 | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Right to Reproductive Freedom Initiative | |||||||||||||
| Results | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| Elections in Michigan |
|---|
 |
2022 Michigan Proposal 3, the Right to Reproductive Freedom Initiative, also known as Reproductive Freedom for All, was a citizen-initiated proposed constitutional amendment in the state of Michigan, which was voted on as part of the 2022 Michigan elections. The amendment, which passed, codified reproductive rights, including access to abortion, in the Constitution of Michigan.
|
See also: Abortion in Michigan |
Following the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization ruling which overturned Roe v. Wade, access to abortion in Michigan became regulated by a 1931 law which criminalized abortion except in cases where the mother's life was at risk. The law was ruled unconstitutional by Michigan Court of Claims Judge Elizabeth L. Gleicher, characterizing the law as a violation of due process; however the case was appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court. No matter what the outcome of that appeal, there was no clear constitutional protection for abortion access in Michigan, making further potential regulation of abortion access by the legislature possible.[1]
The amendment was introduced to overturn the 1931 abortion ban and make the right to "reproductive freedom" explicit in the Michigan Constitution.[2] The Reproductive Freedom For All ballot committee gathered 753,759 signatures for the constitutional amendment, the most ever gathered for a ballot measure in state history, and more than enough for it to be placed on the 2022 ballot. On August 31, the Board of State Canvassers, responsible for determining whether candidates and initiatives should be placed on the ballot, deadlocked 2–2, with challengers arguing that the initiative's wording was poorly-spaced. On September 9, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled 5-2 that the initiative should be placed on the November ballot.[3]
The proposal appeared on the ballot as follows:[4]
A proposal to amend the state constitution to establish new individual right to reproductive freedom, including right to make all decisions about pregnancy and abortion; allow state to regulate 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 regulate abortion after fetal viability, but not prohibit if medically 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;
- Invalidate state laws conflicting with this amendment.
Should this proposal be adopted?
Restrictions on reproductive rights must be implemented in the "least restrictive means", and with a "compelling" interest.[5][6]
The full text of the section that the proposal added to Article I of the state constitution is as follows:[7]
The proposal's main supporters, Reproductive Freedom for All, state that Proposal 3 would "ensure that all Michiganders have the right to safe and respectful care during birthing, everyone has the right to use temporary or permanent birth control, everyone has the right to continue or end a pregnancy pre-viability, and no one can be punished for having a miscarriage, stillbirth, or abortion."[8]
The proposal's main opponents, Citizens to Support MI Women and Children, have called Proposal 3 "extreme", arguing that it could invalidate 41 state laws related to abortion and other issues (including prostitution, statutory rape, and human cloning).[9][6][10] They have argued that due to the right to reproductive freedom applying to "all individuals", that it would repeal the requirement for minors to receive parental consent in order to receive an abortion. The group also asserted that the proposal would allow any "attending health care professional" to perform an abortion (a definition under state law that includes athletic trainers and masseuses), and repeal safety standards and inspections of abortion clinics.[5][6] University of Detroit Mercy associate law professor Michelle Richards argued that such issues could still be regulated under Proposal 3, as a compelling interest to protect the safety and welfare of residents.[6]
Opponents of Proposal 3 claimed that the amendment would codify an "unlimited right to abortion" by allowing abortions up to the last week of pregnancy for any reason.[11][12]
It was also argued by opponents that Proposal 3 would allow minors to receive puberty blockers, castration, or a hysterectomy without parental consent, under an interpretation of the proposal that classified these procedures as falling under "infertility" and "sterilization".[5][6] Washtenaw County Prosecuting Attorney Eli Savit and University of Michigan constitutional law professor Leah Litman disputed the claim, citing that Proposal 3 specifically defines the right to "reproductive freedom" as being within the context of pregnancy, with no explicit references to other contexts such as transgender health care.[13][5] The Michigan Supreme Court will have to rule on the precise effects of the amendment.
