The Culture War Comes to Michigan

Proposal 3 would enshrine a vague and potentially limitless right to abortion in the state constitution.

By
127
Pro choice supporters gather outside the Michigan State Capitol during a "Restore Roe" rally. (Photo by JEFF KOWALSKY / AFP) (Photo by JEFF KOWALSKY/AFP via Getty Images)

GRAND RAPIDS, Mich.—After 13 years away my family and I returned to Michigan in 2021, hoping to escape some of the divisions that have racked the American polity since 2016. We had been mostly successful in that endeavor. But a few weeks ago two young women rang our doorbell—and reminded us that we had not simply moved into a leafy retreat along the shores of Lake Michigan. We were now on the frontline of America’s ongoing culture war.

“Are you aware of Proposal 3, the proposed amendment to make abortion a right under the Michigan constitution?” I recall one of the women asking. Before I answered, I was already filled with dread. Yet I was pleasantly surprised by the conversation that followed. 

Proposal 3 would make Michigan’s among the most radical abortion laws in the world, one of the women said. It would allow for abortion through all nine months of pregnancy, the other added. It would undo those safeguards against abortion that had been put in place even under the Roe v. Wade regime. They handed me a pamphlet that quoted and explained the amendment.

I thanked them—not for the pamphlet, but for their bravery. A few days before, miles from my home, an 84-year-old woman had been shot in the back while campaigning against Proposal 3. Seeing these two young women, I was moved by the risk they were taking to go door-to-door and bear witness against the injustice of abortion. As I explained some of this, one of the women replied that she was doing only what conscience bound her to do.

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
127
By
Comments (127)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Birvingdo

    I live in MI. I am an OB physician. I have been pro-life leaning much of my life and career.

    I have found there isn't a real solid middle road approach to Proposal 3. The issue of abortion is complicated. The more it is hashed out in a political arena, the more one misses the fact that there is usually a woman in crisis seeking the service. That is where impact and care is really needed. In Michigan, there is an old law from the 1930's that essentially outlaws abortion for most reasons. The law of the MI land, which is in limbo (state attorney general is not enforcing, but some county prosecuting said they intended to)..., doesn't take into account some of the more complicated pregnancy complications that occur with regular but low frequency, ectopic pregnancy with a heart beat, cesarean scar pregnancy, cornual pregnancy, cervical pregnancy - all of which are a major threat to mom's life and are not considered viable pregnancies in medical circles, but may be illegal by many anti-abortion laws being passed. I have run into patient situations that are quite complicated - where a mother becomes pregnant and then finds out she has metastatic cancer - so she has a dilemma of carrying baby and likely heading to hospice at the end, or choose to terminate and enter into cancer treatment where she could potentially preserve future fertility.

    When the petition for proposal 3 came around I was hoping to see some common sense legislation that allowed for legal pregnancy termination. But I am concerned about the vague language in the proposal... would it allow for a nuanced law that can be similar to what is legal in Europe and other states? Would the language of the proposal empower people to dictate to their physicians how they want their care, as their right?

    I will be honest, a lot of the advertising regarding prop 3 is misleading and quite spun, on both ends. It is hard to know what the amendment will do. As a father, and physician I would take a serious ethical issue with minors receiving life changing care without parental consent.

    I will note in James write up above, the phrase "Including but not limited to" is not in the actual language of proposal 3. But the proposal in an of itself does lead itself to be more vague. If only the good David French and Sarah Isgur would weigh in on what it would look like legally if passed... Advisory opinions special episode??

    Appreciate this community, thanks for employing intelligent staff

    Collapse
  2. Aarinsanity

    Pro-choice Dispatcher and I will dissent!

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Carl Sidor

      That is fine. Can you show me by reasoned argument that a woman has a right to kill another human being for their convenience? It is a long held idea that your right to throw your fist ends at my nose. Your rights cannot infringe on the rights of another. Killing seems a major infringement, no? I will await your squaring that particular circle.

      Collapse
      1. Aarinsanity

        A woman has a religious right to her bodily autonomy and the fetus does not. Her body is her property and she has the right to evict!

