Wherein we continue to look at the Dr. Mengle Abortion Referendum being floated in the state of Michigan.
(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.
Bret responds,
Note that the language is sloppy — probably purposely so.
They keep using the word “individual.”
1.) If it really is the right of every individual then clearly, under this amendment, if passed, the parents of children who are twelve and thirteen who get pregnant would have no voice in whether or not their daughters are allowed to have an abortion.
For that matter, since sex is related to pregnancy what the language of this bill does is overturn all laws about statutory rape. If a 50 year old man wants to lure a 13 year old girl into a sexual relationship, under the language of this bill that is perfectly acceptable since the 13 year old girl and the 50 year old man both have;
“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…”
If an individual has a fundamental right regarding all decisions relating to pregnancy then that individual (regardless of their age or minor status) has a right to statutory rape, incest and even sterilization.
2.) Note that language above that says,
“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…”
Health care professional?
Notice it does not say “Doctor.” A “health-care professional” is a large category. It could mean anything from a Doctor’s Physician’s Assistant to a Dentist, to a Natura-path, to a Masseur. For Pete’s sake people, this is supposed to be language amending your state constitution, not a “to do list.” In other words precision is important.
Proposal 3 offers,
(2) The state shall not discriminate in the protection or enforcement of this fundamental right.
Bret Responds,
If the state shall not discriminate we are back to the state, given this language, serving as the enforcer for abortions as potentially for children. If the State shall not discriminate this means that the state is going to enforce this reproductive “rights” for 30 year olds and 13 year olds. This language allows the State to tell Daddy and Mommy to go pound sand in their opposition to their little girl getting an abortion should the little girl want an abortion.
If this is correct then approving proposal three means that we are allowing the will of the State to trump the will of parents in cases where girls get pregnant.
Do you really want Gretchen Whitmer and Dana Nessel enforcing this right against parents?
Proposal 3 offers,
(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…
Bret responds,
The “included but not limited to” language allows for the scenario where a woman decides to give birth to a healthy baby, puts the newborn in a garbage sack, and dumps it in the trash — thus committing infanticide — and then leaves the scene. The language above stops any investigation since such an investigation could easily be labeled as “an adverse action” against “a perceived pregnancy outcome.”
Alternately, what if a woman decides upon the birth of her “deformed” child that she doesn’t want the child and so wants it not to live. As such the “benevolent” Kevorkian type Doctor kills the child thus committing infanticide. The language above stops any investigation since such an investigation could easily be labeled as “an adverse action” against “a perceived pregnancy outcome.”
The language of this amendment puts the State on the side of those who commit infanticide.
Proposal 3 was written by a lunatic or worse yet someone in the pocket of Planned Parenthood. Vote NO on Proposal 3.