On Saturday night, I listened to Charlie LeDuff’s podcast on Prop 3 and discovered game-changing information. Not only was LeDuff frustrated that the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, the organization behind “Reproductive Freedom for All,” prominent democrat lawyers, and elected officials—including a prosecutor—wouldn’t come on his show to defend Prop 3, but former Solicitor General John Bursch unleashed the motherload of information that might explain why.
Prop 3 has expanded far beyond a debate about sterilization and abortion rights. The only relevant argument for the moment is whether will it destroy parental consent laws. Democrats are claiming no. The prosecutors of Genesee, Wayne, and Oakland County even cut a commercial denouncing the claims of the vote no campaign.
Bursch pointed out that “every individual” and “fundamental right,” is unique to Prop 3. It’s not in the U.S. or Michigan constitution. “If the Constitution says, ‘every individual,’ no judge has the ability to read that any less broadly than what it says. And we know that the other side actually believes this—although they won’t tell you that in the ads. How do we know that? Because Planned Parenthood and ACLU, two of the principal sponsors and proponents of proposal 3, introduced legislation in the Michigan legislature in 2019, and again in 2021, to eliminate Michigan’s parental consent and notification statute. And even as recently as spring of this year, representatives of the ACLU admitted that proposal 3 would eliminate parental consent and notification.”
Burch didn’t mention bill numbers or names, so I had to do some digging. Just like he said, Democrats introduced “The Reproductive Health Act” in 2019 and 2021, and it openly repealed “The Parental Rights Restoration Act,” which requires parental consent for abortions and penalizes clinics that perform one on a minor without parental consent or a court waiver. In 2019, the ACLU “applauded” this effort. In 2021, Planned Parenthood Advocates of Michigan said it would repeal “outdated” restrictions.
Planned Parenthood Advocates argued removing parental consent laws “increases privacy and safety” for minors. They also praised getting rid of barriers that prevent taxpayer dollars from funding abortions, 24-hour waiting periods, and other informed consent laws.
The Reproductive Health Act has very similar language to Prop 3, but it was only a bill. Now, all the major players are pushing for a constitutional amendment. On your literal ballot, if you vote yes, you are agreeing to “invalidate state laws conflicting with this amendment.” Could it be the Democrats, the ACLU, and Planned Parenthood are simply lying to the voters, and the constitutional amendment is going to do everything they believe in and have tried to get done, at least twice?
Frankly, you have to be dangerously naïve or willfully ignorant to not believe there’s a good chance—if not a certainty—that is the endgame.
I reached out to the offices of prosecutors Karen D. McDonald (Oakland), David S. Leyton (Genesee), and Kym L. Worthy (Wayne), to see if they were aware of the Democrats’ former bills or if they agreed with Planned Parenthood’s sentiments about parental consent. None of them returned requests for comment.
Follow LifeNews.com on Instagram for pro-life pictures and videos.
I’ve had dozens of conversations with leftist democrats who insist Prop 3 won’t get rid of parental rights. They point out, “A child can’t even get a tattoo or a piercing without parental consent!” But when pressed, they admit to absolutely believing a minor should be able to get an abortion with parental consent or even notification. Even if you are pro-choice, why kneecap other parents like that? Is it ethical to have a child—who may be afraid, embarrassed, or even coerced—to wander into an abortion clinic, where they have a financial incentive to terminate their son or daughter? Even adult women who want abortions can have traumatic experiences and come out mentally or physically scarred.
In 2004, 15-year-old Tamia Russell, from a Detroit suburb, died from a uterine infraction with sepsis during a second-trimester abortion. Her boyfriend was 24, and his sister took Tamia in without her parent’s knowledge. My sister brought the story to my attention because she remembered Tamia’s family sobbing on the news.
In Prop 3’s scenario, the state could take no action against the healthcare provider who performed the abortion and anyone who helped Tamia practice her “reproductive freedom.” The victims would be daughters like Tamia, women like her mother, and the 30,074 aborted Michigan children (MDHHS, 2021).
Supporters of Prop 3 claim that legislators can still make laws surrounding reproductive rights if there’s a compelling state interest. But the proposal’s definition of “compelling state interest” makes it very difficult to legislate restrictions. They believe abortion should be unrestricted because it’s a “fundamental right.”
Your right to free speech isn’t described as a “fundamental right.” Your right to bear arms isn’t described as a “fundamental right.” When President Joe Biden wanted to introduce more gun restrictions, he said, “No amendment to the constitution is absolute.” Your bodily autonomy isn’t a “fundamental right.” When it came to vaccine mandates, Biden said, “This is not about freedom or personal choice.” Governor Gretchen Whitmer supported Biden’s OSHA mandates, which the Supreme Court ruled to be unconstitutional for businesses.
The only fundamental right Democrats appear to believe in is the right to terminate the lives of sons and daughters in the womb. According to the Guttmacher Institute, the US had 930,160 abortions in 2020. And if the abortion lobby gets its way, that number will not go down.
After all, abortion is a business.
LifeNews Note: Christina Barr is the CEO and leading voice of Black Tea News. Barr was born in 1989, and is a life-long Michigan resident. She officially got involved with politics in 2012. Barr was the Creative Director of the Michigan Republican Party from 2015-17.