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Carl Sidor

          Contrary to your assertion, no religion grants “bodily autonomy”. It isn’t even discussed. What many of them DO say is “thou shalt not kill”. The Roman Catholic Church says that a person has a right to life. If any person tries to abridge that right, they are guilty of grave sin. You are casting a baby in the role of a renter that can be dispossessed for failure to pay rent as agreed. That is silly.

          Collapse
          1. Aarinsanity

            I find the abortion as murder argument silly as well. I do think limits on abortion are reasonable within the first trimester, but I’m against all out bans. I think it’s a bad idea. I’d be willing to listen or read the best pro-life positions. Is personhood granted at the moment of conception? I’m
            not sure. Are there moral considerations before getting an abortion? Absolutely. I don’t know a single woman that hasn’t found making this decision extremely difficult and I don’t see them any different for making the decision. I definitely don’t see friends of mine as baby murderers. Lol

            Collapse
          2. Deleted Comment

            This comment has been deleted

      2. Avatar photo
        Pat Riot

        Wait, actual "baby murder" rhetoric? I thought y'all were instructed to keep that under wraps until after the election.

        So what punishment for women who get abortions? Lethal injection or Kevin Williamson-style hanging?

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Carl Sidor

          Pat, please don’t be silly. Kevin Williamson was being rhetorical so as to point out the essential hypocrisy of abortion as a right. No one is suggesting punishing the woman. However, any conceptual framework you could form around the undesirability of one person taking the life of another without proper cause would have to entail punishment of the woman for getting an abortion. Face it, one could easily charge and convict a woman who got one for 1. Solicitation for murder. She sought and found a hired killer. 2. Accessory before the fact. She brought the victim to the killer so that he could do his work. The fact that we don’t do so is monumental hypocrisy.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Pat Riot

            After his initial quip he wrote a long non-denial denial of the wording. Like most abortion abolitionist fanatics, he views a zygote as a person, and thus the intentional ending of that person is absolutely murder. There is absolutely no escaping this logic, as you point out.

            Mr. Williamson said that he wouldn't advocate such a thing because... it's not politically cool to do so right now. But he did not change his premises that lead inescapably to that conclusion, and a plain reading of what he said says that he in fact advocates potentially said punishment or similar if the political climate allowed it.

            Collapse
          2. Egal.Fabrice

            I'm European, the reasoning here is simple enough: two cells don't make a person, and the baby immediately after birth is no different from what it was immediately before birth, so the line has to be drawn at some point during the pregnancy. Most of Europe picked 14 weeks, which IIRC corresponds to some particular point in brain development.
            Simply put, you are not killing a person because there is no one to kill until a later point (which the law is not trying to determine).

            On the flip side, that time is a pretty hard limit. You can only have an abortion after that if there is a strong medical argument, like a fetal malformation or a threat to the mother's life.

            Collapse
  3. Janicewfahy

    This will pass in Michigan by a wide margin and similar proposals/amendments protecting these rights will continue to pass across the country, also with wide margins. And this is as it should be, access to abortion in early pregnancy being a human right. And the VAST majority of pregnancy terminations happen in the first trimester. That won’t change regardless of what the law says. What is changing is that most abortion are being taken in house.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Carl Sidor

      You have no proof of what you say. If most abortions occur in the first trimester, why doesn’t Proposition 3 codify that fact? Why does it go on to make abortion legal up to birth? As a comedian said in response to adults having sex with underage females “If no one wanted to do it, there wouldn’t be a law!”

      Collapse
      1. Matt

        There's plenty of proof of what's being said, if you care to look for it.

        Per CDC reporting, "92.7% of abortions were performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation; a smaller number of abortions (6.2%) were performed at 14–20 weeks’ gestation, and even fewer (<1.0%) were performed at ≥21 weeks’ gestation" (https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/abortion.htm)

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Carl Sidor

          That is not proof of the statement that abortion is a human right. That is what I was referring to. If you were to look at your own evidence , you would see that some abortions were performed at a very late date. Not many, to be sure, but surely you will acknowledge that a non zero number IS a non zero number. And you fail to take into account the fact that when something is legal, it will result in some taking advantage of that fact. Yes, the bulk of abortions do occur in the first trimester. That establishes nothing with respect to the fact that abortions in the second and third trimester are legal. If the bulk of abortions take place in the first trimester, why doesn’t Proposition 3 encode that fact and make later term abortions illegal?

          Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        Pat Riot

        Nobody willfully aborts their pregnancy after six months and the incredibly rare occurrences of this happening is because of heartbreaking medical reasons that the government most certainly should not be a part of.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Carl Sidor

          You have zero proof to hand to support your assertion. Why do you state as a conclusion what is simply an opinion?

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Pat Riot

            It's based on the data that shows that almost no abortions occur at those late timeframes along with an assessment of the context wherein we have observed the typical behavior of people: keeping a pregnancy around you don't which to carry is illogical so it follows that most won't do it. The data perfectly aligns with this.

            Collapse
      3. Avatar photo
        Mudskipper

        It doesn't make abortion on demand legal up until birth. But I suspect you knew that and just wanted to exaggerate for effect.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Carl Sidor

          Mudskipper, you are not correct. This is a verbatim quote from the proposal: “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;” Pay special attention to the last part: “not prohibit if medically needed to protect a patient’s life or physical or MENTAL health. Mental health is a huge escape hatch. And just who does the amendment say should be performing mental health diagnoses? It doesn’t. The determination can be made by an attending physician. Not a mental health practitioner. Tell me that you see a huge problem here. Please.

          Collapse
          1. ANDYTOCKOOK3405

            I agree with you and the author thar prop 3 is extreme. Far more extreme than I would like. But the point is, it's not a decision between what I want and prop 3. It's a decision between prop 3 and a complete ban.

            The MI GOP could've easily kneecapped this proposal by making abortions legal in the 1st trimester with restrictions. They did not, and chose to stick with a 1931 law that even bans Plan B. This is the consequence.

            Collapse
          2. Avatar photo
            Pat Riot

            Y'all keep saying, "you know, just like Europe".Well, that is just like Europe.

            (Are you still glad the Republicans moderated their abortion message in order to win the midterms?)

            Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Synchronize Your Dogmas (Bill B)

    This is really off the charts. Less than 1% of abortions are provided after 21 weeks and yet the author assumes thier ubiquity and appears to premise his claims based on the absolute bad faith of all pro-choice forces and the utter dimissal of any interest in the life or well-being of the mother.

    That being said, it is generally recognized that the definition of "medical necessity" ought be far more rigorous and remove any room for late-term abortions based upon facially thin medical grounds. But the underlying notion that pro-choice forces are "evil"; that the medical field is populated only by bad or unscrupulous providers and that simply by virtue of providing abortions they are suspect doesn't really lend itself to any rational deliberation on the practice.

    This is a sensitive issue and admits of moral and medical complexities that can often be unclear and cannot simply be legislated out of existence or waved away by zealots on either side. The agency of the woman and her medical providers are not immune to scrutiny but neither should they be held hostage to those with little to no interest in either the woman or the medicine.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Carl Sidor

      Your comments are interesting. We are dealing with children here, not adults who are fully informed about the consequences of sex and who choose to ignore the fact. Women already have choice. They can choose to forego sex when they are capable of becoming pregnant. Apple, Inc helpfully gives women an app to assist them in this endeavor. For free. This is not a “sensitive issue”. It is an issue of innate selfishness. Everything for you and nothing for anyone else. Sex is much more important than something to while away a dull afternoon. Neither is it a mark of sophistication. It isn’t a contest, either. Children need help. Adults need responsibility.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Synchronize Your Dogmas (Bill B)

        We are probably dealing with both and I'd suggest that your approach to the issue seems to infantilize adults far more than mine. Adults are going to have sex. Period. Ask any televangelist.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Carl Sidor

          How does my approach “infantilize” anyone? I specifically said that women have the ability to do something about the possibility of an undesired pregnancy. That isn’t very infantile of them. That is treating them as adults capable of reasoning from premises to a conclusion. “Adults are going to have sex. Period”. Yes they are. That being said, they can choose to have that sex in a responsible manner or they can copulate like mink. Their choice. See, they have “choice”. What they desire is an escape hatch. And you are helping them find one.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Synchronize Your Dogmas (Bill B)

            Then I’m not at all certain what your point is. Are you saying an adult woman’s unintended pregnancy is the mark of irresponsibility? And that any choice other than carrying a pregnancy to term is dodging responsibility? That’s what it sounds like.

            Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Dusty

      1% of 1 million is 10,000 occurrences a year.

      Who seeks an abortion after 21 weeks? Guttmacher asked and did a study.

      "Results: Women aged 20–24 were more likely than those aged 25–34 to have a later abortion (odds ratio, 2.7), and women who discovered their pregnancy before eight weeks’ gestation were less likely than others to do so (0.1). Later abortion recipients experienced logistical delays (e.g., difficulty finding a provider and raising funds for the procedure and travel costs), which compounded other delays in receiving care. Most women seeking later abortion fit at least one of five profiles: They were raising children alone, were depressed or using illicit substances, were in conflict with a male partner or experiencing domestic violence, had trouble deciding and then had access problems, or were young and nulliparous."

      Who seeks abortions in the third trimester? This study funded by the Society of Family Planning asks that question.

      "Results
      I find two pathways to needing a third-trimester abortion: new information, wherein the respondent learned new information about the pregnancy—such as of an observed serious fetal health issue or that she was pregnant—that made the pregnancy not (or no longer) one she wanted to continue; and barriers to abortion, wherein the respondent was in the third trimester by the time she was able to surmount the obstacles to abortion she faced, including cost, finding a provider, and stigmatization. These two pathways were not wholly distinct and sometimes overlapped."

      ------------------------------------------------------

      I think anyone could look at both of these studies (both of which, I'll point out, were conducted by very pro-choice organizations and may be open to some selection bias - especially if you're using $50 gift cards to incentivize people to talk about their third trimester abortion) and see some very sympathetic reasons for the occurrence of such abortions. I would also note that, contrary to common talking points, those anguishing sympathetic reasons don't account for all the reasons and throws cold water on the assertion that elective late term abortions never happen.

      Collapse
      1. Matt

        A question for you. Do you support additional aid (welfare) for single mothers?

        Because I've always found it interesting that, for the decades that Roe was the law of the land, the same politicians who fought to overturn it were also largely fighting to reduce the aid given to those who chose to keep their pregnancies. Studies have shown that roughly a quarter of woman who choose to have an abortion do so because they feel they can't financially afford to become a parent. While additional aid obviously wouldn't deter all of these women, it does seem reasonable to assume that if we took sufficient steps to eliminate that financial pain it would have a >1% impact on the rate of abortions in our country.

        Given that there are still many states where abortion is legal, it would seem like there's still a >1% reduction to be gained from properly targeted aid. Certainly more of a reduction than overcoming a constitutional amendment in a state with multiple neighbors where abortion will still be legal regardless.

        And yet I still haven't seen any bills implementing such aid being advanced by any pro-life lawmakers.

        ...anyway, this is admittedly a bit of a tangent, the 1% thing simply really stuck out to me in this regard. Though I'd argue it's a tangent that should be considered a bit more if the pro-life crowd ever decides they want to actually address the perception that they care more about controlling women than saving lives.

        Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        Pat Riot

        That's 1% over 21 weeks. Based on the curve in the data, almost all of those would be at 22 weeks, and even fewer at 23 weeks, and so on.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Dusty

          The average was at 22 weeks.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Pat Riot

            Average between what and what? My understanding is that they didn't have any data beyond ">21 weeks".

            The salient data here is what is the number of fully voluntary abortions past 21, 22, 23 etc. weeks. As I understand it that data isn't present in their reporting.

            Collapse
      3. Avatar photo
        Synchronize Your Dogmas (Bill B)

        Still 1% at or after 21 weeks does not mean 1 million at nine months. Good points though.

        Collapse
  5. Deleted Comment

    This comment has been deleted

  6. Avatar photo
    Mudskipper

    I'm interested in people's responses to a hypothetical, but fairly likely, scenario. Jane Doe is a 28-year old homeless person. She has struggled with mental illness all her life and is a drug addict. She blames her problems on the circumstances of her birth and upbringing: her mother was also a drug addict living on the fringes of society. She was using drugs throughout her pregnancy with Jane, and Jane believes she was brain damaged as a result of her mother's drug use. Jane's childhood was a chaotic mess, with periods of both neglect and abuse.

