The proposed amendment to Michigan's Constitution. As a
Constitutional amendment all statutes that are in conflict with this
amendment are nullified. As a Constitutional amendment, it will be
extremely difficult to change or remove.
Article 1, Section 28 Right to Reproductive Freedom
(1) 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. An individual's right to reproductive freedom shall not be denied, burdened, nor infringed upon unless justified by a compelling state interest achieved by the least restrictive means. Notwithstanding the above, the state may regulate the provision of abortion care after fetal viability, provided that in no circumstance shall the state prohibit an abortion that, in the professional judgment of an attending health care professional, is medically indicated to protect the life or physical or mental health of the pregnant individual.
(2) The state shall not discriminate in the protection or enforcement of this fundamental right.
(3) The state shall not penalize, prosecute, or otherwise take adverse action against an individual based on their actual, potential, perceived, or alleged pregnancy outcomes, including but not limited to miscarriage, stillbirth, or abortion, 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.
(4) For the purposes of this section: A state interest is "compelling" only if it is for the limited purpose of protecting the health of an individual seeking care, consistent with accepted clinical standards of practice and evidence-based medicine, and does not infringe on that individual's autonomous decision-making.
"Fetal viability" means: the point in pregnancy when, in the professional judgment 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.
(5) This section shall be self-executing. Any provision of this section held invalid shall be severable from the remaining portions of this section.
This is the full text of Michigan's ballot proposal 3 which the State Supreme Court ordered to be on the November ballot.
If passed, it applies to minors because it says it applies to "Every individual..."
It is open ended "...all matters relating to pregnancy, including but not limited to..."
It applies to pregnant men "Every individual..."
or men who think they might get pregnant. Don't think for a minute that
Progressive advocates don't have a list of venues where judges would
hear this argument favorably.
It shields the doctor and drugstore that sell your 12-year-old daughter contraceptives and they have no obligation to inform you, her parents. "...nor shall the state penalize, prosecute, or otherwise take adverse action against someone for aiding or assisting a pregnant individual..."
Presumably, any health-care professional would be authorized to prescribe oral birthcontrol pills "...the professional judgment of an attending health care professional..." making them de facto over-the-counter medications.
Since puberty-blocking drugs, by definition, prevent pregnancy, they are protected by this proposed amendment.
massive doses of hormones, estrogen, progesterone and/or testosterone
prevent or abort pregnancies, they are protected by this amendment. Thus gender "reassignment" drugs are protected. Even if you are a man. Even if you only think you can become pregnant.
Removal of ovaries and/or uterus are protected since "...sterilization..." is specifically listed...another gender "reassignment" procedure. These procedures are protected in this amendment...even for minors...and as a parent you have no right to be informed and absolutely no "say" in the matter. Your only input will be trying to figure out how to finance the co-pays and deductibles that are generated.
It is a very short step to including surgical tinkering with anatomy related to reproduction in the list of "...but not limited to..." protected rights.
you remember being in Middle School or Junior High? Did you just fall
into your "tribe" or did you have to tryout several to find a fit. Did
you or anybody you know seem desperate to fit in? Did you know anybody
who craved acceptance or attention?
I believe this is carefully crafted to sneak a host of Progressive desires into the Constitution.
I never thought that I was a particularly righteous man but here lately I have been spending much more time in prayer and I have to admit that like some others my somewhat righteous soul is getting heavy with the sheer burden of sin I see coming upon the world . Sighhhhhh!ReplyDelete
Makes $440 to $500 per day Οnline work which I received 14,000 us dollars in one month online performing from home. I’m a daily student and work just one to a strive of hours in my spare time. Everybody will do that and online raise extra cash by simplyReplyDelete
using this article.. Www.Profit97.Com
I would totally bang this broad if her photo was real but sadly it is not. Just some sad middle eastern man or Nigerian.Delete
A not unusual power grab by a small minded tyrant like Gretch. She is indeed a threat to the freedoms of the yeomen.ReplyDelete
Hopefully it will be as hard to enact as it would be to amend or remove. Incumbents should understand that any kind of lightning rod legislation is bad for their interests.ReplyDelete
Wow... just a bit over the top there...ReplyDelete
Discussed it with David Kallman on my show Saturday.ReplyDelete
I trust if people were educated about this, they would soundly reject it.
Will they be?
Another instance of institutionalized insanity.ReplyDelete
I wonder if 'any' of the 'rights' enumerated in this will ever be applied to fathers (or pregnancy support groups for that matter)? Or do the "individuals" mentioned, as in so much legislative double-speak, actually mean the exact opposite of what it claims to say (rhetorical)?ReplyDelete
It would be 'appropriate' at this point if men (and pro-life groups), en masse, started using this to demand 'their' reproductive rights. Oh, I forgot, men don't have any, we just get to pay for it all.
Call me callous but, at this point, I've reached the opinion that 'all of this madness' should all be available exactly as 'they' want, but ... 'we' should demand, and act to ensure, that the consequences and costs should only fall on those who actually choose, and act this way.
We're never going to stop the crazies from acting crazy, but maybe, just maybe, if we (society as a whole) weren't paying to support them it would be a self-correcting problem.
If you look at anything, and everything, the leftists demand/champion, what it eventually boils down to is the demand that 'they' never, ever suffer any personal costs or consequences for anything they believe or do, and so far they've done a pretty good job of ensuring just that. That' is what must be made to change.
This is a horrible proposal. It horrifies me that anyone could vote in favor of this lunacy.ReplyDelete