Anyone who has watched local television channels for the last few weeks is well aware there is a battle taking place in our state under Proposal 3, named “Reproductive Freedom for All.” Advertisements stress “It will restore Roe in Michigan” and “It’s a common sense, middle-ground solution that restores the rights we’ve had for 50 years”. This is not true! The proposed amendment goes way too far, is confusing and leaves much to legal interpretation. Be aware, the language that will appear on November’s ballot is a watered-down version of what the proposed amendment actually states.

The language of this amendment changes the definition of “viability.” The exact language states “‘Fetal viability’ means: the point in pregnancy when, in the professional judgement of an attending health care professional and based on the particular facts of the case, there is a significant likelihood of the fetus’s sustained survival outside the uterus without the application of extraordinary medical measures.” Premature babies in the NICU require “extraordinary medical measures.” Based on this new definition, “fetal viability” now becomes something closer to 8 or 9 months gestation! This ambiguous language will likely allow abortion for any reason at nearly any time during a pregnancy. If this concerns you, vote NO on proposal 3.

The proposal states “Every individual 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.” The proposal uses the words “individual” and “sterilization.” Does this mean that children of all ages have the unobstructed right to obtain puberty blocking drugs and/or gender affirming surgery without parental involvement? Do you trust the courts to interrupt this in a way you KNOW parental consent is protected? If you are concerned, vote NO on proposal 3.

Currently, if a pregnant woman is severely harmed (or even killed) during an abortion due to gross negligence, laws allow prosecution of the physician or other healthcare workers involved. This could easily change under proposal 3. The amendment reads “Nor shall the state penalize, prosecute, or otherwise take adverse action against someone for aiding or assisting a pregnant individual in exercising their right to reproductive freedom with their voluntary consent.” How will this be interpreted? Many anticipate a loophole for abortion clinics to lessen standards without penalty. How is this a common sense, middle ground solution? If this language concerns you, vote NO on Proposal 3.

If approved, 8 out of 12 articles in the Michigan Constitution will be altered or repealed (in part). Because it is an AMENDMENT, it will be very difficult to reverse course. Existing laws and regulations cannot overcome an AMENDMENT to the CONSTITUTION.

Before you vote Read the FULL TEXT of this proposed amendment as the ballot version is simplified, brief and watered down. Do your research and understand how this dangerously worded amendment will have far reaching consequences. The proposal and advertising efforts promoting it are disturbing and deceitful! I encourage everyone to Vote NO on PROPOSAL 3!

— Leo J. Super
Imlay City