    Jane is now pregnant. She claims she had been raped, which is possible but unprovable. It is also possible but unprovable that she exchanged sex for drugs. In any case, at first she ignored her condition. But as it progressed she was unable to ignore it any longer and become more and more convinced that she didn't want to bring a baby into the world under the same circumstances she was brought into the world. She attempted an overdose to end her and her baby's life. She was brought into the medical system at that point and was saved. But she is also demanding an abortion at 23 weeks pregnant. If she doesn't get one, she claims she will simply try to overdose and kill herself again. She is adamant that she has already damaged her baby and she is adamant that the baby not be born.

    How should Jane's situation be handled?

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Pat Riot

      As a traducianist, for me it depends on the mother's view of the pregnancy. If she has given the pregnancy personhood by willing it so, then the pregnancy is a person with full rights therein. If she didn't, then it's not. Of course this is a moral judgement. A legal judgement would be different...

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Carl Sidor

        Pat, a mother’s view is not dispositive. You are understanding the concept of personhood incorrectly. Personhood is a legal concept only. It bestows certain privileges and immunities. A child is a human being from the moment of fertilization. At that point, the egg has the diploid chromosome number. It has the entire human genome. It will go on to make a human being given the opportunity to do so. It can do nothing else.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Pat Riot

          Personhood is a legal and moral concept. I value people, not clumps of cells or clouds of atoms.

          A "human being" the way you are using the term is not necessarily a person and not therefore an entity we value as such.

          And a potentiality is not an actuality. A zygote can turn into a person, but that is not necessarily so anymore than crashing into your garage door with the car was inevitable because you didn't use the brake. Women can control their bodies--unless the government forces them at gunpoint to do otherwise.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Carl Sidor

            No, personhood doesn’t have anything to do with morals. It has to do with the granting of legal status that confers benefits and immunities. A person is closer to what you want, but why not try “human being”? Much more accurate and not involved with religion or the legal system. Just science. According to science a “person” is composed of a “clump of cells”. They are also composed of atoms, and subatomic particles. But that is insufficient as a definition as so are everything else. The human genome is a great sorting device. Have it and you are a human being. Don’t have it and you are not. Simple and elegant. A potentiality can easily be an actuality. An object in Earth orbit will eventually spiral into the Earth. Its potential turns into actuality in time. A zygote is a human being. The legal system confers personhood on it. But it is still a human being absent that granting. Your garage door metaphor is unusual, to say the least. It is actually supporting my assertions instead of yours. If the car is in motion and pointed towards the door, it will hit the door unless you take action to abort the collision. See what I did there?

            Collapse
    2. Ann Knowles

      If she is demanding an abortion in a state that doesn't perform them in her circumstances, she would be sent to another state. Or did you mean how to handle it morally? Morally, some would say reducing suffering is the most important thing, so abort, while others would say that every life has a right to attempt to reach its potential no matter what its birth circumstances, so don't abort.

      Collapse
    3. Michael.Terrien

      You are taking me back to law school. I assume this is the beginning of an exercise in Socratic discussion. And you do an excellent job of creating a horror show of a hypothetical. But it's one that I acknowledge almost certainly corresponds to the experience of someone somewhere and therefore it's a fair question.

      I honestly don't see much likelihood of a "good" outcome in these sorry circumstances, but I'm pretty pro-life and I still find the idea of treating that baby as disposable garbage to be morally revolting. I can't bring myself to say "go ahead and kill it" even if I have to acknowledge that the alternatives are also probably awful. I'd want to look for a better solution. Is the baby viable? Could mom be talked into letting it be surgically delivered? Should there be somewhere where mom can go for care and treatment (whether or not the goal is adoption for the baby).

      It seems to me the pro-abortion view is to kill the baby and let mom go on killing herself. To me those are both unimaginably tragic outcomes and even a small chance of better outcomes is worth trying for. I'd want to at least try to intervene to get better outcomes for both.

