What Is Prop 3? by Paris LeClaire
Recent results of the 2022 midterm elections have brought a slew of changes to the state and national political scene, including a slip in Wall Street and an intriguing new cohort of governors. In Michigan, Gretchen Whitmer maintained her ground against challenger Tudor Dixon, and Democrats won out in the House. Proposal 3 preaching “reproductive freedom for all” also emerged victorious in a historic series of events.
Known formally as Proposal 22-3, Prop 3 was placed on Michigan ballots by initiative petition. Prop 3 moves to amend the state constitution to provide universal reproductive choice relating to abortion, contraception, sterilization, miscarriage management, infertility care, prenatal care, postpartum care, and childbirth. This amendment reverses the precedent of the former 1931 abortion ban as a response to the United States Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe v. Wade.
Among high schoolers, the mention of Prop 3 might sooner evoke the repetitiveness of YouTube and social media ads from either side of the debate. Proponents of Prop 3 were indefatigable in the production and release of these videos, issuing seconds-long clips that mention the possibility of complications in starting a family, the corroborating opinions of medical professionals, and the reportedly extreme stance of gubernatorial candidate Tudor Dixon on the restriction of abortion services. Meanwhile, opponents of the proposal attempted to appeal to as many Michigan voters as possible, describing the amendment as “too confusing and too extreme.”
The concern that Prop 3 is too vague in many places has frequently arisen in liberal and conservative spaces alike. The original proposal gives patients the right to “make and carry out all decisions about pregnancy,” an absolute that worries many religious individuals. The proposal does provide for a degree of state regulation after the point of fetal viability, or the time when a fetus would have the ability to live outside of the uterus. Another provision allows professionals to impede on patients’ decision-making rights if there is a significant health concern or if “justified by a compelling state interest achieved by the least restrictive means.” Regardless of potential vagueness, it appears that the majority of Michigan voters believe Prop 3 is necessary for preserving a tradition of reproductive rights.
If you want to know more about Prop 3, you can review the Michigan House of Representatives’ official proposal here.
Known formally as Proposal 22-3, Prop 3 was placed on Michigan ballots by initiative petition. Prop 3 moves to amend the state constitution to provide universal reproductive choice relating to abortion, contraception, sterilization, miscarriage management, infertility care, prenatal care, postpartum care, and childbirth. This amendment reverses the precedent of the former 1931 abortion ban as a response to the United States Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe v. Wade.
Among high schoolers, the mention of Prop 3 might sooner evoke the repetitiveness of YouTube and social media ads from either side of the debate. Proponents of Prop 3 were indefatigable in the production and release of these videos, issuing seconds-long clips that mention the possibility of complications in starting a family, the corroborating opinions of medical professionals, and the reportedly extreme stance of gubernatorial candidate Tudor Dixon on the restriction of abortion services. Meanwhile, opponents of the proposal attempted to appeal to as many Michigan voters as possible, describing the amendment as “too confusing and too extreme.”
The concern that Prop 3 is too vague in many places has frequently arisen in liberal and conservative spaces alike. The original proposal gives patients the right to “make and carry out all decisions about pregnancy,” an absolute that worries many religious individuals. The proposal does provide for a degree of state regulation after the point of fetal viability, or the time when a fetus would have the ability to live outside of the uterus. Another provision allows professionals to impede on patients’ decision-making rights if there is a significant health concern or if “justified by a compelling state interest achieved by the least restrictive means.” Regardless of potential vagueness, it appears that the majority of Michigan voters believe Prop 3 is necessary for preserving a tradition of reproductive rights.
If you want to know more about Prop 3, you can review the Michigan House of Representatives’ official proposal here.