This election cycle Michigan voters will be voting on whether to be a state that allows the torture and murder of the judicially innocent or whether Michigan will end the scourge that is abortion.
The scales in this state are already tipped in the favor of the baby murderers as the proposed bill was seemingly turned over to Mephistopheles to write the language of what is being proposed. Plus, we here in Michigan have already had Michigan Supreme Court Justice Bernstein stating publicly that;
“Ultimately, it is the Michigan Supreme Court that will make the absolute final determination, it will be the Michigan Supreme Court that will have the final word, in a woman’s right to choose in the state of Michigan…”
Please understand dear reader what is being said here. Michigan voters could resoundingly turn down proposal 3 and it will make no difference because “ultimately it is the Michigan Supreme Court that will make the absolute final determination.” If the baby murderers are defeated at the ballot box they will just run to the courts to force infanticide on the whole state.
Be that as it may, I thought it would be good to give a series looking at how bad proposal 3 really is. We will break this down little by little.
Article 1, Section 28 Right to Reproductive Freedom
(1) Every individual has a fundamental right to reproductive freedom,
I am just curious as to where this fundamental right to reproductive freedom comes from? Who has granted us this right? Where can I look it up to find the details? This is the “Who says so” question. I mean if this whole proposal is premised on the idea of a “fundamental right to reproductive” freedom it ought not to be too much to ask where in the hell this right comes from. I’d prefer to see it in writing if it is not too much trouble. Keep in mind also, that the SCOTUS ruled in Buck vs. Bell decades ago that every individual does not have a fundamental right to reproductive freedom.
Secondly, here allow me to not how amusing it is to be talking about “reproductive freedom” when in fact what is being advocated is the erasure or reproductivity. I mean, this is an abortion proposal after all. So, are we really talking about freedom of reproductivity or are we talking about the freedom to not reproduce — to kill our offspring?
(2) 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.
Here we find a new, unlimited constitutional right inasmuch as we are using the language “all matters relating to pregnancy.”
All matters relating to pregnancy? Now, I don’t want to get to pedantic but as newborns could be said to be a matter relating to pregnancy does this language allow Mommies to kill their babies after they are born since the birthed child remains a matter relating to pregnancy?
Now, don’t you respond with “that’s obvious.” It’s obvious to me that killing in utero children deserves the death penalty for those who practice such heinousness. As such, nothing is “obvious” to me.
We would note that by creating a right “to all matters relating to pregnancy,” abortion, sterilizations, and a myriad of other matters (like sex) can have zero restrictions. Since sex is still related to pregnancy the language of this proposal could make any number of current sexual crimes open to legality. All a defendant (rapist?) would have to say is that “Hey, all matters related to pregnancy are my rights under the amendment of reproductive freedom”