Advertisement

Dumping Roe may backfire on abortion opponents. Republicans should have been ready.

Opponents of abortion who were thrilled to see the U.S. Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade in June may find their celebration short-lived.

At least in some states.

Without a federal constitutional right to abortion on the books, abortion advocates in California, Michigan and Vermont are seeking to enshrine those rights into their state constitutions in November. If the measures passed, these states would be the first to establish an explicit right to abortion in their state constitutions. Ten state courts have interpreted that the right exists in their constitutions, but those decisions can be overturned.

One other state has a ballot initiative this fall – Kentucky – but it would do the opposite in explicitly saying there is no right to abortion under the state constitution. This is what Kansas sought to do in August, but that measure was soundly defeated, even in a conservative state.

Michigan faces 'expansive' abortion initiative

In my state of Michigan, the Planned Parenthood- and ACLU-backed Reproductive Freedom for All proposal, known as Proposal 3 on the ballot, promises to “restore Roe in Michigan.”

That’s extremely misleading. It would go much further than that.

More from Ingrid Jacques: Medical students shunned a doctor because of her abortion views. Is this what America has become?

The battle over abortion rights in Michigan should serve as a warning in other states. If this amendment passed, it would severely restrict the state legislature from enacting any changes to abortion provisions, and it would likely overturn existing restrictions on abortion – ones that prevailed under Roe. Those regulations include a ban on abortions after fetal viability (unless the life of the mother is at risk), parental consent for a minor’s abortion, and health and safety standards for abortion clinics.

While the initiative’s language pays lip service to allowing the state to set restrictions after viability, it also says the state could not prohibit any abortion if a “health care professional” believes it's necessary to "protect the life or physical or mental health" of the pregnant individual.

Without a federal constitutional right to abortion on the books, abortion advocates in California, Michigan and Vermont are seeking to enshrine those rights into their state constitutions in November. If the measures passed, these states would be the first to establish an explicit right to abortion in their state constitutions.
Without a federal constitutional right to abortion on the books, abortion advocates in California, Michigan and Vermont are seeking to enshrine those rights into their state constitutions in November. If the measures passed, these states would be the first to establish an explicit right to abortion in their state constitutions.

That’s incredibly vague. Proponents are trying to paint this as a “middle of the road” measure, but that’s hardly what it is.

Michigan could become a state that has much more lenient abortion laws than it did before the Supreme Court decision.

Overturn of Roe is good for women: We helped to win legal argument to overturn Roe. Here's why decision is good for women.

According to an analysis from the nonpartisan Citizens Research Council of Michigan, the proposal could do the following:

“Proposal 3 would not only preserve the right to abortion that had been federally protected by the U.S. Constitution since 1973 – it could potentially expand access to abortion to later stages of pregnancy, lift certain restrictions that have previously been in place, and establish additional rights to a wider range of reproductive health services. While abortion legalization has been shown to have positive effects on women and society at large, the impact of this expansive of a constitutional right is unknown. The proposal’s language is broad and largely undefined, making it vulnerable to a host of legal challenges.”

Republicans should have been ready

That’s why abortion opponents are working hard to push back against the proposal and educate voters about what the measure would actually do.

Citizens to Support MI Women and Children, backed by the Michigan Catholic Conference and Michigan Right to Life, say the initiative is "radical" and would undermine existing abortion regulations.

Republicans and self-proclaimed "pro-lifers" are finding themselves on the defensive in states like Michigan. Some of this could have been prevented if the Republican-controlled legislature had been prepared to offer some sort of compromise legislation after Roe was overturned. They knew it was likely coming, but they appeared to be wholly unready.

Even though it was unlikely for Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer – who has made supporting abortion rights central to her reelection campaign – to sign off on anything lawmakers would have presented her, it would have signaled they were open to reasonable compromise.

Loan forgiveness hurts some taxpayers: First lawsuit is filed challenging Biden's costly, unfair student loan forgiveness plan

In Michigan, there was a 1931 law that bans abortion, except in the case of saving the mother’s life. After Roe was overturned, that law reemerged. The courts have blocked its enforcement for now, but it still exists.

The fact that the law is still in play gives the proposal’s opponents a huge disadvantage.

Americans want middle ground on abortion

One recent statewide poll showed that 80% of Michigan voters supported legal abortion in cases of rape or incest. Even 63% of “strong Republicans” indicated support in these situations.

Of course, national polls have consistently shown the majority of Americans (even Democrats) are open to restrictions on abortion based on gestational limits.

USA TODAY columnist Ingrid Jacques
USA TODAY columnist Ingrid Jacques

So if people understand how far this proposal would take abortion in Michigan (and how difficult it is to overturn constitutional amendments), opponents hope they can persuade enough people to vote “no.”

“This is extreme,” Christen Pollo of Citizens to Support MI Women and Children told me. “It’s confusing. There’s a lot hidden in here that voters are not in favor of and it’s permanent. We're stuck with the consequences of this potentially forever if this passes.”

Ingrid Jacques is a columnist at USA TODAY. Contact her at ijacques@usatoday.com or on Twitter: @Ingrid_Jacques 

You can read diverse opinions from our Board of Contributors and other writers on the Opinion front page, on Twitter @usatodayopinion and in our daily Opinion newsletter. To respond to a column, submit a comment to letters@usatoday.com.

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Abortion rights in Michigan could expand. GOP should've been ready