LANSING, Mich. (Michigan News Source) – Right to Life of Michigan (RLM) has announced that they are one of 16 plaintiffs in a lawsuit challenging central elements of Michigan’s Proposal 3 on federal constitutional grounds.

Proposal 3’s “Reproductive Freedom for All” ballot initiative that was passed by 56.66% of Michigan voters in November of 2022 amended the state’s constitution to give Michiganders the fundamental right to reproductive freedom and enshrine abortion access in Michigan.

MORE NEWS: IRS Documents: Brenda Tracy Didn’t Make Money Running Her Nonprofit

RLM says that the legal complaint, filed on October 8th, comes one year to the day after the passage of Proposal 3 and re-emphasizes the assertion that the proposal’s vague, extreme language would pave the way for dangerous unintended consequences for Michigan citizens.

On the Capitol steps in front of thousands of supporters at the first-ever Michigan March for Life, RLM President Barbara Listing said, “Earlier this morning, a federal civil rights lawsuit was filed challenging the constitutionality of central elements of Proposal 3. The provisions asserted to be unconstitutional under federal law threaten legal protections for pregnant women seeking healthcare, the rights of physicians to care for patients, and the rights of parents already under attack on many fronts. At issue is also the sweeping disenfranchisement both of Michigan voters and of the authority of the legislature in the days and years ahead.”

Listing continued, “Today, our message to all Michigan citizens now at risk from this extreme measure is – we stand with you. The plaintiffs in this case stand with you. Thousands of Michiganders here today are standing up for your rights.”

The legal complaint was filed by the American Freedom Law Center, along with co-counsel Great Lakes Justice Center, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan on behalf of 16 plaintiffs against Gretchen Whitmer, in her official capacity as Governor; Dana Nessel, in her official capacity as Attorney General; and Jocelyn Benson, in her official capacity as Secretary of State.

The plaintiffs in the case are Right to Life Michigan; American Association of Pro-life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, on behalf of itself, its members, and their patients; Gina Johnsen, Representative, Michigan House of Representatives; Luke Meerman, Representative, Michigan House of Representatives; Joseph Bellino, Jr., Senator, Michigan Senate; Melissa Halvorson, M.D.; Christian Medical and Dental Associations, on behalf of itself, its members, and their patients; Crossroads Care Center; Celina Asberg; Grace Fisher; Jane Roe, on behalf of preborn babies; Andrea Smith; John Hubbard; Lara Hubbard; Save the 1, on behalf of itself and its members; and Rebecca Kiessling.

The plaintiffs seek a declaration that Article I, Section 28 of the Michigan Constitution, which is the provision of the state constitution that was created by Proposal 3, violates the United States Constitution and a permanent injunction to prevent the implementation and enforcement of Section 28.

MORE NEWS: At Charlie Kirk Memorial, Hillsdale’s Dr. Larry Arnn Honors Him As “One of the Best I Ever Saw”

The lawsuit advances five claims under the United States Constitution, and those claims are briefly summarized below.

• First, that Art. I, Sec. 28 (Proposal 3) causes great harm to pregnant women (and others) as a class by exempting them from the legal protections afforded to other classes of individuals in violation of the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment.
• Second, that Art. I, Sec. 28 violates parental rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment as it deprives parents of their right to direct the upbringing and education of their minor children by excluding them from their children’s decisions regarding “reproduction.”
• Third, that Art. I, Sec. 28 violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment by overriding any objection on religious grounds to endorsing, providing, or supporting procedures involving “reproduction,” thereby infringing on the rights of conscience and religious exercise protected by the First Amendment.
• Fourth, that Art. I, Sec. 28 deprives preborn babies, particularly those with disabilities, newborn babies following a failed abortion, and partially born babies of the right to life without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
• Fifth, that Art. I, Sec. 28 creates an unprecedented, super-right to “reproductive freedom” that remains immune from any legislative action, thereby nullifying the legitimate authority of a coordinate branch of government (the legislative branch) in violation of the Guarantee Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees private citizens the right to a republican form of government and thus protects them from the tyranny of the majority.