      I understand that's a human answer, not a legal one. As a legal matter, we ultimately have to grapple with "what if none of that's gonna happen?" And I don't really have a good answer to that other than that the scenario is so tragic that we've kind of hit rock bottom here and I don't think killing the baby does much to make it better.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Magpie

        The worst thing to do would be to have the baby surgically delivered at 23 weeks (if I've understood correctly that that's what you're proposing as an option). The baby would be extremely premature and would need intensive medical care, possibly for the rest of its life. So let's please discount that as a possibility.

        It's a complicated and tragic situation and you're leaning toward using some kind of coercion or force to have the woman bear the baby. I'm saying that because she really, really doesn't want it, so some kind of force or incarceration would be needed to override her desire to abort. I lean toward allowing the woman to make the decision to terminate the pregnancy. You would elevate the rights of the fetus over the woman, I would do the opposite. There's no easy answer here, but I sincerely feel that forcing the woman to bear the child would be a violation of her right to bodily autonomy.

        And I would just like to dispute the statement that the "pro-abortion" view is to "let the mom go on killing herself." That's just needlessly vilifying the other side and makes conversations like this even harder.

        Collapse
        1. Michael.Terrien

          There we have the nub of the controversy. Does there come a point where the interests of the child outweigh the mother's right to bodily autonomy? Those respective interests are what a philosopher would call incommensurable. There is no common scale upon which to weigh them against each other. Both interests are legitimate, but who's got the better of the argument is a matter of subjective moral intuition, not fact. Thus there will never be agreement on this.

          For most people, polls suggest, the intuition is that the child's interest grows as it gets closer to full term and there comes a point at which abortion should not be lightly permitted. But this is moral intuition, not provable fact, and it varies from person to person. There is no clear "right" answer and at the extremes people's moral intuitions run the gamut from fertilization to going home from the hospital as the point at which the child wins. As a legal matter, I suspect most states will eventually settle on some compromise between those two extremes, like most of Europe has.

          Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Mudskipper

    California has a similar proposition on the ballot. At first I was concerned about it, but as expert legal opinion has come in, the consensus seems to be that 1) it would keep the current laws in place regarding abortion; 2) the legislature still has room to enact more restrictions even within the proposed constitutional amendment.

    California currently bans elective abortion after viability, with exceptions for the health and life of the mother. This restriction would remain in place. The supporters of the proposition have made clear that they do not intended to take away these restrictions, which means a challenge to these restrictions is likely to fail in court. Essentially, the amendment would do for abortion what the second amendment in the US constitution does for guns. Legislatures can still regulate gun ownership and use within certain grounds; so can the California state legislature regulate abortion as long as it doesn't intrude too far into what is an essential right.

    I realize this doesn't make pro-life absolutists happy, but it made me, a moderate pro-choicer, happy.

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Kmregan7

    Here's the language of the actual proposal. It actually DOES allow limitations to be passed, so no, it's NOT a "vague and potentially limitless right to abortion"

    https://www.house.mi.gov/hfa/PDF/Alpha/Ballot_Proposal_3_of_2022.pdf

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Dusty

      It reads: "The state could regulate abortion after the fetus is viable, but it could not under any circumstances prohibit an abortion that is medically indicated to protect the life, physical health, or mental health of the pregnant individual."

      It says that the state "could" choose to regulate abortion after viability, not that it will or does. That means that it has the "potential" to not regulate abortion after viability, which makes it in effect limitless.

      It also says that those restrictions done after viability could not restrict an abortion done for the "life, physical health, or mental health" of the mother. What does "physical health" entail? Would, say, high blood pressure be a reason? What about mental health? Does anxiety count? And all of this is determined by the "attending health care professional." Who counts as an "attending health care professional"? Doesn't the fact that I can ask these questions off the top of my head indicate that the language is, in fact, vague?

