If the devil is in the details, then he’s reveling in a proposed amendment to Michigan’s constitution.
Dubbed the “Right to Reproductive Freedom Initiative,” Proposal 3’s ballot language reads: “A ‘yes’ vote would support providing a state constitutional right to reproductive freedom, which is defined as ‘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 paragraph seems benign enough; but this is where we must understand that those behind the ballot initiative (I’m looking at you, ACLU and Planned Parenthood) have chosen their verbiage well. The writers have mimicked what countless 4th graders have done over the years, burying the bad report card in a stack of innocuous parent newsletters and art class projects, hoping Mom and Dad won’t notice. Who, in their right mind, wants to restrict a woman’s right to choose prenatal care, where she gives birth, what kind of postpartum care to receive, or how to navigate the devastation of a miscarriage or infertility matters? And that is the thought process the crafters of this proposal are depending upon. Freedom. Miscarriage management. Infertility care. These are the words they have selected to make it easy for us to skip over “abortion care” and go right to a “Yes” on November 8. A read through the actual text of the proposed constitutional amendment, however, gives a fuller, more alarming picture of just how radical this measure really is. Permit me to draw your attention to just a few of the gems found in this horrific amendment, the full text of which can be found online. The troubles begin in the very first line: “Every individual has a fundamental right to reproductive freedom…” Readers will, no doubt, notice the term individual as opposed to woman. We must not simply chalk this up to sterile legalese. Words matter, especially on a ballot proposal. You can bet that each word in Prop 3 was carefully selected; and the term selected was decidedly not woman nor adult nor even person of a legal age, but individual. In fact, throughout the proposed amendment, the age of the “pregnant individual” is mentioned not once. The 13-year-old, then, who has no legal right to set their own curfew, drive, vote, or consume alcohol has the right to enter the abortion clinic. Indeed, as one critic has noted, “the Michigan ACLU admitted in a media interview that this reproductive right applies to children starting ‘at birth’.” Equally alarming is that there are no restrictions on who can perform the abortion procedure. Notice the vague language employed in subsection 3: “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” (emphasis added). Not a doctor. Not a nurse. Someone. If this amendment passes, any “someone” has the right to perform an abortion on a woman as long as she consents voluntarily. And those “someones,” boyfriends and sex traffickers alike, will rejoice at their newly discovered freedom. Then, there is the tragic statement on fetal viability. The proposal dictates that the only time the state can interfere in abortion access is after the point of fetal viability. Common sense (and Merriam-Webster) tells us that fetal viability is the point when a baby can survive outside of the womb, typically understood to be somewhere between 22 and 24 weeks gestation. For the crafters of Prop 3, though, this is far too restrictive. They change the definition to mean “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” (emphasis added). Think about those words. How many people are there, even in our own communities, who depend upon “extraordinary medical measures” to survive daily? If it is immoral to deny an adult an oxygen tank, dialysis, or intubation, how heinous is it to qualify a baby’s right to life upon whether they need similar care in the NICU? The way I see it, Prop 3 is a trojan horse. It’s not about choice. It’s not about freedom. It’s not about getting “your rosaries off my ovaries,” as its proponents suggest. It’s about the human rights catastrophe of our generation, rooted in the belief that one person’s autonomy trumps the rights of the most vulnerable. There’s a lot of money and outside influence being pumped into the campaign to #RestoreRoe. As for me, I will do all I can to abort Prop 3.
0 Comments
It is an ironic thing: the same armchair activists and corporate giants that spent the month of June tripping over themselves in their efforts to demonstrate their rainbow-covered inclusivity and tolerance, are now viciously denouncing the reversal of Roe v. Wade.
But alas, consistency has never been a hallmark of the human race. Still, I marvel at the hypocrisy of those allegedly concerned with human rights. How exposing kindergarteners to sexual deviancy is acceptable, but fighting for the right to life of those same children — when they were inutero — would be an affront to human rights is beyond me. The founders made it clear that they believed human rights were inherent and God-given. In Lloyd Schinnerer’s eighth grade history class, we were required to memorize the opening lines of the U.S. Declaration of Independence, words Americans would do well to consider today... “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...” Unfortunately, throughout American history, there have been grievous times when, far from securing these rights, our government has denied them from a segment of society. The notable examples of slavery and discrimination against Japanese and black Americans come to mind. But, thankfully, Americans have proven, at least at times, to be a repentant bunch, eager to recognize their national sins and to make strides toward reconciliation. It seems to me that the reversal of Roe v. Wade, like that of Dred Scott v. Sandford and Plessy v. Ferguson, far from being an affront to American ideals and human rights, is a partial rectification of a past wrong. Why, then, do so many voices decry this victory for human rights? Ultimately, it is because they demand absolute autonomy, no restraints. They, with Henley, wish to believe, “I am the master of my fate: I am the captain of my soul.” Or, to put it in the modern vernacular, “My body, my choice.” Of course, a nation that will not be restrained by truth and divine authority will have a hard time finding justification for its rights. If the basis of our rights is anything other than that they were given by God, then they cannot be unalienable. Thus, Roe v. Wade, a decision made in the wake of a national rejection of its Judeo-Christian foundation, was a fabrication of rights, not a recognition of those inherent to every person. This is the problem the pro-abortion crowd faces today. For nearly 50 years, they looked to the Supreme Court as their law-giver and to Roe v. Wade as their oracle from on high. But rights granted by man can be rescinded just as easily. This they learned when, on June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court said what it should have said five decades ago – namely, that the Constitution nowhere guarantees, or even speaks of, a right to an abortion. As for me, I wish this reversal reflected a change of the American heart toward righteousness. But I do not believe any such change has taken place. Rather, the reversal of Roe v. Wade is the result of a court that rightly seeks to interpret the Constitution as written; but not because of a nation bent on doing right. Indeed, the question of whether unborn children can be murdered in their mother’s wombs is still being entertained, albeit at the state level. Many states will undoubtedly enact radical laws that endanger the lives of unborn children and their families, and as long as the current administration is in power in Lansing, Michigan may be among them. Still, my family and I join millions of Americans in enjoying this one, sweet moment. This moment that ensures, at least in some parts of the Union, that many children will be spared the tragic fate that 63 million others were not. This moment when America got it right. |
AuthorTy Perry is a writer based in metro-Detroit. Archives
December 2023
Categories
All
|