Michigan’s Dangerous Proposal 3

Commentary

When voters in Michigan go to the polls on Nov. 8, they will see a proposal for a constitutional amendment about “reproductive freedom” on the ballot.

In reality, proposal 3 is one of the most extreme anti-family measures currently being discussed in the country. Should it pass, there are a number of potentially dire consequences.

There are lawn signs in yards across the state urging voters to say no to the amendment. They read: “Too Confusing, Too Extreme.”

But it’s only once you really dive into that confusing language and its harrowing implications that it becomes clear just how extreme it really is.

Senior Legal Correspondent at The Federalist and lawyer Margot Cleveland does a comprehensive breakdown of what is hidden in this bill. The key takeaway for readers is that the truly radical elements of the amendment have just as much to do with “gender-affirming care” for minors as they do the macabre procedure of late-term abortion.

Currently being presented as “the abortion amendment” by advocates such as Democrat Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, the proposal is in reality a radical bill that removes any restrictions on the practice unless the state has a “compelling interest.” The latter is supposed to have to do with the health of the individual, with the important qualification that it doesn’t infringe on their ability for “autonomous decision-making.” In practice, this means unlimited access to abortion regardless of the stage of the unborn child’s development.

For pregnant minors, this equates to the removal of any type of necessary consultation with a mother or father before the procedure, as they would now be able to decide on getting an abortion free of parental consent.

The bill goes beyond mere abortion, however. “Gender-affirming care” is part of the leftwing ideology that currently supports the notion that a man can be a woman and vice versa. The type of care mentioned above means accommodating this worldview in minors. This includes both hormonal treatment known as puberty blockers—the same scientific, inhumane, procedure known as chemical castration—and sexual reassignment surgery, which includes the mutilation of naturally occurring genitals in order to reconfigure the raw material into a fake version of the opposite gender’s sex organs.

Most people are rightly outraged at the thought of this being done to children. Matt Walsh at the Daily Wire has focused on identifying the individuals and medical facilities who have been providing this macabre service. This is barbarism, and people should know the actual names of the people who support these practices and sit on those hospital boards. Who is it exactly that’s putting the scalpel to the genitals of children and filling out the prescription sheets for the chemical castration of those not old enough to vote?

Once again, recall: proposal 3 supports gender-affirming care without parental consent. This isn’t alarmism. That means that even if you accepted the ideological basis of transgenderism, you would then have to accept that children could comprehend gender ideology and know that they were actually born in the wrong body.

But that’s not all. You would then need to accept that this means that someone not old enough to buy a pack of cigarettes or drive a car should undergo irreversible procedures to “affirm” that gender. And on top of all of it, you would then still need to believe that all of these decisions could be reached by a minor without the guidance of a parent. That’s what proposal 3 demands of voters.

Is this an insignificant concern, or a red-herring to detract from the abortion side of the amendment? Considering the fact that some polls show 20 percent of Gen Z currently identifying as LGBTQ (compared to 10 percent of millennials and 3 percent of baby boomers) with others reporting up to 40 percent of Gen Z as LGBTQ (30 percent of millennials), the general trend seems to be an increasing likelihood that minors will say that they are trans. Another study found that as many as 25 percent of those in Gen Z identifying as LGBTQ say that they are “non-binary.” Suddenly, the intricacies of “gender-affirming care” for minors, especially without parental consent, doesn’t sound like such a trivial matter.

On closer analysis, it also seems like a much more pecuniary matter. It turns out that “reproductive freedom” often equates to freedom to spend money on one of the many procedures associated with human sexuality. Planned Parenthood happens to be one of the largest backers of proposal 3—it also happens to be the second largest provider of hormone therapy for those seeking to transition genders (as well as, of course, the nation’s largest abortion provider).

Planned Parenthood Advocates for Michigan has contributed significant funds to supporting the amendment. But the single biggest donor to the “yes” campaign? Unsurprisingly, the American Civil Liberties Union. According to Ballotpedia, the Reproductive Freedom For All PAC registered to support proposition 3 has raised $45.7 million. The registered opposition, Citizens to Support MI Women and Children, has raised less than half of that amount.

On April 7, after filing a lawsuit asking the Michigan Supreme Court to make abortion a fundamental right, Whitmer said that she would “fight like hell” for the bill. In response, Bishop Earl Boyea of the Catholic Archdiocese of Lansing called on all Christians to engage in prayer and fasting to “fight like heaven” against the radical amendment.

Prayer is always a powerful tool, and can’t be underestimated. There will need to be plenty of it to defeat the pro-abortion, anti-family proposal 3. Whether you live in Michigan or not, everyone who stands against the murder of the unborn and the destruction of innocence should keep this in their prayers.

Those who stand for faith and tradition also need to show up at the polls for their state’s midterm elections, and do everything they can to expose the lies hidden beneath the false language of “freedom” and “rights.”

Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.