. Walz signed— an omnibus bill (SF 2995) that repealed or amended numerous laws relating to abortion, including the Born Alive Infants Protection Act.

Among the changes: No longer must reasonable measures be taken “to preserve the life and health of the born alive infant.” Instead, measures must be taken only to “care for the infant who is born alive.” This was repeatedly described by the bill’s House author, Rep. Tina Liebling, as “comfort” care, as opposed to lifesaving care.

In addition, part of the subdivision’s heading was changed from “medical care” to just “care.” And the law’s language was altered to no longer apply specifically to babies who survive abortion, but rather to all babies who are born alive.

The new version also eliminates the civil penalties for violating the law, and it repeals the previous requirement that cases of born-alive infants—and the measures taken or not taken to care for them—be reported to the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH).

What do those changes mean?

Whereas Minnesota’s previous law guaranteed medically appropriate care that could save infants’ lives, the new law does not. Under the new language, viable babies can be set aside, with only comfort care (i.e., care that keeps patients temporarily comfortable but does not try to save their lives), and allowed to die. This policy is a threat to “unwanted” babies born in the context of abortion, but it also endangers other infants, especially those born with disabilities, whose lives are often devalued.

It’s true that the law retains previous language affirming that born-alive infants are human persons who deserve protection. But recognizing personhood is not the same as requiring any particular standard of care. Moreover, the new version of Minnesota’s policy removes the penalties for violating it, undermining any effective enforcement. And it gets worse: The public will no longer even know about born-alive infants because Walz and the legislature repealed the reporting requirement. Minnesotans are being kept in the dark.

What do the new law’s defenders say?

Lawmakers and advocates who support the changes— and journalists who repeat their claims—have usually defended them this way: The previous law, they say, mandated extraordinary and burdensome measures to try to prolong life even when those measures were futile. They say that such a mandate was not compassionate for grieving families whose babies would soon die.

The problem is that Minnesota’s previous law plainly did not require extraordinary or burdensome measures. Instead, it required only “reasonable measures consistent with good medical practice.” This allowed for different interventions depending on the situation. But it meant that you could not simply deny medically appropriate measures that would save infants’ lives. You could not just set babies aside to die.
Reports from the health department confirm that practitioners of abortion never thought Minnesota’s previous law required extraordinary measures. In 2015, for example, after the updated version of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act was enacted, MDH noted that some infants “were reported to have lethal fetal anomalies incompatible with life and thus no measures were taken to preserve the life of these infants” (emphasis added).

Do babies really survive abortion?

Yes. In most years since reporting began in 2015, between three and five born-alive abortion survivors have been reported to MDH. Nationwide, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has reported that, between 2003 and 2014, at least 143 babies were born alive after abortion (the actual number, the CDC acknowledges, may be higher). Hundreds of abortion survivors who have lived are now part of the Abortion Survivors Network.

For answers to some further questions about the lack of protection for born-alive infants—and for supporting documentation—visit mccl.org/extreme.

LifeNews.com Note: Paul Stark is a member of the staff of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, a statewide pro-life group.

The post Tim Walz Signed a Law Allowing Infanticide, Letting Babies Die Who Survive Abortions appeared first on LifeNews.com.