There are no safeguards for the unborn thanks to a Michigan judge’s injunction against the long-standing abortion statute of the state. The judge’s ruling, according to critics, is more expansive than Roe v. Wade since it forbids the prosecution of non-medical personnel who carry out unlawful abortions as well as late-term abortions.
Rory Gray, senior counsel with the Alliance Defending Freedom legal organization, told CNA on August 22 that the injunction “sadly treats embryonic human life like it’s not worth defending.”
“Obviously, that concerns us. Innocent human life “should and is protected under Michigan law,” he stressed. “Really does enable abortion on demand, and we’re talking up to the time of delivery,” the order states.
Abortion is illegal in Michigan under current legislation, with the exception of when it is necessary to preserve the mother’s life.
Although a proposal to permit abortion up to 20 weeks into pregnancy was defeated by 60% of Michigan voters in a 1972 ballot issue, the legislation dated to 1931. The Michigan Court of Appeals determined in 1997 that the state constitution does not guarantee the right to an abortion.
On August 19, Oakland County Judge Jacob Cunningham granted an order prohibiting the use of force by thirteen county prosecutors.
According to the Associated Press, Cunningham said that “the damage to the body of women and individuals capable of becoming pregnant in not granting the injunction could not be more real, plain, present and dangerous to the court.”
According to the Detroit Free Press, Cunningham seemed to mock legal points made by prosecutors. County prosecutors, according to him, should concentrate their efforts and resources on looking into and prosecuting “criminal sexual conduct, murder, arson, child and elder abuse, animal cruelty, and other violent and awful crimes that we see in our society.”
The court mentioned a referendum initiative that would add a legal right to abortion to the state constitution.
He remarked, “This court concludes that letting the people of the great state of Michigan determine this issue at the polls is overwhelmingly in the public’s best interest.”
An counsel for two Republican county prosecutors, David Kallman, had argued that a preliminary injunction was not the best method to amend the law.
He told the Associated Press, “It seems to me that the judge dismissed all of the obvious legal mistakes and issues in this case just because the topic is abortion.
Attorneys for Governor Gretchen Whitmer claimed that it would be confusing if county prosecutors were given the authority to determine whether to enforce the abortion ban after she filed a lawsuit in April contesting the statute. The prosecutors in thirteen counties with abortion facilities were included as defendants in her complaint. The remaining six county prosecutors are Republicans, while seven Democratic prosecutors have said they would not uphold the legislation. Theoretically, prosecutors may still uphold the statute in counties other than these thirteen.
Gray still stressed the injunction’s severe effects on the law.
Even after Roe v. Wade, he said, the Michigan statute could still be used to both non-physicians and doctors who abort beyond viability without a good cause. There would be nothing these prosecutors could do under the injunction, he said.
“According to the decree, county prosecutors are prohibited from enforcing the pro-life statute in any way. This implies that they are unable to bring charges against anybody who conducts an abortion, not even a non-physician, and that an abortionist might kill an unborn child who is nine months old without cause, Gray added.
Actually, there are less limitations on abortion than ever, he said. The pro-abortion side is receiving all they want from the ballot measure that seems to be coming shortly under this injunction, according to the statement.
The proposed ballot measure’s hearing is scheduled for August 31. Its supporters refer to it as Reproductive Freedom for All. More than 750,000 people have signed a petition in favor of a constitutional change, according to supporters. Opponents of the ballot initiative, meanwhile, have voiced concerns about the plan’s conformity with election law, arguing that significant typographical problems on the petitions should render the measure illegal.
The Michigan Catholic Conference has issued a warning that the proposed amendment would essentially abolish the need for parental permission for minors seeking abortions and would let non-physicians to carry out abortions.
It also questioned the legal actions used to challenge state legislation.
Rebecca Mastee, a policy advocate with the Michigan Catholic Conference, stated on April 7: “It is sad that the judicial branch is being utilized to attempt to invalidate a long-standing policy passed by elected representatives and left unaltered by the Legislature for over a century thereafter.”
The Michigan Catholic Conference and Michigan Right to Life are both represented by Alliance Defending Freedom in the legal disputes surrounding the state’s pro-life statute.
A preliminary injunction imposed by a state claims court judge was reversed by a Michigan Court of Appeals decision in early August. The claims court judge had asserted that there was a legal right to abortion in May. The appeal court ruled that county prosecutors are in charge of defending and upholding the state’s abortion statute, nevertheless.
Later on the same day as the appellate court’s decision, Judge Cunningham issued a fresh legal injunction.