Reproductive Freedom for All has received $44 million, mostly from groups such as the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, and NARAL and Sam Bankman-Fried.[14][15] Meanwhile, the Citizens to Support MI Women and Children has raised almost $17 million from groups such as the Michigan Catholic Conference and Right to Life of Michigan. Both committees have spent millions of dollars on advertising, including on TV and digital ads.[16][17][15]
Opinion polls for the first few months before the referendum indicated significant majority support for the amendment. Its popularity waned from the initial summer backlash from the Dobbs decision, but nonetheless, the amendment had a clear lead in the polls throughout the campaign.[18]
| Poll source | Date(s) administered |
Sample size[a] |
Margin of error |
For Proposal 3 |
Against Proposal 3 |
Undecided[b] | Lead |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cygnal (R) | November 1–4, 2022 | 1,603 (LV) | ± 2.5% | 52% | 44% | 5% | 8% |
| Mitchell Research | November 3, 2022 | 658 (LV) | ± 3.8% | 51% | 46% | 3%[c] | 5% |
| Cygnal (R) | October 31 – November 2, 2022 | 1,754 (LV) | ± 2.3% | 52% | 43% | 5% | 9% |
| EPIC-MRA[d] | October 28 – November 1, 2022 | 600 (LV) | ± 4.0% | 57% | 40% | 4% | 17% |
| Emerson College | October 28–31, 2022 | 900 (LV) | ± 3.2% | 51% | 42% | 7% | 9% |
| The Glengariff Group, Inc.[e] | October 26–28, 2022 | 600 (LV) | ± 4.0% | 55% | 41% | 4% | 14% |
| Mitchell Research | October 19, 2022 | 541 (LV) | ± 4.2% | 50% | 47% | 3%[c] | 3% |
| CNN/SSRS | October 13–18, 2022 | 901 (RV) | ± 4.2% | 54% | 45% | 1%[f] | 9% |
| 651 (LV) | ± 4.9% | 54% | 45% | 2%[g] | 9% | ||
| Emerson College | October 12–14, 2022 | 580 (LV) | ± 4.0% | 52% | 38% | 10% | 14% |
| EPIC-MRA | October 6–12, 2022 | 600 (LV) | ± 4.0% | 60% | 33% | 7% | 27% |
| CBS News/YouGov | October 3–6, 2022 | 1,285 (RV)[h] | ± 3.6% | 54% | 38% | 7%[i] | 16% |
| The Glengariff Group, Inc.[e] | September 26–29, 2022 | 600 (LV) | ± 4.0% | 62% | 24% | 14% | 38% |
| EPIC-MRA[d] | September 15–19, 2022 | 600 (LV) | ± 4.0% | 64% | 27% | 9% | 37% |
| EPIC-MRA Archived October 1, 2022, at the Wayback Machine | September 7–13, 2022 | 800 (LV) | ± 3.5% | 56% | 23% | 21% | 33% |
| EPIC-MRA | August 18–23, 2022 | 600 (LV) | ± 4.0% | 67% | 24% | 9% | 43% |
Proposal 3 was approved with 56.66% of the vote.[21] One factor in the proposal's passage was the increased participation in the midterm election by younger voters.[22]
| Choice | Votes | % |
|---|---|---|
 Yes
|
2,482,382 | 56.66 |
| No | 1,898,906 | 43.34 |
| Total votes | 4,381,288 | 100.00 |
Results by congressional district are shown below.
| Congressional district | Yes | No | Total Votes | Representative | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| # | % | # | % | # | Name | |||||||
| District 1 | 190,678 | 49.2% | 197,133 | 50.8% | 387,811 | Jack Bergman | ||||||
| District 2 | 153,029 | 44.6% | 189,911 | 55.4% | 342,940 | John Moolenaar | ||||||
| District 3 | 188,644 | 55.8% | 149,562 | 44.2% | 338,206 | Hillary Scholten | ||||||
| District 4 | 174,564 | 51.5% | 164,312 | 48.5% | 338,876 | Bill Huizenga | ||||||
| District 5 | 146,014 | 46.3% | 169,428 | 53.7% | 315,442 | Tim Walberg | ||||||
| District 6 | 254,036 | 68.5% | 116,855 | 31.5% | 370,891 | Debbie Dingell | ||||||
| District 7 | 212,554 | 57.4% | 157,867 | 42.6% | 370,421 | Elissa Slotkin | ||||||
| District 8 | 186,899 | 56.2% | 145,546 | 43.8% | 332,445 | Dan Kildee | ||||||
| District 9 | 177,814 | 46.9% | 201,012 | 53.1% | 378,826 | Lisa McClain | ||||||
| District 10 | 185,349 | 57.6% | 136,305 | 42.4% | 321,654 | John James | ||||||
| District 11 | 246,413 | 66.9% | 121,644 | 33.1% | 368,057 | Haley Stevens | ||||||
| District 12 | 197,198 | 71.1% | 80,181 | 28.9% | 277,379 | Rashida Tlaib | ||||||
| District 13 | 170,943 | 72.1% | 66,155 | 27.9% | 237,098 | Shri Thanedar | ||||||
| Totals | 2,482,382 | 56.7% | 1,898,906 | 43.3% | 4,381,288 | 7D, 6R | ||||||
| Source: Google Sheets | ||||||||||||
In the wake of the constitutional amendment's approval, the 1931 abortion law was repealed on April 5, 2023.[23] The Reproductive Health Act, which repealed several abortion restrictions, was enacted on November 21, 2023.[24][25]
The America Project, a Donald Trump aligned organization, funded a partial recount of this proposal as well as 2022 Michigan Proposal 2 despite their passage by wide margins. The recount was spearheaded by Jerome Jay Allen of the conservative group Election Integrity Fund and Force. The recount lasted two weeks and added 116 yes votes and 7 no votes to the totals. This led to calls to tighten recount rules to disallow frivolous recounts with no chance of changing the vote outcome.[26]
