GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. — The midterm elections in Michigan are a little more than two weeks away.
One of the biggest issues on the ballot is Proposal 3, also known as the Right to Reproductive Freedom Initiative, which would amend the state constitution to allow abortion rights.
A pamphlet funded by Right to Life of Michigan distributed through the mail encourages voters to 'read the proposal language for themselves.'
It claims there are so-called 'loopholes' in the proposal.
Proposal 3 is written as follows:
- A proposal to amend the state constitution to establish new individual right to reproductive freedom, including right to make all decisions about pregnancy and abortion; allow state to regulate abortion in some cases; and forbid prosecution of individuals exercising established right
Opponents claim 'New individual right' extends to "new rights for kids, too."
"If these new rights were only for adults, they would have said 'adults,'" the pamphlet states.
A Washtenaw County Prosecuting attorney, Eli Savit, claims to dispel misinformation about the proposal.
He says constitutional rights are not written to state 'adults' or differentiate based on age. But, he says, that doesn't mean you can't appropriately regulate that right as it pertains to children differently than adults. He listed the 2nd Amendment and the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as examples.
'Regulate abortion in some cases:' The pamphlet states 'some cases' is a loophole. The state can "regulate" if it doesn't "infringe on that individual's autonomous decision making?" ANY regulation would infringe on that, so no regulating abortion at all, the opponents claim.
Savit says this language points to when the state can impose regulations on abortion pre-fetal viability. The state can regulate if it's consistent with clinical evidence based standards and must be based on science, while not infringing on an individual's autonomous decision.
"After fetal viability, the state can regulate and prohibit abortion altogether without having to meet this test," he said.
The proposed constitutional amendment would:
- Establish new individual right to reproductive freedom, including right to make and carry out all decisions about pregnancy, such as prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, contraception, sterilization, abortion, miscarriage management, and infertility;
Opponents claim 'sterilization' includes 'opening the door to kids choosing gender-change therapies or puberty blocking drugs without their parents consent.'
"Puberty blockers and gender hormone therapies can lead to sterilization," said Christen Pollo, a spokeswoman with Citizens to Support Michigan Women and Children. "Planned Parenthood is now the second largest provider of gender hormone therapies and in many states they've been pushing for younger and younger people, minors to access these treatments in their facilities."
Savit says 'sterilization' refers to pregnancies and includes things like vasectomies and tubal ligations.
"There is absolutely nothing, nothing whatsoever in Proposal 3 that deals with gender identity or gender affirming care. It's limiting to matters related to pregnancy," said Savit.
- Allow state to regulate abortion after fetal viability, but not prohibit if medically needed to protect a patient’s life or physical or mental health;
The pamphlet states the words 'medically needed' is a loophole. Healthcare professionals including social workers, chiropractors, and even massage therapists, could authorize late-term abortions.
In response, Savit says this is untrue. Currently in Michigan, only doctors can provide abortions which is an evidence based, clinical standard. Proposal 3, by its terms, will keep this standard in place.
- Forbid state discrimination in enforcement of this right; prohibit prosecution of an individual, or a person helping a pregnant individual, for exercising rights established by this amendment;
The pamphlet states 'prohibit prosecution of an individual, or a person helping a pregnant individual' means this prohibits any accountability for an abortion clinic if they injured, or even kill a woman, even in cases of gross negligence.
Savit says the proposed amendment says nothing at all about undoing medical standards of care, medical malpractice or prosecution for someone who disregards standards or care or causes harm to a patient.
- Invalidate state laws conflicting with this amendment.
"We've asked many times what state laws they're intending to get rid of with that sentence," said Pollo. "They haven't come forward with a list. We've had legal experts with as many as 40 something laws that could be invalidated."
The pamphlet states those laws could include laws requiring parental consent, banning taxpayer-paid abortions, requiring late-term and partial birth abortions, requiring only doctors to perform abortions, and even safety inspections for abortion clinics.
"It's just made up to suggest that this ballot amendment would go beyond the 1931 law and invalidate other laws," said Savit.
They both have a message for voters.
"Proposal 3 says it invalidates state laws that conflict with it," said Pollo. "It says it repeals health and safety regulations that protect women. It repeals parental consent. Read the text for yourself. This goes farther than Roe ever did."
"Proposal 3 is our best chance as a state of taking personal decisions out of the hands of prosecutors, judges or politicians and placing them where they've been in the past 50 years. In the hands of patients, doctors and medical providers," said Savit.
The midterm elections are on Tuesday, November 8th.
►Make it easy to keep up to date with more stories like this. Download the 13 ON YOUR SIDE app now.
Have a news tip? Email news@13onyourside.com, visit our Facebook page or Twitter. Subscribe to our YouTube channel.