-“The Supreme Court cannot tolerate such a procedural offense.”
Question 1): So, is this the end of our “Long National Nightmare” in the beleaguered Vehicle City?
****************************************************************
As MIRS newsletter noted early this week, “After standing for half of a century, the law of the land regarding abortions has been nullified. The U.S. Supreme Court tossed it back to the states like a foil-encased hot potato that no one’s sure how to unwrap.” In Michigan, the future is unclear. Our back-up law is a leftover remnant of the Depression era. Under that 1931 law, abortion would be illegal unless the life of the mother was endangered. However, recent court action placed that 91-year-old law on hold, at least for the time being. Further court action might or might not bring it back to life. No one can be certain one way or another.
Meanwhile, the August primaries and the November election are approaching. President Joe BIDEN’s approval numbers are the lowest for a president in 74 years, but if a constitutional amendment makes it to the ballot, turnout for the Democrats could get a needed boost.
As MIRS observed, “could, might, maybe and possibly” seem the best way of defining almost everything at this moment. So let’s ask a few questions:
Question 1): Though politicians are now championing whichever side of the abortion debate they support, this state’s abortion laws will almost surely be determined by Michigan voters via ballot proposals either passed or defeated over the next few years. Right?
Answer 1): Right now, we should focus on two things 1) Will the petition drive called “Reproductive Freedom for All” be successful in the next week or so in collecting enough signatures to get its initiative on the Nov. 8 general election ballot? and 2) What will be the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision on whether the 1931 law criminalizing abortion violates the Michigan Constitution? We don’t know when the high court will rule, or how it will rule, but, whatever it does, a November vote could vitiate anything it decides — 0r not. There will be an avalanche of litigation in the next few weeks and months trying to influence the ultimate outcome one way or the other, and it’s impossible to predict right now how it will all turn out. But that won’t be the end of it. Whichever side “loses”in 2022 — pro-choice or pro-life — this will be re-fought again and again in coming years and may never be truly “settled.”
*************************************************************
Question 2): Over the next two weeks, shouldn’t Job #1 for Gov. Gretchen WHITMER be doing all she can to help promote signature-gathering to get the proposed abortion rights constitutional amendment placed on the ballot?
Amswer 2): Whitmer should and will continue her legal challenges to the 1931 law governing abortion, as well as encouraging voters to sign the abortion rights ballot initiative. But she should also continue to focus on all the other issues that, four years ago, the voters of Michigan elected her to do. However, the big question is: Will this be her strategy? Her record on all the things she campaigned on four years ago is shaky at best, whereas she knows she’s got a majority of public opinion on her side on one big issue — abortion. She will face a Republican nominee, no matter who it is, who will be strongly pro-life. She may feel she has to make her stance on abortion the central issue in her campaign, because she doesn’t really have anything else to boast about. Can her rival Republican succeed in convincing voters that abortion should NOT be the main issue in the campaign? We’ll see. If he or she does, s/he has chance to win.
**************************************************************
Question 3): Will the fact that abortion is now a key issue this election year likely help Tudor DIXON (the only female GOP gubernatorial candidate) in the upcoming primary?
Answer 3): Given that Dixon is the only candidate endorsed by Right to Life, that will help. As Dennis Darnoi of Densar Consulting has noted, “The candidate who can provide a policy platform that embraces a whole-life approach will gain the advantage in the Republican primary. Now that Roe has been overturned, Republicans, who pride themselves on being pro-life and pro-family, have an opportunity to make significant adjustments to their policy priorities.Now they can focus on more creative policy solutions to further reduce the abortion rate by embracing real-world solutions that help both children and parents thrive.” As a woman and from her own life experiences, Dixon has the best opportunity to tout policies involving child care support, home visitation services, improved access to medical care and economic assistance that should be part of any post-Dobbs policy platform. If she can show that she is the best Republican candidate who can address this urgency, and if she embraces a whole-life approach towards mothers, children and families, that could prove to be a winning hand in the primary.
***********************************************************
Question 4): . Reportedly, more than half the abortions in the U.S.A. are “medication induced.” Considering that governments have an abysmal track record of preventing illegal drug use, are laws limiting or prohibiting abortions likely to be unenforceable?
