My piece published yesterday detailed the coming fight over abortion in Michigan. Pro-life activists will attempt to point out the Pandora’s box that this referendum would be, especially its vague exceptions to any restrictions on late-term abortions, which could allow the procedure through all nine months of pregnancy.
But there is another level of radical progressivism inherent in the measure. The word “woman” is nowhere to be found in its text. Its authors appear to have gone out of their way not to use it, pandering to the lie of the transgender policy agenda that men can get pregnant.
Every proposed referendum requires a short description for voters to read when they go to the polls. In this one’s summary, it tells Michiganders that the new law would “allow [the] state to prohibit abortion after fetal viability unless needed to protect a patient’s life or physical or mental health.” It would also “prohibit prosecution of an individual, or a person helping a pregnant individual, for exercising rights established by this amendment.” (Italics here and throughout are all my own.)
The erasure of women from the amendment continues in its full text. “Every individual has a fundamental right to reproductive freedom, which entails the right to make and effectuate decisions about all matters relating to pregnancy, including but not limited to prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, contraception, sterilization, abortion care, miscarriage management, and infertility care,” its first section reads. Additionally, “an individual’s right to reproductive freedom shall not be denied, burdened, or infringed upon unless justified by a compelling state interest.”
An immensely charitable reading of this section might conclude that it is establishing a general right to “reproductive freedom” across both sexes. Although men do not need pregnancy care, they are at least physically able to use contraception and sterilization. If we go deeper into the text, however, we find that this reading, while generous, is incorrect.
Much like the description, the official text stipulates that all bans after fetal viability must except abortion for the sake of the health or life of the “pregnant individual.” Similarly, it forbids the state from taking “adverse action against an individual based on their actual potential, perceived, or alleged pregnancy outcomes.” Nor may the state penalize someone helping “a pregnant individual in exercising their right to reproductive freedom.”
The main sponsor of the amendment, an organization called Reproductive Freedom for All, has taken a similar approach to its public messaging. Although it has stayed away from patently ridiculous terms such as “pregnant individual,” “birthing person,” etc., it has not established itself as a campaign specifically for women’s rights.
Although it has shared quotations in which “woman” appears and repeated the name of the Senate’s “Women’s Health Protection Act,” it has not used the word “woman” or “women” in an original capacity since May 8, an advanced search of its Twitter account reveals.
By contrast, those opposed to the measure have shown no hesitation in affirming the fact that pregnancy is not an equal-opportunity condition. The pro-life coalition has called itself “Citizens to Support MI Women and Children” and has emphasized that the proposed amendment would “fundamentally change the relationships between parents and children, as well as women and their doctors.”
It would seem that the basic prerequisite for fighting for the rights of women should be to acknowledge that they exist as a specific class. Official sections of the Michigan constitution already acknowledge that women need special indemnities in certain circumstances.
The part that protects wives’ prenuptial property reads, “The real and personal estate of every woman acquired before marriage . . . shall be and remain the estate and property of such woman.” The legislature that ratified the state’s updated constitution in 1963 recognized that women are different from men and sometimes in need of different protections, but Reproductive Freedom for All will not.
We already knew that the preferred policies of abortion proponents do not actually help women. Now, in erasing women from this abortion amendment, they have solidified that fact in Michigan.