By Chris Gast, Right to Life of Michigan Education Coordinator
Last week, the Citizens Research Council of Michigan wrote a blog post highlighting many of the changes to come because of the passage of Proposal 3. So, let’s do a “fact check,” based on what the authors and supporters of Proposal 3 said.
Parental consent
Proposal 3’s authors: “Does Proposal 3 change existing laws or policies other than the 1931 abortion ban? NO. It does not affect existing parental consent laws for abortion or any other laws.”
Citizen’s Research Council: “The term ‘individual’ could arguably include minors, as the language does not explicitly exclude minors from exercising the fundamental right to reproductive care, including abortions.” Abortion supporters may not want to do this because it’s incredibly unpopular, but the parental consent law could be struck down by a lawsuit, or blocked if enforced.
We told you so, and it was obvious to anyone who read it with a fair mind. The only question they have before striking it down in court is how quickly they think you will forget they lied about it.
Partial-birth abortion
Proposal 3’s authors: “Does Proposal 3 change existing laws or policies other than the 1931 abortion ban? NO. It does not affect existing parental consent laws for abortion or any other laws.”
Citizen’s Research Council: “Similarly, Michigan’s law that prohibits ‘partial birth abortions’ may be repealed, amended, or challenged as well. Currently, the law bans a type of abortion procedure, referred to in law as ‘partial-birth abortion,’ unless necessary to save the life of the woman. This may conflict directly with the language of the amendment, as the amendment does not provide separate restrictions for types of abortion procedures.”
Voters let themselves be deceived into adding stabbing a partially-born baby in the head as a sacrosanct right to Michigan’s Constitution.
Late-term abortions
Proposal 3’s authors: “Does Proposal 3 change existing laws or policies other than the 1931 abortion ban? NO. It does not affect existing parental consent laws for abortion or any other laws.”
Citizen’s Research Council: “The legislature could also specify the situations in which a post-viability abortion may be performed by defining the ‘health of the individual standard’ in the new or amended language. Any new legislation, however, could be challenged as conflicting with the intent of the constitutional amendment.”
So, any “post-viability” abortion will be allowed under the mental health exception, and “viability” was completely redefined by Proposal 3 anyway.
Tax-funded abortions
Proposal 3’s authors: “Does Proposal 3 change existing laws or policies other than the 1931 abortion ban? NO. It does not affect existing parental consent laws for abortion or any other laws.”
Citizen’s Research Council: “It could be argued that these statutes conflict with the language of the RFA, particularly the non-discrimination clause, which prohibits the state from discriminating in the protection or enforcement of the fundamental right to reproductive care.”
It WILL be argued, and you will be paying for abortions, and abortion numbers in the state will skyrocket.
Health and safety regulations
Proposal 3’s authors: “Does Proposal 3 change existing laws or policies other than the 1931 abortion ban? NO. It does not affect existing parental consent laws for abortion or any other laws.”
Citizen’s Research Council: “Therefore, it is possible that some health and safety laws that were valid under Roe may not be justified by a compelling interest as defined by the amendment. If the legislature does not act to adjust these laws, providers subject to these requirements may challenge them in court.”
We told you creating a legal standard that no law or regulation can infringe on an individual’s autonomous decision making was insane and would pretty much gut any health and safety law imaginable. That’s what laws ands regulations do: tell people “no,” they can’t do that.
Conclusion
Gee, according to the authors of Proposal 3, the Citizens of Research Council is dead wrong here, and probably engaging in disinformation!
The Citizens Research Council basically says the Michigan Legislation should amend and repeal a ton of laws to make them comply with Proposal 3: “Through the law-making process, the legislature can afford greater protections than the amendment, but at the very least, it must ensure that current law does not infringe on the fundamental right to abortion.”
So, voters, who are you going to believe? The Proposal 3 campaign, their nearly $50 million dollar campaign that swore no other laws would be changed, the media who mostly just lent credibility to that message, and pro-abortion elected officials before Election Day?
Or are you going to believe the Citizens Research Council, pro-abortion election officials the minute after Proposal 3 passed, and your own lying eyes?