To the editor:

I am writing this letter to make citizens aware of abortion statistics for the state of Minnesota and to discuss recent legislation in the state concerning abortion. While going through this information, I would ask all of you to think about whether what is happening is truly good for Minnesota, and whether it is truly women’s health care.

The state of Minnesota maintains abortion statistics for abortions performed in Minnesota at the Minnesota Department of Health website. Here is a summary of selected data. In 2021, (latest reported data) there were 10,136 abortion patients of which 9127 were Minnesota residents. 41% of these women had one or more previous abortions.

The most common reason cited for an abortion was “not wanting children at this time”, of the total number of abortions reported, 41 abortions (.4%) were done due to rape or incest. Of total abortions, 69% took place on woman who were under nine weeks pregnant with 39% via surgical procedure and 61% were induced via medication. The greatest number of the mothers were 20-29 years of age. Half of these abortions received public assistance to pay for the procedure (your taxes?), 22% had private coverage, and 27 percent self paid.

According to the Catholic Advocacy network many changes have occurred during this legislative session even in reporting. You better look quick because they will no longer report why the abortion took place.

My question would be why.

Women seeking abortion will no longer have the right to be provided information regarding their child’s gestational age and developmental stage as they consider an abortion.

My question would be why?

Women no longer have the right to be provided with medically accurate information on the abortion procedure before consent.

My question would be why?

Abortion in the second trimester no longer needs to be performed in a hospital. My question would be why.

It is no longer required that a physician perform an abortion. Why?

Lastly, The born alive infant protection act which protected children who survived a botched abortion by requiring life-preserving care is now gutted. Care currently is a “warm blanket and left to die”. Most disturbing, is the fact that now it does not only refer to infants who survive a botched abortion but refers to “any infant” including those born with medical complications and/or disabilities.

Ask yourself and contemplate these questions:

Is this really health care for women? Why would we not give women information about their child’s gestation age or developmental stage. Why would it not be required to give women medical information about the procedure the women will be receiving. They are capable of making a good decisions with good information and good support. More to come about the support that is available.

Is this truly good for Minnesota? Is this how we want our most vulnerable treated? If not, vote differently next time.

How can we think that murder on the streets is going to stop when we are murdering the most innocent and vulnerable of our community.

Katie Dauer

Springfield