The abortion referendum, Proposition 3, in Michigan is officially called “Reproductive Freedom for All.” Like so many referendums, it is filled with purposely vague language with virtually no specifics. So, if voters don’t take the time and effort to find the specifics, then they simply react to the words reproductive, freedom, and all. Who can find a problem with these words?
At the same time, those who favor the passage of this referendum have spent millions of dollars producing ads on television and social media that are misleading and designed to frighten voters into believing that a rejection of this amendment will result in pregnant women dying. Why? Well, they claim that, under Michigan’s 1931 abortion ban law, which again went into effect after the Dobbs decision, women with miscarriages, ectopic pregnancies, and other critical major physical difficulties will be forced to continue their pregnancies, even if they die in the process. This is a blatant lie, but as radio host Dennis Prager notes, “The Left has no moral compass.”
The two Michigan politicians who have spearheaded this referendum are Governor Gretchen Whitmer and Attorney General Dana Nessel. When it comes to killing children through abortion, one would be hard pressed to find a more deadly duo, and this referendum is the golden fleece for their culture of death.
Let’s look at Whitmer’s record when she was in the Michigan legislature and now as governor.
She promoted the Reproductive Health Act for Michigan in 2019. This legislation would have allowed pregnant teens to get an abortion without parental consent, permitted abortion clinics not to give informed consent to women, and exempt abortion clinics from safely and health regulations that other medical facilities must meet.
As a legislator, three times she voted to allow partial-birth abortions. She also voted against a bill in 2012 that would have prevented a woman from being coerced into an abortion.
During the pandemic, she allowed abortion clinics to stay open while regular medical facilities were ordered to close. She justified this action by declaring that abortion is “life-sustaining.”
In 2006, she voted against a bill that would require abortion clinics to give patients the option of seeing the ultrasound of their babies.
During her political career, Whitmer has sought and received the endorsement of Planned Parenthood, which requires that all endorsees support taxpayer funding of abortion.
In 2020 she vetoed part of the state budget that would have provided financial aid to pregnancy centers and to provide offices in colleges to give students resources if pregnant.
In the 2022 budget, she vetoed $16 million for pregnancy help programs and alternatives to abortion. Four million dollars of this sum would have gone to maternity homes to provide safe housing and support services at no cost to pregnant women. Another $2 million would have provided tax credits for adoptive parents. And the remaining $10 million would have been used to give factual information to pregnant women, including the adoption process. Clearly, a pregnant woman who chooses to keep her baby but needs help garners no sympathy from the governor. In fact, the veto appears to be a childish act of petulance. Ostensibly, “Pro-choice” is only valid if a woman chooses to kill her child.
How about her murdering sidekick, Attorney General Nessel?
Despite her job description, she promised that if Roe were overturned, she would not defend the Michigan Abortion Law and would refuse to prosecute abortionists. And once Dobbs was overturned, she has done just that. Sadly, minor courts have reinforced her decisions.
At the height of the pandemic, when Michiganders were prohibited from going to their doctors’ offices, Nessel insisted that abortion clinics remain open.
She filed a brief at the Michigan Supreme Court, arguing against regulating abortion clinics. She also praised a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that struck down a Louisiana law that required abortion clinics to have admitting privileges at local hospitals in case a woman was the victim of a botched abortion.
In another brief, she argued that aborting a child with Down’s Syndrome is a constitutional right.
In a third brief, Nessel argued that an abortion should be permitted for any reason throughout the pregnancy. This would also permit partial-birth abortions.
Nessel joined several other attorneys-general in a letter to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services urging it to allow taxpayer money to be used in research that harvests organs and tissues from aborted babies.
In a similar letter regarding an Indiana law, she argued that abortion pills should be dispensed by non-doctors and that late-term abortions should be permitted in facilities even if they are ill-equipped for such surgeries.
If one looks objectively at the records of these daughters of death, it is clear that they reject any restrictions on abortion. Thus, one can easily conclude that they would not support this current referendum if there were any restrictions in it, and there are none. The bottom line is that they want more dead babies and will go to any length to make sure that occurs.