Bombs: Yes. Abortions: No.

ASSOCIATED PRESS

ST. PAUL - Abortion opponents came one step closer to challenging a landmark Minnesota Supreme Court ruling last Thursday, when a ban on taxpayer financing of abortions easily won approval in the House.

The bill from Rep. Laura Brod, R-New Prague, passed 81-50. It aims to make the state's high court re-examine its 1995 ruling in Doe v. Gomez, which required public health programs to cover abortions and also said that women have the right to abortions.

"I know many taxpayers in my district and throughout Minnesota would be very concerned that their hard-earned tax dollars are being used to fund abortions in this state," Brod said.

Is this bag-o-douche really so concerned about tax payer money? Hhmm, how bout the BILLIONS going to Iraq to kill innocent civilians and our troops for an oil war and a personal vendetta? Ooh, I see...

Supporters and opponents expect the bill, if enacted, to lead to a legal challenge, and the bill would send the matter to the state Supreme Court. Of the court's seven justices, five have come aboard in the 10 years since the Doe v. Gomez decision.

Abortion rights advocates said the bill lays the groundwork for a total ban on abortion.

"This is the most sweeping and momentous anti-abortion bill in the history of the state," said Tim Stanley, senior director of government and public affairs for Planned Parenthood.

"The Gomez decision is our Roe v. Wade, and if Roe v. Wade falls and Gomez is gone, then we have no recourse under the courts and the women of Minnesota will have no access to abortion under state law," he added.

The anti-abortion legislation also would track judges who let underage girls get abortions without telling their parents.

Another provision could limit access to abortion in rural areas by requiring abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 20 miles.

Abortion rights supporters tried unsuccessfully to amend the bill to undo scheduled cuts in state aid for family planning services, saying that would reduce the need for abortions.

They also pushed to make sure individual judges wouldn't be identified in the data collected on judicial bypasses of the parental notification law, but they didn't prevail.

"This will have ramifications far beyond anythingrelated to abortion," saidRep. Diane Loeffler, DFL-Minneapolis, contending it could put judges at risk and discourage qualified people from becoming judges.

Brod said the bill's intent is not to identify individual judges.

The bill contains the legislative priorities outlined in January by Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, the state's dominant anti-abortion group.

Scott Fischbach, MCCL's executive director, said the House vote was significant, but the Senate could be a tougher sell. Abortion rights supporters there oversee health committees where the bill would have to be heard. But the bill's backers also could try to add the language onto another piece of legislation.

"The Senate is where our legislation runs into trouble," Fischbach said.