Proposal 3 Is Barbaric and Damnable

by Jacob Riggs, posted in Abortion

Church Family,

As you probably know, we Michiganders are due to vote (among other things) on a proposal related to abortion on Tuesday, November 8. The proposal is called Proposal 3. Here is the proposal:

“A proposal to amend the state constitution to establish new individual right to reproductive freedom, including right to make all decisions about pregnancy and abortion; allow state to regulate abortion in some cases; and forbid prosecution of individuals exercising established right

“This proposed constitutional amendment would:

  • “Establish new individual right to reproductive freedom, including right to make and carry out all decisions about pregnancy, such as prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, contraception, sterilization, abortion, miscarriage management, and infertility;
  • “Allow state to regulate abortion after fetal viability, but not prohibit if medically needed to protect a patient’s life or physical or mental health;
  • “Forbid state discrimination in enforcement of this right; prohibit prosecution of an individual, or a person helping a pregnant individual, for exercising rights established by this amendment;
  • “Invalidate state laws conflicting with this amendment.

“Should this proposal be adopted?”

I hope you know that the answer to this question is a resounding “no.” No, this proposal should not be adopted. No, no, no, not ever, so help us God. It is horrendous that this is even being proposed. Mark the circle as dark as the ballot can take and it still be valid–NO!

We don’t read legal proposals every day, so let me point out some things about this proposal that might not be apparent at first glance:

  1. There is no mention about the rights of the human life in the womb. None.
  2. There is no mention about parental consent. Does this proposal make it legal for a 15 year-old girl to take the life of her baby without even informing her parents?
  3. The definition of “reproductive freedom” includes “sterilization.” Does this give a 12-year old biological boy suffering from gender dysphoria the right to have a gender reassignment surgery (again, without his parent’s consent!)?
  4. The state’s regulation on abortion (in this proposal) is essentially bogus. There are some huge problems with this. I list them here:
    • First, it says it will “allow” the state to regulate abortion based on fetal viability. Why doesn’t it “require” the state to regulate it? Is it simply giving the state the option of regulating it? Mustn’t the state do this?!
    • Second, the state would have the ability to regulate abortion “after fetal viability.” But just what is “fetal viability,” and who determines it? Does anyone know?!
    • Third, even when a baby reaches “fetal viability,” the state cannot prevent the abortion if killing the life of the child is “needed to protect a patient’s life or physical or mental health.” This means that if a mother can get a “medical professional” to claim that the mother’s mental health will suffer by having the baby, then she cannot be stopped from aborting it–even days before the baby is due. Just let that sink in for a bit.
  5. The proposal removes any possibility of prosecution for anyone who helps any female get an abortion. Let’s say a 13-year-old girl becomes pregnant and talks to a guidance counselor at school who persuades her to abort the baby without talking to her parents. That guidance counselor would not be held accountable for “helping a pregnant individual.”
  6. The proposal subtly redefines what it means to be male or female. Did you notice how it describes those who become pregnant? They are “individuals,” “patients,” and “pregnant individuals.” They aren’t females or women, (by the way, God forbid we use the term mothers!) but “pregnant individuals.” We must not be so gullible to think that the drafters of this proposal are not intentionally using these terms to refer to biological women who feel that they are men and who become pregnant and therefore do not want to be called “pregnant women” but instead a “pregnant person.” Newsflash: the only kind of person who can become pregnant is a woman. How insulting to women everywhere! How insulting to my mother, my wife, and my daughters!

Church family, this proposal is barbaric. It is cruel. It idolizes the autonomy of an individual and perverts God’s authorship of life and intention for the family. May God damn this proposal. A million times, NO! God forbid, no!

Published by Jacob Riggs

I'm a Pastor in Royal Oak, MI.