“Keith Ellison, I’m watching you,” says Kurt Daudt
I don’t write much about reproductive freedom, in large part because I don’t have anything useful to say. But it has been an amazing few weeks in abortion politics, including just in the past couple of days in, of all places, Minnesota. You see, a lawsuit was filed seeking to invalidate the death-by-a-thousand cuts interference with the constitutional right to an abortion that exist in Minnesota law. The court complaint is in the linked Strib article. But this is choice, so to speak, from the same Strib article:
“Attorney General Ellison must put his personal ideology aside and defend the laws of our state — we will be watching closely to make sure his office mounts a credible defense against this outrageous attack on Minnesota’s pro-life laws,” said GOP Rep. Kurt Daudt, the minority leader in the state House.
You know, Kurt, I think you better find you own lawyer. Maybe Doug Wardow can find time in his busy schedule of grinding the faces of the LBGTQ and transgender communities to help you out.
The Attorney General does not always defend the state constitution or statutes when they are challenged.
The AG did not defend the constitutional core functions of the Office of State Auditor when they were challenged a few years ago, nor, as I recall, did it defend the Office of State Treasurer (when we had one) against a similar challenge.
I’ll just say on a personal note, that the AG’s office did not intervene in an appeal brought by Michelle MacDonald to challenge the constitutionality of a part of the Minnesota Fair Campaign Practices Act. Lori Swanson, the attorney general at the time, is identified in the caption of the case, but her office filed not a single piece of paper nor made a single appearance, in spite or requests to do so.
Update: Remember that the Obama administration didn’t defend DOMA, either.
Attorney General Ellison is not required to defend Kurt’s bullshit elbows and knees under the basket interference with the right to an abortion, and I hope he doesn’t. Update: If he concludes that the laws challenged are unconstitutional under either federal or state constitutions, he shouldn’t.
Forget about your threats, Kurt, you preposterous boob.
While we are in the neighborhood, notice also how Kurt says that the laws being challenged are “pro-life.” Laws such as the ones being challenged are always justified on the basis of public health, or the rights of parents, or information to women, never because they are pro-life, that is, anti-abortion.
Kurt gives up the game here without a fight, really. But we should appreciate his honesty, unintended though it was.
Thanks for your feedback. If we like what you have to say, it may appear in a future post of reader reactions.