The Family Beacon

Minnesota’s recent law imposing abortion extremism on the state raises questions about an additional threat to life and human dignity. It is possible that the vague wording of the law could be understood to create a “right” to gestational surrogacy in law. In gestational surrogacy, a couple or an individual commissions a child to be created in a lab, either using their own sperm and eggs or donor gametes. The embryo is then implanted in the womb of a woman who has been contracted to be the “surrogate mother,” who carries the baby to term and then relinquishes the child after birth. Under most contracts, the surrogate mother has no right to continued contact with the child she has carried.

As is typically the case with in vitro fertilization, surrogacy often involves the creation of more embryos than the couple intends to use. There are serious pro-life concerns that arise any time lives that cannot be sustained outside of the womb are created in a lab to be left to the mercy of cryogenic freezing, disposal, or “donation” to research. Additionally surrogacy often involves “selective reduction” of multiples and abortion on the basis of disability.

The surrogacy industry is a growing threat to the sanctity of human life and dignity. Fundamentally, it puts a price tag on women and children while also compromising their physical and emotional well-being.

A bill moving through the legislature would add Minnesota to the 21 states that have legalized recreational marijuana, following state lawmakers’ haphazard legalization of cannabis-infused edibles in July of last year. Unlike other states that have legalized recreational marijuana, Minnesota’s bill would not allow local communities to opt-out. Section 13 of the nearly 250-page bill prohibits local governments from banning possession or sale of marijuana, imposing the drug on the entire state, including in communities that are opposed to it.

Although it is often portrayed as harmless, marijuana is associated with a host of risk factors for public health, and legalization has come with adverse consequences in the states that have embraced it. However well-meaning, legalization does not solve the problems it claims to solve and is likely to be harmful to children, families, and entire communities.

Beginning with the harm caused to individual users, cannabis use has been linked to cardiac complications, an increased risk of suicide, psychosis, and schizophrenia. These affects are especially concerning among young people, with the New York Times reporting that,

In addition to uncontrollable vomiting and addiction, adolescents who frequently use high doses of cannabis may also experience psychosis that could possibly lead to lifelong psychiatric disorder, an increased likelihood of developing depression and suicidal ideation, changes in brain anatomy and connectivity and poor memory.

On Tuesday the Minnesota House Judiciary Finance and Civil Law Committee heard a bill that would allow the state to take emergency custody of children with gender dysphoria if their parents do not consent to subjecting them to so-called “gender affirmation healthcare” such as puberty-blockers and cross-sex hormones. In the style of California’s recent law making California a “sanctuary state” for gender transitions for minors, this bill would also allow minors to travel to Minnesota to receive these “treatments” without parental consent, posing a threat to parental rights and the well-being of children, not just in our state, but across the nation.

Puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones have been found to have serious and often lifelong side effects. These include:

·      Loss of speed processing and memory

·      Bone density loss and stunted growth

·      Sterility and loss of sexual function

·      Increased risk of heart attacks, ischemic strokes, and pulmonary embolisms

Furthermore, studies claiming that these treatments are beneficial are questionable at best. A recent review of the evidence found that the studies supporting puberty-blockers and “gender transition” for minors rely on “low to very low quality evidence” in order to support their conclusions.