Michigan Proposition 3 would do far more than just Roe v. Wade

When the US Supreme Court Roe v. Wade in his Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization Decision This Summer, Abortion Didn’t Become Illegal in the US The court simply ruled (correctly) that there is no right to abortion in the US Constitution. That returned the issue of abortion to the States.

Some states had pre-existing pro-life laws that soon came to life. Other states responded with new protective measures for unborn people. The highest courts of some states have maintained that abortion rights have lurked secretly in their state constitutions all along.

Finally, some states are pushing for such a right to be enshrined in their national laws. Perhaps most egregious is Proposition 3, the state’s right to reproductive freedom amendment, scheduled for a vote in Michigan next month.

Proposition 3 would enshrine abortion as an absolute right in state law. That’s bad enough, but since it’s written so vaguely – probably intentionally – it would do a lot more than that. If voters approve this amendment, they could unwittingly reject not only the unborn child’s right to life, but also the parents’ right to protect and direct the education of their minor children.

The first concern – the rights of parents – arises from the use of the term “individual” in Proposition 3. This means that everyone, including minors, could have a right to an abortion, contraception, or other reproductive surgery such as the removal of healthy breasts. All without the knowledge or consent of the parents.

What happens when a young girl is a victim of abuse? Under this law, the abuser or frightened friend—also an “individual”—could press her to have an abortion. Parents would then lose the opportunity to intervene or complain.

Beyond abortion, this change would allow access to birth control and cross-sex hormones. Parents in the United States are fighting teachers and administrators who are socially rearranging their sons or daughters without the knowledge or consent of the parents. In many states, schools are the mouth of a pipeline leading to gender clinics and cross-sex hormones – again administered without parental consent.

Parents are best equipped to protect and nurture their child’s well-being. You have both the right and the obligation to do so. Proposal 3 would do the same, leaving it to minors or the influence of other adult gender ideologues.

How is that possible? The greatest nonsense lies in the phrase “reproductive freedom,” which courts have to apply to much more than just abortion.

First, Proposition 3 on abortion is radical. It would wipe out Michigan’s modest protections from Dobbs for unborn humans. This includes a law protecting liveborn children after botched abortions. If this law falls, the right to an abortion in Michigan will become the right to a dead baby.

In the same way, Proposition 3 could overrule Michigan’s ban on the creepy practice of partial birth abortion, a ban most Michiganders support. It would also pave the way for eugenic abortions, or abortions based on gender, disability, or race.

A woman (or the man coercing her) might argue that giving birth, or even a failed abortion, resulting in a live birth would cause undue “damage” to her mental health. For these reasons alone, this law would make abortion legal for any reason during all nine months of pregnancy.

What if a woman suffers or is forced into medical malpractice as a result of her abortion? By forbidding the state from “discriminating” against anyone who assists a woman with her abortion, it leaves the woman vulnerable to harm and has limited legal options.

The state and anyone voting on this amendment has a vested interest in protecting minors, parental rights, and living children from abortion. For a long time, the Supreme Court and federal laws prohibited taxpayers’ money from funding abortions. Most taxpayers support this. However, under Proposition 3, Michigan taxpayers’ money could fund abortions, birth control, cross-sex hormones, fertility treatments, and even puberty blockers.

Second, Proposition 3 reproductive care includes, but is not limited to, safeguards for “contraception, sterilization… and infertility care.” This would create an individual right to contraception, the morning-after pill, cross-sex hormones, gender sterilization surgery, or other harmful chemicals that alter the normal functioning of the male or female body.

Even if you support the use of these treatments, very few people support Proposition 3’s blatant denial of age requirements, parental rights, or the requirement that taxpayers fund these expenses.

Michigan’s Proposition 3 is a radical change made via Roe v. Wade. It does not protect minors or the right of parents to be involved in the welfare and medical care of their children.

If all of that wasn’t bad enough, Proposition 3 hopes to achieve this at taxpayer expense. Is that really what Michiganders really want?

Do you have an opinion about this article? To wrap it up, please email letters@DailySignal.com and we’ll consider posting your edited comments in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Be sure to include the article’s URL or headline, as well as your name and city and/or state.