Michigan Proposition 3 Would Do Far More Than Just Codify Roe v. Wade

Roe v. Wade was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in its Dobbs decision in July. Abortion did not become illegal in the U.S. The court simply ruled that the U.S. Constitution does not allow for abortion. That redirected the abortion question back to the states.

Some states had pre-existing laws that supported life. Others responded with new protections to unborn human beings. Some states’ highest courts have claimed a right to abortion was secretly lurking in their state constitutions all along.

Some states are also pushing to include such a right into their state laws. Perhaps the most egregious is Proposition 3, the “Right to Reproductive Freedom” state constitutional amendment, which is up for a vote next month in Michigan.

Proposition 3 would make abortion an absolute right under state law. That’s bad enough, but since it’s written so vaguely—probably by design—it would do a lot more than that. Voters could reject the unborn right to life and the rights of parents to direct the education of their minor children if they approve this amendment.

The first concern—the rights of parents—comes from Proposition 3’s use of the term “individual.” It means that anyone, including a minor, could have a right to abortion, birth control, or other reproductive surgeries like the removal of healthy breasts. All this without the consent or knowledge of parents.

What happens if a young woman is the victim to abuse? Under this law, the abuser or scared boyfriend—also an “individual”—could badger her into having an abortion. Parents would then lose the right to intervene and prosecute.

This amendment would allow access to birth control and cross-sex-hormones, in addition to abortion. Parents across the United States are fighting teachers and administrators who socially transition their sons or daughters without the parents’ knowledge or consent. In many states, schools are the mouth of a pipeline that leads to gender clinics and cross-sex hormones—again administered without parents’ consent.

Parents are best equipped to protect and care for their child’s well-being. They have both responsibility and the right to do this. Proposition 3 would do away with that responsibility and leave it up the minors or other adult gender ideologues.

How is this possible? The chief mischief lies in the phrase “reproductive freedom,” which courts are bound to apply to far more than abortion.

Proposition 3 is radical in its approach to abortion. It would wipe out Michigan’s modest pre-Dobbs protections for unborn human beings. This includes a law that protects children born alive from botched abortions. If that law is repealed, Michigan will have a right of abortion for a deceased baby.

In the same way, Proposition 3 could override Michigan’s ban on the ghoulish practice of partial-birth abortion, a ban most Michiganders support. It could also open the door to eugenic abortions. These are abortions that are performed based on gender, disability, or race. A woman (or the man coercing her) could argue that giving birth, or even a failed abortion that leads to a live birth, would cause undue “harm” to her mental health. These are the only grounds for making abortion legal in all nine months of pregnancy.

What happens if a woman is subject to medical malpractice during her abortion? Or is she forced into having one? By prohibiting the state from “discriminating” against someone who assists a woman in her abortion, it leaves the woman vulnerable to harm and with limited legal recourse.

The state and every person voting on this amendment have a vested right to protect minors, parental rights and live children. Since long, the Supreme Court has prohibited taxpayer funds from being used for abortion funding. Most taxpayers support this. Proposition 3 would allow Michigan taxpayers to fund abortions, birth control, fertility treatments, and even contraceptives.

Second, under Proposition 3, reproductive care includes, but is not limited to, protections for “contraception, sterilization… and infertility care.” That would create an individual right to birth control, morning-after pills, cross-sex hormones, sex sterilization surgeries, 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 rejection of age requirements, parental rights, or the requirement that taxpayers fund these expenses.

Michigan’s Proposition 3 is a radical amendment that goes beyond Roe v. Wade. It does not protect minors and it does not allow parents to participate in the medical care and well-being of their children.

If all that weren’t bad enough, Proposition 3 hopes to achieve this on the taxpayers’ dime. Is that really what Michiganders want to see?

Do you have a comment about this article? To sound off, please email letters@DailySignal.com and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Be sure to include the article’s URL, headline, and your name.