NOTE: I offer some new thoughts. This is updated from an earlier post (update 10/23/22).
The State of Michigan (among others) will give voters the opportunity to add an amendment to the state constitution which would establish and protect the "right" of a woman to get an abortion and of medical professionals to provide them, known as Proposal 3. The verbiage of Proposal 3 is below in black; my comments are in red. The verbiage which voters will see when they get their ballots on November 8 is all the way at the bottom.
If you don't want to read all of this, here is the short version: Vote NO on Proposal 3; it is evil and promotes evil.
Or you can check out this video.
CAVEAT: I am not a lawyer, so there may be some legalese which I may not fully recognize or understand, such as all of point 5 below.
First, an initial thought regarding a constitutional amendment: This should be hard. Constitutions should not be so easy to have amendments attached to them. Even if Proposal 3 were adopted (God forbid), it could simply be passed as a law, not forever ensconced in the state constitution. The fact that people yearn so much to see abortion protected as a basic human right is an abomination. One would think that a child in the womb has some basic rights. This Proposal, if passed, denies that.
It also seems to me that Proposal 3 excuses men who father children from any responsibility or accountability for their actions. I fear that many men would love this kind of "freedom," and certainly not to the benefit of the women they impregnate.
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.
This "freedom" is a myth from the start. Many women long to get pregnant and to have a child. For reasons known only to God, he occasionally withholds that blessing.
In the list of "including but not limited to," sterilization and abortion care stand out as markedly different than the other items listed. These are not the same. While sterilization may--almost certainly does--have several moral issues associated with it (e.g., rejection of God's gift of children), abortion is murder of a baby in the mother's womb. In a place where it should be safe, it becomes most vulnerable to a vacuum, knife, or saline treatment that burns it to death. Where are the rights of the child?
This phrase is also alarming: "Every individual has a fundamental right to ... sterilization." What age are we talking about? And the ensuing paragraph makes it even more disturbing that this individual's right "shall not be denied, burdened, nor infringed upon." Does that mean a parent has no say if their twelve-year-old wants to be sterilized? Parental rights matter, as children are not to be entrusted with such life-altering decisions. That's why they are minors.
There may also be some issue with "infertility care," but I will pass by that for now. The fact is that this bill is about abortion more than anything.
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.
The phrase "compelling state interest": What could that be????
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.
If a baby in the womb threatens the life of the mother, the death of the mother would likely result in the death of the baby as well. This would result in a gut-wrenching decision to preserve the mother's life at the expense of her baby. Such decisions produce great angst, and probably also great guilt. These cases are worthy of our prayers for God's mercy. Odds are, however, that the baby can be taken early and that both lives could be spared. One would hope that this is the most sought after solution rather than abortion.
Does this clause mean that abortions would be legal right up to the moment of birth? It sure seems to allow for it.
The phrase "physical or mental health of the pregnant individual" (you can say "woman" right? that is the only biological choice, isn't it?) seems to open the door to abortion for any reason. Can a woman claim, "This pregnancy is stressing me out" and have that be a mental health issue which is sufficient reason for abortion? Can just the uncomfortableness of a pregnancy be a sufficient health issue to terminate a pregnancy? Or maybe even, "I don't want to get fat"? Based on the zeal to defend and protect abortion, I would guess so.
Who qualifies as "an attending health care professional"?
(2) The state shall not discriminate in the protection or
enforcement of this fundamental right.
"Fundamental" right? Based on what? Who has decreed it fundamental?
"Shall not discriminate"? No age limit at all? What about a 4-year-old getting sterilized or receiving treatments for transitioning from boy to girl or vice versa? That seems to me to be child abuse, not a fundamental right. And this is protected?!?!
(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.
The fact that "miscarriage, stillbirth, or abortion" are placed in succession would suggest that they are viewed as equal events. A miscarriage and a stillbirth happen beyond the mother's control. [Full disclosure: My wife and I have experienced both.] An abortion is sought out to intentionally kill the baby.
The state shall not "penalize, prosecute, or otherwise take adverse action against someone for aiding or assisting a pregnant individual" from getting an abortion? So, parents can be kept in the dark about a mid-teen-aged child getting an abortion with the assistance of someone else? Do the parents play any role in their children's lives, or are they viewed as a danger to their own children? Is "reproductive freedom" the highest good, and is the government's decree to be stronger than a parent's role?
(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.
You will have to pardon me if I consider the phrase "evidence-based medicine" a disingenuous phrase. Ultrasounds have produced undeniable evidence that the fetus is a human being, and that an abortion kills that human being. In every other context, that is known as murder. It certainly is not a "fundamental right."
For the woman who gets an abortion. Status on your way into the abortion clinic: You have a baby growing in your uterus. Status after the abortion: You do not have a baby growing in your uterus. It has been forcefully, violently, grotesquely removed. That is evidence-based medicine.
“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.
"Extraordinary medical measures" -- Does this include NICU?
(5) This section shall be self-executing. Any provision of this section held invalid shall be severable from the remaining portions of this section.
Source: proposal-3-reproductive-freedom-constitutional-amendment-language.pdf (grdiocese.org)
There are numerous other sources which raise issues about Proposal 3. One example is here. It is a bad law. It is supporting and legalizing the butchering of babies in the womb. It is an assault on fatherhood and motherhood. It is an offense before God. Vote NO on Proposal 3; it is evil and promotes evil.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
This is what you will see on the ballot:
Proposal 3 – Reproductive Freedom for All
"Proposal 22-3
A proposal to amend the state constitution to establish new individual right to reproductive freedom, including right to make all decisions about pregnancy; allow state to prohibit abortion in some cases; and forbid prosecution of individuals exercising established right
This proposed constitutional amendment would:
- Establish new individual right to reproductive freedom, including right to make and carry out all decisions about pregnancy, such as prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, contraception, sterilization, abortion, miscarriage management, and infertility;
- Allow state to prohibit abortion after fetal viability unless needed to protect a patient’s life or physical or mental health;
- Forbid state discrimination in enforcement of this right; prohibit prosecution of an individual, or a person helping a pregnant individual, for exercising rights established by this amendment; and invalidate all state laws that conflict with this amendment.
Should this proposal be adopted?
[ ] YES
[ ] NO"
Source: Here is language for the 3 petitions MI voters will see on the November ballot (wxyz.com)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Due to recurring spam, all comments will now be moderated. Please be patient.