Get ready, Michigan. We have just 26 more days until the November midterm elections, and then just one more day after that until the 2024 Presidential campaign kicks off. What an amazing and, quite frankly, odd time we live, in that, at the end of one political campaign then 24 hours later, we fire up again.
I need a nap.
With the backdrop of the election cycle for 2022 winding down all over the country, here in the state of Michigan, we have a number of important races and ballot proposals that the voters will choose from on November 8. One of those races is for Governor; on Thursday night, the incumbent Democrat, Gretchen Whitmer, will face off against Republican challenger Tudor Dixon in their first debate.
All over the country, abortion has been a hot topic ever since SCOTUS (correctly) decided that the legal reasoning pretzel that was Roe v. Wade, needed to be tossed into the trash heap of history. My RedState colleague Bonchie covered some of the reactions in his piece The Hysterical Media Reactions Flow Immediately After Overturning of Roe v. Wade.
Of course, the Great Lakes State has been no exception to this debate going on nationally.
I fully expect the pro-abortion Governor of this state to defend the odd practice, supported by nearly all Democrats–of aborting babies any time during a pregnancy tonight–in this debate. She will also fully support a really gruesome proposal called Proposition 3 which will alter the Michigan Constitution and allow the state to become the wild, wild west of abortions.
Here is the proposal, according to Ballotpedia:
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;
This 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;
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;
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;
Invalidate state laws conflicting with this amendment.
Should this proposal be adopted?
I’m sure at first glance, when you read the proposal, you might think that it looks harmless enough.
However, when you read between the lines, you might notice that the lawyers that crafted this language made it a bit vague. Government of course never likes to leave things vague, do they? They pile rules and regulations on top of rules and regulations, that have long been forgotten about; so this vagueness might purposely mean something.
Thankfully, groups like the Heritage Foundation have done a bit of a breakdown to fill in the blanks.
From that article…
Proposition 3 would enshrine abortion as an absolute right in state law. That’s bad enough, but since it’s written so vaguely—probably by design—it would do a lot more than that. If voters approve this amendment, they could unwittingly be rejecting not only the right of the unborn to life, but the rights of parents to protect and direct the upbringing of their minor children.
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 without the knowledge or consent of parents.
What happens if a young girl is the victim of abuse? Under this law, the abuser or scared boyfriend—also an “individual”—could badger her into having an abortion. The parents would thus lose the chance to intervene or prosecute.
Beyond abortion, this amendment would provide access to birth control and cross-sex hormones. 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 the right and responsibility to do so. Proposition 3 would take that right away and leave it up to minors or the influence of other adult gender ideologues.
How about that!
Anyone, at any damn time, can encourage a child to NOT discuss these life-altering issues with people who are not state actors, namely their parents. How could that ever end badly?
If this amendment is adopted, this will handcuff future state legislators and governors from passing any common-sense legislation, that would protect a baby who has long passed the scientifically established viability stage. In Michigan, with this amendment, you can end the pregnancy with a perfectly healthy and viable baby at eight-and-a-half months–and that is just a choice.
This is simply government-supported infanticide, and it is sick and evil.
Thankfully, there is opposition to this nonsense proposed amendment to the Michigan State Constitution.
Former candidate for Governor on the GOP side, Ryan Kelly, after the primary, decided he was not going to sit by and allow this to be adopted without a fight; he formed the SAVING LIVES and PROTECTING AMERICANS VOTING RIGHTS.
Also, the Michigan Catholic Conference has been a strong advocate against this nonsense proposal, along with many others who I have not mentioned here.
The ‘abortion at any time and at any cost’ coalition has made a strong “feelings over common sense” case, that life should be snuffed out at any time, due to the horrible crimes of rape and incest. Never mind that the overwhelmingly vast majority of abortions are not conducted for those reasons. The freedom to choose is the driving force behind their support of this–and the viability of another human being, who happens to be just weeks or a month away from being officially born and was not the result of rape or incest, is not an issue.
That is simply a choice you see.
The truly ironic thing is the side that screams the loudest about treating everyone equally feels that the most vulnerable in the womb, who could breathe on their own, should be discarded at any time.
That of course is an odd, yet protected point of view, but it is one of the most inhumane ones that the human mind has ever devised.
Maybe one day as a species, we can do better than this.