submitted by Christen Pollo, Spokeswoman – Citizens to Support MI Women and Children

A group of progressive and left-leaning women said that Proposal 3 is too extreme because it would endanger the health and safety of vulnerable women and children by deregulating the abortion industry and should be rejected by Michigan voters this November.

“It doesn’t matter if you’re pro-choice or pro-life. This is about keeping women safe, and making sure that they are not put in unsafe situations when faced with an unplanned pregnancy,” said Kristen Day, executive director of the national organization Democrats For Life.

The slate of speakers at the Michigan State Capitol steps on October 13, 2022, consistently called out supporters of Proposal 3 for falsely portraying the proposal as restoring Roe or keeping the status quo, when in fact the amendment would go far beyond that.

“Despite the slick marketing attempts to make Proposal 3 sound like it’s keeping the status quo, the reality is the wording of this proposed constitutional amendment would give the abortion industry free rein to self-regulate far beyond what Roe ever established,” said Sarah Burchart, the state chapter leader of Democrats for Life of Michigan.

The text of the proposed constitutional amendment creates a “fundamental right” to reproductive rights that includes abortion, which cannot be regulated by the state if the woman’s “autonomous decision-making” is infringed upon. Legal experts have said this language would invalidate existing health and safety laws implemented on abortion clinics and bar the Legislature from trying to enact regulations on abortion in the future.

Burchart said if Proposal 3 passes, bad actors in the abortion industry would be able to continue to operate without accountability because they could claim protection under the amendment language that stipulates that the state cannot “penalize, prosecute, or otherwise take adverse action against someone for aiding or assisting a pregnant individual in exercising their right to reproductive freedom.”

“Some Prop 3 advocates have tried to claim that nobody would ever use their language in this way. But the only assurance I’ve gotten is maybe the courts will sort it out later. Would we accept this answer from any other kind of industry, like tobacco companies? If we wouldn’t assume self-regulation for tobacco companies or big oil, we shouldn’t accept it for the abortion industry bankrolling this proposal either,” Burchart said.

Monica Galloway, former Flint Councilwoman and president of the Michigan Municipal League, noted that the amendment would take away the right for parents to be informed if their daughter is seeking an abortion, due to how the amendment extends the fundamental right to abortion to children and blocks any restrictions on it if the restriction infringed on the person’s autonomous decision-making.

“I am asking parents to take a serious look at what this says…if Prop 3 does pass, women in this state will be travailing and wailing over the fact that they have given up their parental rights to help their children,” Galloway said.

The women also made an appeal to Democrats, progressives, and left-leaning people like themselves to look at Proposal 3 and see how dangerous and extreme it is, and how it does not line up with Democratic and progressive ideals.

“There’s nothing progressive about what Prop 3 is proposing, which is to remove all safety regulations for abortion seekers. There’s no progress in that,” said Terrisa Bukovinac, president of the Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising, who described herself as atheist, feminist and leftist.

“This gathering of progressive women show that regardless of how voters feel about the issue of abortion, Proposal 3 is extreme and should be rejected by all Michigan voters,” said Christen Pollo, spokesperson for Citizens to Support MI Women and Children, the official ballot question committee opposed to Proposal 3. “Proposal 3 will make abortion more harmful and dangerous for women, making this truly an anti-woman proposal.”

Lucy Moye, national chair of the American Solidarity Party – which carries a pro-life for the whole life platform – emphasized the importance for Michigan voters to go beyond the summary of the proposal that will be found on their ballot and to read the actual constitutional amendment.

“These radical changes had been quietly slipped into the text in such a way that Michigan voters will not see them if they only read the summary of the proposal that appears on the ballot. That’s a really important point. The summary is simple and innocuous. But the text itself, which is what the courts and the lawyers will use, is anything but,” Moye said.

“Proposal three is just wrong for children, it is just wrong for women, and it is just wrong for Michigan,” said Kimberly Hill Knott, a former congressional candidate.

Democrats For Life is a national organization of Democrats who are pro-life for the whole life, and a coalition member of the No on Proposal 3 campaign. Michigan voters are urged to vote no on Proposal 3 on November 8 or beforehand on their absentee ballots.