Answer 4): There is no way that government will be able to track all abortion medications, especially those obtained from outside Michigan as more and more states offer safe-haven abortion services. Again, Dennis Darnoi says it best, so let’s quote him: “Due in large part to COVID, in December of ’21 the FDA removed a requirement that ‘abortion pills’ had to be dispensed in person and allowed for those pills to be mailed directly to eligible patients. Additionally, over the past couple of years, the use of telehealth for abortion consultation and services has increased exponentially. In essence, the U.S. Supreme Court decision on Dobbs has legalized the existence of two Americas, one where abortion rights are embraced and another where getting an abortion is legally prohibited, the new battle lines for abortion rights now mirror the physical and virtual routes that cross state lines. Whether administering the ruling in Dobbs becomes the practical equivalent of enforcing the 18th Amendment remains to be seen, but suffice it to say that victory for either side is far from inevitable.”
**********************************************************
Dear Mr. Ballenger:
The Court in Dobbs itself said that this ruling has no effect on abortion laws in effect.
Michigan’s abortion laws did not disappear overnight. Nothing was invalidated. They are there unless or until the Legislature changes them.
I do not sense that there is any desire to make these laws more restrictive.
The hysteria of our government leaders strikes me as political theatre.
People will calm down once they see that they can still get 1st, 2nd, and 3rd trimester abortions. No judge has to decide anything.
No response to this message is needed..
Just read the opinion and decide for yourself what it says ( you, too.)
Not one of the hysterical commentators has read it. Not one.
Sincerely yours,
Therese Shaw
Emerita Member
Michigan State Bar Association
Therese Shaw seems to believe there is a Michigan statute permitting abortions during the 1st, 2nd and 3rd trimesters. If there were such a law, she is correct that the Dobbs decision would not invalidate it. There is, however, no such Michigan statute. Abortion in Michigan is governed by MCLA 750.14 which makes it a felony to aid a woman in procuring a miscarriage except where doing is necessary to preserve the life of the woman.
If there were a Michigan statute providing for abortion through the 3rd trimester, why would have Gov Whitmer and Dana Nessel have filed suit to enjoin enforcement of the 1931 law?
Andrew Campbell
Member, State Bar of Michigan
It is a sad thing to witness monstrous evil being promoted as good. The destruction of so much promise in the (once) inviolable sanctity of the womb is incalculable in immensity. Can evil actually win? We shall see.
Very insightful and comprehensive ,as usual .Thank You, Sir
Nice report as always, Bill.
For Flint, some of the best reporting came from Jordan Chariton at Status Coup and from Charlie LeDuff, with Bridge Magazine as well. The rest of the media has forgotten. To their shame. And you’re right on Benton Harbor. Another poor, mostly black community we ignore. There are also other communities with lead piping that most likely will become problematic. The response from state government lends even more credence to the slogan RE-ELECT NO ONE.
As for the abortion stories, I think more attention should be directed at Judge Gleicher with her temporary injunction and the judiciary as a whole and the role/function of the Court of Claims.
Judge Gleicher should have recused herself (as I believe you called for on Off the Record) as she was a donor to the plaintiff in the case (Planned Parenthood); has received honors from them and includes them in her bio; and has done legal work for them. This last one strikes me as most troubling. She was one of the attorneys in Mahaffey v. Michigan where the Court of Appeals found no constitutional right to abortion in the Michigan Constitution (https://casetext.com/case/mahaffey-v-attorney-general).
What I find most troubling (and this may come from my misunderstanding the role of the Court of Claims) is that when she, as a member of the Court of Claims, is selected randomly to hear these cases, she functions – in essence – as a circuit court judge. In that capacity, her temporary injunction has effectively overruled a Court of Appeals decision (a higher court than the circuit court) that she was on the losing side as an attorney. Good work, I guess, if you can get it.
Given the current make-up of the state Supreme Court, we know the outcome, though it will be fun reading how Justice Megan Cavanaugh determines how her father, then Court of Appeals Judge Michael Cavanaugh, was wrong and how he was wrong. I believe the other panelists, Judges Reilly and Anderson are now both deceased, so getting Michael Cavanaugh’s input could be interesting.
As for social welfare policies referenced in the section on Tudor Dixon, it will require the social conservative segment of the GOP becoming willing to challenge the dominant segment of the GOP that worships at the shrine of the Divine Market. That will be fun to watch, too.
Should be fun times for the reporters who cover state politics, if their bosses give them the time and resources.