Letters to the Editor:
Do we need Proposition 3?
If you're pro-life and wonder what Proposition 3 means to you, consider the following.
You can live in a country where you and your doctor make the best medical decisions for you and your family. Or you can live in a country that sets legal limits on what medical decisions you and your doctor can make. It's that simple.
If Michigan has its 1931 law with no Prop 3, consider a young woman is pregnant and is delighted about it. She wakes up suffering from the early symptoms of a miscarriage. She goes to the hospital and is faced with medical questionnaires where she has to swear under oath all the information is true. The questionnaire is one step of several to make sure this is a miscarriage and not an attempt at a home abortion. What steps could the state take to prove this was a natural miscarriage vs an attempt at a home abortion? Could enforcing this law require invasive procedures?
This poor victim facing a heartbreaking miscarriage now runs the risk of being accused of attempting to violate state laws. Far-fetched, you say? Look at Iran, China and many other countries that interfere in their people's private lives.
Do Americans really want morality police? I hope not. Freedom is a fragile commodity. Everyone is pro-life, they all just make different decisions on how to deal with life's most difficult choices.
"Judge not, lest ye be judged."
Pete TurnerZeeland
Prop 3 goes too far
As a woman and health care professional, I believe that Proposal 3 is dangerous and extreme and goes beyond what most supporters want, which is a constitutional right to elective abortion.
The overturning of Roe v. Wade doesn’t supersede current clinical best practices caring for miscarriages, stillbirths, ectopic pregnancies, etc. The only difference now is elective abortions are not a federal constitutional right. This proposal does not protect women or reproductive freedom and the language used actually puts women and children in danger without any recourse.
Using broad terms like “every individual” could leave women fighting for rights to their own pregnancy care or allow children the “fundamental right” to consent to treatment. Using language like anyone performing abortion services will be exempt from prosecution, the proposal undermines healthcare workers. It also eliminatesthe ability to conscientiously object without legal repercussions.
Supporters of Proposal 3 often cast non-supporters as conspiracy theorists and brush off their concerns, when all the vague language and potential ramifications are questioned. There will be ramifications. If the proposalpasses, it will become part of Michigan constitutional law, which would supersede other laws when challenged in court.
Please vote "no" to Proposal 3.
Katherine Grierson, MS PA-CLudington
This article originally appeared on The Holland Sentinel: Letters to the Editor: Do we need Proposition 3?
