DETROIT — The eyes of the nation were on Michigan Tuesday night over its reproductive rights ballot initiative that would enshrine the right to an abortion in the state constitution.
With 42% of estimated votes counted, election results Tuesday night showed Proposal 3 gaining the support of 54% of Michigan voters.
In the wake of a U.S. Supreme Court decision this summer that struck down a longstanding Roe v. Wade ruling that required abortion access nationwide, the initiative emerged as a contentious statewide issue at the ballot box Tuesday.
The proposal would create a right to "reproductive freedom" in the state Constitution, which would override a 1931 state law banning abortion that would be in effect if it weren't held up in legal battles. That right under Prop 3 would encompass all decisions related to pregnancy and prohibits infringement except in the case of a "compelling state interest."
Anti-abortion opponents claim its approval would wipe away decades of laws and restrictions mounted around legal abortion.
Several voters were eager to discuss their view of the proposal Tuesday after casting their ballots, including Jessica Naismith, 35, of Warren who said she voted against Proposal 3 because she’s against abortion and worried about the vague wording of the ballot language.
"I'm a firm believer that life starts at conception, and that's not something that needs to be messed with," Naismith said. "It's also just alarming ... just the wording of everything and having just a lot of ambiguity and not really knowing exactly what is meant by certain things. And I know that's on purpose."
Proposal 3 generated a record-setting $65 million in combined spending by the campaign committees supporting and opposing the measure.
Eighteen-year-old Hayden Edmonds stood in front of Midland's city hall sign so her mom Jennifer Edmonds could snap a photo to document her daughter’s first time voting this week.
The pair from Midland came out to vote early on Monday afternoon, after school got out for the day, to take part in the voting process together. For Hayden, a senior in high school, the most important thing driving her to vote was Proposal 3.
“I mostly wanted to vote for saving our reproductive rights,” she said.
As one of the few seniors in her friend group who is old enough to vote this year, and with the future of reproductive rights in Michigan on the ballot, Hayden said she felt a responsibility to vote for her friends, who will undoubtedly be impacted by the outcome as they enter adulthood.
“With reproductive rights, they told me ‘vote for us’ because they’re 17 or whatever,” she said. “I’m voting for all of them.”
The ballot initiative would add language to the Michigan Constitution allowing for abortion up to fetal viability, which usually is considered to be around 24 weeks but is defined in the language as when a child can survive outside the womb without "extraordinary medical measures."
The Legislature would be allowed to regulate abortion after fetal viability, with an exception for cases in which a health care professional deemed it necessary “to protect the life or physical or mental health of the pregnant individual.”
Proponents of Proposal 3 contend the measure would restore what was lost when the Supreme Court struck down its Roe v. Wade ruling in June. That has sent the issue of abortion law back to Michigan, where a 1931 law outlawing abortion in all cases except to save a mother's life remains in legal limbo.
The 91-year-old statute, which has been dormant since the Roe decision in 1973, contains no exceptions for abortions in the case of rape, incest or medical prognosis that the baby would not survive birth.
For Michiganians who hold strong beliefs that life begins at conception and almost every pregnancy should be carried to term, they say proposal and its broad language could wipe away decades of laws and restrictions mounted around Roe.
If passed by a majority of Michigan voters, legal experts expect the broad language of Proposal 3 will be the subject of future litigation over restrictions on terminating a pregnancy, regulations for abortion doctors and whether parents still have to be notified and consent to their minor female child having an abortion.
Some voters indicated they support more exemptions for abortion, such as in cases of rape and incest, but thought Proposal 3 goes too far into areas of sterilization.
Jennifer Zitkay, 45, of Northville, said she voted “no” on Proposal 3 because she thought the language of constitutional amendment is too broad. But she’s worried that the 1931 ban could lead to the prosecution of physicians who perform abortions.
“They need to rewrite it,” Zitkay said. “It’s not a black-and-white issue. It’s a gray issue.”
