November 2, 2022
Past support for bill ending parental consent requirements reveals true intentions behind Proposal 3
Proposal 3 supporters claim that “parental consent will remain” under their amendment, even though the amendment language and their own previous statements about Proposal 3 confirm minors would have a right to abortion without being required to tell their parents under the amendment.
But in addition to that, Planned Parenthood and the ACLU – the backers of Proposal 3 – have previously championed the repeal of the state’s law requiring parental consent for minors seeking abortions, which was introduced as proposed legislation last year.
“Planned Parenthood and ACLU are both on record for calling for the repeal of Michigan law that requires parental consent for their children’s abortions,” said Christen Pollo, spokesperson for the No on Proposal 3 campaign. “That tells Michigan voters everything they need to know about what Planned Parenthood and ACLU’s true intentions are for Proposal 3: To repeal parental consent requirements permanently by putting it into our constitution.”
On a fact sheet issued by Planned Parenthood and the ACLU supporting the proposed Reproductive Health Care Act introduced in 2021, it is specifically stated that the legislation “increases privacy and safety for minors seeking an abortion by removing the parental consent requirement.” The fact sheet can be downloaded from a link at the bottom of this page, and a screenshot of the offending language is shown below:
Just to make it clear, the same document raises the question of whether parental consent requirements for minors would be lifted by the bill package, and Planned Parenthood and ACLU confirmed it would:
House Bill 5542 from 2021 specifically says, on page four and subsection (d), that the bill would repeal “the parental rights restoration act” from 1990, which specifically requires “parental consent for abortions performed on unemancipated minors.”
Now, Planned Parenthood and ACLU are seeking to end parental consent requirements for teenage abortions by slipping it into the state constitution through Proposal 3, while telling voters that Proposal 3 won’t touch parental consent.
Yet Proposal 3’s language promises to “invalidate state laws conflicting with” the proposed amendment, which gives “every individual” a right to an abortion, regardless of age, and no law can infringe on that right if it interferes with that individual’s “autonomous decision-making.” By the proposal’s plain language, Michigan’s parental consent requirement law would not pass this impossible standard.
But if you have any doubts about what Planned Parenthood and ACLU intend with this amendment, look no further than the legislative bill package they backed that would explicitly and purposefully repeal Michigan’s parental consent requirement for teenage abortions.
“Proposal 3 supporters continue to mislead voters and say their amendment has nothing to do with ending parental consent for children seeking abortions. If that is the case, why did the same supporters of Proposal 3 also support legislation that would directly repeal the same exact law requiring parental consent that we have said would be invalidated by Proposal 3?” Pollo said.
The same fact sheet admits the Reproductive Health Care Act would have also repealed requirements that women receive informed consent before undergoing abortion and wait 24 hours before getting an abortion to review the information and risks of the procedure.
It’s those same health and safety standard laws that we have repeatedly said would be invalidated by Proposal 3, which sets up a fundamental right to reproductive freedom that could not be infringed upon if it affects a person’s autonomous decision-making.
“With Planned Parenthood and ACLU on record for supporting legislation to end parental consent requirements as well as health and safety standards for abortion clinics, we know that Proposal 3 intends to and would end these protections and lock it into our state constitution forever,” Pollo said. “Voters must recognize this amendment for what it truly is – too extreme for Michigan – and to vote no on Proposal 3.”