      So, it seems like it definitely is a "vague and potentially limitless right to abortion" based on the very language you reference.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Magpie

        If you want a law that prescribes every last detail of when a woman can and cannot have an abortion, you'll be waiting for the rest of your life. It's simply not possible to cover all circumstances. And it would be unwise for the state to try to intervene to the extent of determining what constitutes a medical or mental health reason for getting an abortion. For example, what constitutes acceptably high blood pressure for one woman might be an unacceptable risk for another, based on her health history. There has to be some private room for judgment and uncertainty, free of interference by the State.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Dusty

          So is the argument that the proposition isn’t vague or that it is vague and it’s good that it’s vague?

          Collapse
          1. Matt

            One one hand, things that are constitutionally defined have a tendency of being overly vague that we should really try to improve upon (see 'well-regulated militia'). On the other hand, they also need to have a certain amount of 'robustness' - we don't want to have to be re-amending the constitution every time medical science advances. To answer your earlier examples - "physical health" is indeed vague, but necessarily so. There are conditions that would have been almost certainly fatal 50 years ago for which we now have reliable treatments. There are conditions that are almost certainly fatal now that will likely have reliable treatments 50 years in the future. A constitutional amendment shouldn't include a 'moment in time' snapshot of medicine as it exists today, it should be able to adapt as science advances.

            Collapse
          2. Avatar photo
            Magpie

            The latter. I'm coming from a pro-choice standpoint, so I think that the more autonomy granted to the woman and her doctor to make a decision about an abortion the better.

            I said this in another comment, please excuse the repetition: here in Canada we have no laws governing abortion, so in theory a woman can obtain an elective abortion at nine months. In practice, no doctors provide such a service. In fact, Canada has a lower abortion rate than the US: see https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/abortion-rates-by-country.

            I think this shows that legislating limits to abortion doesn't really achieve what their proponents think they'll achieve. In this context, I think the vagueness of the proposed Michigan law is a good thing.

            Collapse
  9. Ann Knowles

    Mr. Wilson was filled with dread because he thought he was going to hear a view different from his own. That's what canvassers do: they present a view hoping to gain the agreement of others. If Mr. Wilson finds that so taxing, he shouldn't open his door to strangers.

    We have forgotten the benefits of an open mind and have lost the ability to discuss opposing viewpoints politely. If you open your door to canvassers, it shouldn't be done with dread, but with a sense of opportunity to hear what others think, and engage them in friendly discussion.

    Mr. Wilson can't escape the culture wars if he is the culture wars.

    Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Magpie

    Welcome to a post-Roe America, Mr. Wilson. Were you one of the people working for decades to get a conservative majority installed on the Supreme Court in order to overturn Roe with no thought about what it might be replaced with? If so, you got what you wanted. Now it's up to the states.

    By the way, there are no abortion laws in Canada. In theory, a woman can obtain an elective abortion at nine months. In practice, of course, no doctors provide such a service. In fact, Canada has a lower abortion rate than the US: see https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/abortion-rates-by-country. So maybe governments should stay out of abortions entirely. What do you think?

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Pat Riot

      Correction: it's up to any lawmaking body, which may or may not include the State level.

      Very very good point about Canada.

      Collapse
    2. Nicco

      The “this” that many anti-Roe proponents wanted was an opportunity to have the discussion at the state level (and, no doubt for many, to further regulate abortion). Mr. Wilson is engaging in just this sort of discussion. Some in his state want to pass prop 3. He does not. He is advocating for his preferred legal regime, just as those in favor of prop 3 are. If Michigan voters pass prop 3, Mr. Wilson will be disappointed, but he will also have the opportunity to continue to advocate for a different legal regime. If an amendments can be passed by popular vote, it can be revoked in the same way.

      Collapse
    3. Michael.Terrien

      Michigan could have passed exactly the same law pre-Dobbs. In fact New York, I believe, did and other states have either done so or come close.

      Collapse
      1. Deleted Comment

        This comment has been deleted

      2. Deleted Comment

        This comment has been deleted

      3. Avatar photo
        Mudskipper

        But Michigan and other states didn't have an incentive to do so until Dobbs.

        Collapse
        1. Michael.Terrien

          Less incentive, yes. But as I said, New York did it and other states at least tried. It's not like nobody was working on abortion rights statutes before Dobbs. But I grant you, Dobbs added quite a bit of urgency for those on that side.

          Collapse
Load More