The state of Michigan is being sued for setting up in a ballot initiative an unconstitutional “super-right” for abortion, then having voters approve it, in violation of multiple constitutional protections.
The case was brought on behalf of 16 plaintiffs by the Great Lakes Justice Center and the American Freedom Law Center against Michigan over its approval of Proposal 3, “which has now become [an article] of the Michigan Constitution.”
It violates the U.S. Constitution, the case charges.
The vote on the scheme was in 2022.
It was filed on behalf of Right to Life Michigan; American Association of Pro-life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, on behalf of itself, its members, and their patients; Gina Johnsen, Representative, Michigan House of Representatives; Luke Meerman, Representative, Michigan House of Representatives; Joseph Bellino, Jr., Senator, Michigan Senate; Melissa Halvorson, M.D.; Christian Medical and Dental Associations, on behalf of itself, its members, and their patients; Crossroads Care Center; Celina Asberg; Grace Fisher; Jane Roe, on behalf of preborn babies; Andrea Smith; John Hubbard; Lara Hubbard; Save the 1, on behalf of itself and its members; and Rebecca Kiessling.
The complaint charges the state with manipulating the voters to create a “super-right” to abortion.
“At no time in our nation’s history has such a super-right, immune from all legislative action, ever been created by a popular vote,” he warns.
The legal teams note that in 1992, a similar vote was held in Colorado, in which voters decided to prohibit “all legislative, executive, or judicial action at any level of state or local government designed to protect homosexual persons.”
The Supreme Court held that “violated the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment on rational basis grounds (there was no fundamental right nor suspect class implicated, unlike in this case). As stated by the Court, ‘A law declaring that in general it shall be more difficult for one group of citizens than for all others to seek aid from the government is itself a denial of equal protection of the laws in the most literal sense. The guaranty of equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws.’”
The complaint charges the Michigan situation fails for that reason, and more:
First, that Art. I, Sec. 28 (Proposal 3) causes great harm to pregnant women (and others) as a class by exempting them from the legal protections afforded to other classes of individuals in violation of the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Second, that Art. I, Sec. 28 violates parental rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment as it deprives parents of their right to direct the upbringing and education of their minor children by excluding them from their children’s decisions regarding “reproduction.”
Third, that Art. I, Sec. 28 violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment by overriding any objection on religious grounds to endorsing, providing, or supporting procedures involving “reproduction,” thereby infringing on the rights of conscience and religious exercise protected by the First Amendment.
Fourth, that Art. I, Sec. 28 deprives preborn babies, particularly those with disabilities, newborn babies following a failed abortion, and partially born babies of the right to life without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Fifth, that Art. I, Sec. 28 creates an unprecedented, super-right to “reproductive freedom” that remains immune from any legislative action, thereby nullifying the legitimate authority of a coordinate branch of government (the legislative branch) in violation of the Guarantee Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees private citizens the right to a republican form of government and thus protects them from the tyranny of the majority.
The complaint is in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan and seeks a declaration that Article I, Section 28 of the Michigan Constitution, which is the provision of the state constitution that was created by Proposal 3, violates the United States Constitution and a permanent injunction to prevent the implementation and enforcement of Section 28.
This article was originally published by the WND News Center.
This post originally appeared on WND News Center.