Mark Dayton on Abortion
Democratic Governor; previously Senator
No additional license requirements for abortion clinics
- A clinic or health center in which the pregnancies of ten or more women are willfully terminated each month shall be licensed by the commissioner of health.
- The operation of such a facility without obtaining
a license is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of $300.
- Comprehensive inspections, with no notice required, shall occur up to two times per year.
- The annual license fee is $3,712.
Excerpts from Veto Letter:I am returning
SF1921, because this bill would impose extensive new licensure requirements on [abortion] clinics. The bill is vague in its definition of potential licensure violations, and could permit complaints to be filed for almost any reason. There are
approximately 1,250 clinics in Minnesota already subjected to significant state and federal oversight.
Legislative Outcome: Passed Senate 43-23-1, April 18; passed House 80-47-6, April 20; vetoed by Gov. Dayton, April 26
Source: Minnesota Legislative voting records on SF1921
, Apr 26, 2012
Supports legalized abortion with some limits
Positions Mark Dayton has taken on issues in the 1998 gubernatorial campaign: Supports legalized abortion but opposes third-trimester and “partial-birth” abortions.
Source: WCCO.com Channel4000, “1998 gubernatorial campaign”
, Jul 2, 2000
Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions.
This bill prohibits taking minors across State lines in circumvention of laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions. Makes an exception for an abortion necessary to save the life of the minor. Authorizes any parent to sue unless such parent committed an act of incest with the minor. Imposes a fine and/or prison term of up to one year on a physician who performs an abortion on an out-of-state minor in violation of parental notification requirements in their home state.
Proponents recommend voting YES because:
This bill deals with how young girls are being secretly taken across State lines for the purpose of abortion, without the consent of their parents or even the knowledge of their parents, in violation of the laws of the State in which they live. 45 states have enacted some sort of parental consent laws or parental notification law. By simply secreting a child across State lines, one can frustrate the State legislature's rules.
It is subverting and defeating valid, constitutionally approved rights parents have.
Opponents recommend voting NO because:
Some States have parental consent laws, some don't. In my particular State, it has been voted down because my people feel that if you ask them, "Do they want their kids to come to their parents?", absolutely. But if you ask them, "Should you force them to do so, even in circumstances where there could be trouble that comes from that?", they say no.
This bill emanates from a desire that our children come to us when we have family matters, when our children are in trouble, that they not be fearful, that they not be afraid that they disappoint us, that they be open with us and loving toward us, and we toward them. This is what we want to have happen. The question is: Can Big Brother Federal Government force this on our families? That is where we will differ.
Reference: Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act;
; vote number 2006-216
on Jul 25, 2006
Voted YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives.
Vote to adopt an amendment to the Senate's 2006 Fiscal Year Budget that allocates $100 million for the prevention of unintended pregnancies. A YES vote would expand access to preventive health care services that reduce unintended pregnancy (including teen pregnancy), reduce the number of abortions, and improve access to women's health care. A YES vote would:
Reference: Appropriation to expand access to preventive health care services;
Bill S.Amdt. 244 to S Con Res 18
; vote number 2005-75
on Mar 17, 2005
- Increase funding and access to family planning services
- Funds legislation that requires equitable prescription coverage for contraceptives under health plans
- Funds legislation that would create and expand teen pregnancy prevention programs and education programs concerning emergency contraceptives
Voted YES on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime.
Bill would make it a criminal offense to harm or kill a fetus during the commission of a violent crime. The measure would set criminal penalties, the same as those that would apply if harm or death happened to the pregnant woman, for those who harm a fetus. It is not required that the individual have prior knowledge of the pregnancy or intent to harm the fetus. This bill prohibits the death penalty from being imposed for such an offense. The bill states that its provisions should not be interpreted to apply a woman's actions with respect to her pregnancy.
Reference: Unborn Victims of Violence Act;
; vote number 2004-63
on Mar 25, 2004
Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life.
S. 3 As Amended; Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. Vote to pass a bill banning a medical procedure, which is commonly known as "partial-birth" abortion. Those who performed this procedure would then face fines and up to two years in prison, the women to whom this procedure is performed on are not held criminally liable. This bill would make the exception for cases in which a women's life is in danger, not for cases where a women's health is in danger.
; vote number 2003-51
on Mar 12, 2003
Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record.
Dayton scores 100% by NARAL on pro-choice voting record
For over thirty years, NARAL Pro-Choice America has been the political arm of the pro-choice movement and a strong advocate of reproductive freedom and choice. NARAL Pro-Choice America's mission is to protect and preserve the right to choose while promoting policies and programs that improve women's health and make abortion less necessary. NARAL Pro-Choice America works to educate Americans and officeholders about reproductive rights and health issues and elect pro-choice candidates at all levels of government. The NARAL ratings are based on the votes the organization considered most important; the numbers reflect the percentage of time the representative voted the organization's preferred position.
Source: NARAL website 03n-NARAL on Dec 31, 2003
Expand embryonic stem cell research.
Dayton signed a letter from 58 Senators to the President
Dear Mr. President:
We write to urge you to expand the current federal policy concerning embryonic stem cell research.
Embryonic stem cells have the potential to be used to treat and better understand deadly and disabling diseases and conditions that affect more than 100 million Americans, such as cancer, heart disease, diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injury, and many others.
We appreciate your words of support for the enormous potential of this research, and we know that you intended your policy to help promote this research to its fullest. As you know, the Administration's policy limits federal funding only to embryonic stem cells that were derived by August 9, 2001.
However, scientists have told us that since the policy went into effect more than two years ago, we have learned that the embryonic stem cell lines eligible for federal funding will not be suitable to effectively promote this research. We therefore feel it is essential to
relax the restrictions in the current policy for this research to be fully explored.
Among the difficult challenges with the current policy are the following:
We would very much like to work with you to modify the current embryonic stem cell policy so that it provides this area of research the greatest opportunity to lead to the treatments and cures for which we are all hoping.
Source: Letter from 58 Senators to the President 04-SEN8 on Jun 4, 2004
- While it originally appeared that 78 embryonic stem cell lines would be available for research, only 19 are available to researchers.
- All available stem cell lines are contaminated with mouse feeder cells, making their therapeutic use for humans uncertain.
- It is increasingly difficult to attract new scientists to this area of research because of concerns that funding restrictions will keep this research from being successful.
- Despite the fact that U.S. scientists were the first to derive human embryonic stem cells, leadership in this area of research is shifting to other countries.
Page last updated: Jul 20, 2017