I expect elected officials to pass laws and regulations for the good of all of us, laws that reflect Minnesota expectations and values. This is why I’m so disappointed in the DFL and its reproductive health rights bill.

When I first read the bill, the language seemed very persuasive, sounding all-inclusive. But then I realized what was missing: Minnesotan expectations and values.

Most Minnesotans believe abortion should be available to women in need; however, they also believe in sensible guidelines and restrictions. The proposed bill is short, very broadly written, and removes guidelines and restrictions.

As was testified in the House hearings, if this bill passes, a 12-year-old child could get an abortion without notifying a parent or legal guardian.

It also would allow a certified technician, not a doctor, to perform a late-term surgical abortion in a facility that isn’t inspected or regulated.

The bill would permit abortion up to birth, with no physician needed for surgical abortions. No doctor or hospital required.

This is not what Minnesotans have shown they wanted in poll after poll. This bill isn’t specific and doesn’t address the concerns iit needs to, issues that were expressed during the House hearing.

I call on our elected officials to add the guidelines and regulations Minnesotans want back into this bill. Both DFL and Republican lawmakers should be working toward the good of Minnesotans. This bill, the way it’s written, could be the most extreme abortion law in the United States. It may more closely reflect North Korean abortion law than most laws in the U.S. — or even English or French abortion laws.

It doesn’t express the will of the majority of Minnesotans. Let your elected official know what you’d like to see in this law before the expected Senate vote on Friday, Jan. 27.

Renee Zurn

Duluth