Michigan considers proposal to overturn 1931 abortion ban
Activists in state have sought to push against antiquated and archaic law preventing abortions
Pro-Abortion activists in Michigan pushed for a proposal on its November ballot that would keep abortion legal in the state. It got massive support among prospective voters.
Reproductive Freedom for All is a Michigan-based group that has led the charge. Its Yes on Prop 3 campaign has sought to end the 1931 abortion ban that would go back into place without any effort to stop it. Darci McConnell, a spokeswoman for the organization, spoke to Repro Rights Now.
“Most Michiganders, we know, support keeping abortion access, keeping the rights of protections that they've had for 50 years,” McConnell said. “However, the opposition has been very aggressive in doing a disinformation campaign to scare voters and confuse voters. And it's disingenuous because they really want to return to the 1931 ban.”
Michigan is a bellwether for other activists across the country who have contemplated what strategy would make the most sense in their state. The state can go either way during elections.
The Michigan Court of Claims permanently blocked the 1931 ban at the beginning of September. The state legislature failed to act on the matter, and getting it on the ballot was the best manner to protect abortion access.
The opposition has come from several quarters–including predictably from the Catholic Church. But few media outlets have discussed the significant role Ryan Kelley has played. Kelley was an unsuccessful candidate for governor in the state. He currently has advertising on his website that has pushed against abortion law liberalization.
They haven’t disavowed any other liberal cause, but on its website, McConnell’s organization has clarified that the proposal has nothing to do with taxpayer funding for abortions or gender-affirming care. They’ve also said in political advertising that the proposal won’t change regulations pertaining to late-term abortions or those requiring parental involvement.
“That's part of the disinformation that the opposition has been applying to this matter. The language is very specific to all matters relating to pregnancy,” McConnell said. “But instead, they tried to again just misrepresent what the proposal was about. So no, it doesn't have anything to do with taxpayer funding. And it's specific to matters related to pregnancy.”