Letter to the Editor: Gambling on Proposal 3 — betting on the courts?

October 14, 2022

All around Manchester there are yard signs saying Proposal 3 is “Too confusing, too extreme.” Perhaps this makes you scratch your head and say, “Really? It looks pretty straightforward to me. The proposal says women have a right to an abortion without interference from anyone until the fetus is viable. And after that point, abortion is still legal if a doctor states it is necessary for the health of the mother.”

But does the language of the proposal tell this story? Or the whole story? And in fact, does the broader language of the whole amendment itself even clarify things completely?

The jury is out and may stay out for years! For example, on Oct. 3 Bridge Magazine quoted the Citizens Research Council (a public affairs research organization that generally speaks favorably of legalized abortion) as saying about Proposal 3, “It could take years of attempted and challenged legislation to fully flesh out the scope … making it difficult to assess the potential impact at this time.”

If nothing else, that points to “confusing.” But more than that, consider these issues that the proposal doesn’t highlight but that are clearly within the “scope” of the actual amendment — and are at the least confusing, and certainly could be considered extreme. Most likely this would end up in the courts with judges making these decisions. Here are just a few questions:

1) “individual” vs. woman — If this proposal passes, does it apply to minor girls? They are individuals, and the amendment does not specify any age requirement. It is inevitable, the courts will be asked to make this decision.

2) “interference,” “infringement” — If this proposal passes, could a teen have an abortion without parental consent? (Remember, right now teens under age 18 in Michigan cannot even be tattooed without parental consent, let alone have an abortion!) Again, inevitably this question will be presented to the courts to decide.

3) “after fetal viability” — If this proposal passes, there will be much legal wrangling over how this would play out. This section allows the state to regulate abortion access after the amendment-defined point at which the fetus can survive outside the womb — however, that access cannot be prohibited if a “health care professional” says it is needed for the health of the mother. Questions and court challenges are inevitable! For example, what are the criteria for the “health care professional”? Is this a doctor? Or? Will this mean that a nearly full-term healthy baby, fully capable of survival and just days away from delivery, still could be aborted? The courts would decide this.

4) “reproductive freedom” — If this proposal passes, it states it “includ[es], but is not limited to” abortion and all the related female health issues associated with pregnancy. But the “not limited to” language leaves a door wide open! And so again, no one can say with certainty what the courts would do when it inevitably shows up in court as a child gender reassignment issue.

5) And other questions, e.g. does “voluntary” consent require informed consent? How about regulations for abortion-provider inspections and licensing? How is the health of the mother defined? As these scenarios are considered, the answers can never be asserted with certainty. Inevitably the courts will decide.

Remember, all of this is up in the air. No one knows what the final outcome of passing this amendment would mean! Courts would decide! And will they be the court that decided for Roe in the 1970s or the court that overturned Roe recently? Whichever side of the abortion issue you are on, do you want to be in that position again?

Enshrining into our state constitution an amendment with so many unanswered questions and possible unexpected consequences may not be wise, no matter how you regard the issue of abortion. Proposal 3 is not simply a “pro-choice” vs. “pro-life” issue. The age-old wisdom of “make haste slowly” may very well apply here.

Other methods, e.g. legislative acts, are available for those wishing to allow for abortion as well as for those wanting to limit abortion, and these could be focused so that they do not open the door to other, unintended effects. Indeed, this proposal is “confusing” in its unknown implications and “extreme” in being an amendment, making it a matter for courts to interpret or clarify, and making it very difficult to repeal. Please vote “no” on Proposal 3, and let’s pursue our beliefs on the issue of abortion in another clear and reasoned way. Proposal 3 is too risky a bet.

Bill and Janet Shurtliff
Manchester

Views expressed in any Letter to the Editor are always exclusively those of the author. Do you have something you want Manchester to know? Send your Letter to the Editor to themanchestermirror@gmail.com.

For as little as $1 a month, you can keep Manchester-focused news coverage alive.

by Marsha Chartrand

Marsha Johnson Chartrand, a founder, writer, and copy editor with the Manchester Mirror, is a 50-year resident of Manchester. She has a long history of volunteer and community involvement.