Pro-life groups, including Michigan Right to Life, have filed a lawsuit against Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D) and other state officials over Proposal 3, an amendment voters passed in 2022 creating a supposed “right” to abortion in the state constitution.
The American Freedom Law Center, along with the Great Lakes Justice Center, filed the lawsuit on November 8, 2023, exactly one year after Proposal 3 passed, giving “every individual…a fundamental right to reproductive freedom.”
Right to Life of Michigan (RLM) President Barbara Listing said in a statement announcing the lawsuit:
The provisions asserted to be unconstitutional under federal law threaten legal protections for pregnant women seeking healthcare, the rights of physicians to care for patients, and the rights of parents already under attack on many fronts. At issue is also the sweeping disenfranchisement both of Michigan voters and of the authority of the legislature in the days and years ahead.
“Today, our message to all Michigan citizens now at risk from this extreme measure is – we stand with you. The plaintiffs in this case stand with you. Thousands of Michiganders here today are standing up for your rights,” she continued.
The lawsuit is a civil rights action brought under the Guarantee Clause and the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, challenging the “super-right” to “reproductive freedom” created by Proposal 3, which is now Article I, § 28 of the Michigan Constitution.
The complaint advances five claims under the Constitution. Firstly, the lawsuit alleges that Proposal 3 causes harm to pregnant women as a class by exempting them from the legal protections afforded to other classes of individuals in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
“Section 28 lessens the standard of care for the reproductive health of a woman harmed by an abortion (or anyone aiding or assisting with the abortion) for which she gave her ‘voluntary consent,’ whether or not the consent was informed,” the lawsuit argues, continuing:
Section 28 prevents the state from enacting or enforcing laws that protect women from the harm of abortion, including laws that require informed consent or waiting periods, laws that regulate the safety and credentials of abortion clinics, and laws that regulate the licensing and credentials of abortionists, among others.
The lawsuit secondly alleges that Proposal 3 violates parental rights protected by depriving parents of their right to direct the upbringing and education of their children and excluding them from their children’s reproductive decisions:
Section 28 expressly provides that “[e]very individual,” which includes minors, “has a fundamental right to reproductive freedom, which entails the right to make and effectuate decisions about all matters relating to pregnancy, including but not limited to prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, contraception, sterilization, abortion care, miscarriage management, and infertility care.” This broad right to “reproductive freedom” necessarily includes decisions involving gender and “gender reassignment” surgeries and other harmful procedures as well as decisions by minors to engage in sexual intercourse with adults. There are no exceptions.
The lawsuit further alleges that Proposal 3 violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment by overriding any objection on religious grounds to being involved in abortions whatsoever and that it deprives unborn babies of the right to life without due process.
Lastly, the lawsuit argues that Proposal 3 created an unprecedented “super-right” to reproductive freedom that “remains immune from legislative action”:
Sec. 28 creates an unprecedented, super-right to “reproductive freedom” that remains immune from any legislative action, thereby nullifying the legitimate authority of a coordinate branch of government (the legislative branch) in violation of the Guarantee Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees private citizens the right to a republican form of government and thus protects them from the tyranny of the majority.
“The United States Constitution guarantees a republican form of government because our Founding Fathers knew well that a pure democracy where a simple majority rules inevitably leads to a tyranny of the majority,” the complaint states.
The lawsuit also points to the fact that at least $34,000,000 of the $47,835,464 raised by Proposal 3 proponents came from out-of-state sources:
Consequently, most of the funding for the passage of Proposal 3 came from out-of-state supporters who wanted to influence the election in Michigan with regard to this proposal. In comparison, the primary political action committee that opposed Proposal 3, Citizens to Protect MI Women and Children, contributed $21,065,062.08 to defeating this proposal. Only a fraction (less than $300,000) of this funding came from out-of-state sources.
The plaintiffs are ultimately asking the court to declare Proposal 3 in violation of the U.S. Constitution and to issue a permanent injunction preventing its implementation and enforcement.
“For the law to turn a blind eye to the existence of this innocent human life and thus deny it the legal protection every human life deserves defies irrefutable biological facts, logic, and commonsense, and it is nothing short of evil,” the lawsuit states.
The case is Right to Life of Michigan v. Whitmer, No. 1:23-cv-1189, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan.
Katherine Hamilton is a political reporter for Breitbart News. You can follow her on X @thekat_hamilton.
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.