 | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Right to Reproductive Freedom Initiative | |||||||||||||
| Results | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||
   
| |||||||||||||
| Elections in Michigan |
|---|
 |
2022 Michigan Proposal 3, the Right to Reproductive Freedom Initiative, also known as Reproductive Freedom for All, was a citizen-initiated proposed constitutional amendment in the state of Michigan, which was voted on as part of the 2022 Michigan elections. The amendment, which passed, codified reproductive rights, including access to abortion, in the Constitution of Michigan.
Following the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization ruling which overturned Roe v. Wade , access to abortion in Michigan became regulated by a 1931 law which criminalized abortion except in cases where the mother's life was at risk. The law was ruled unconstitutional by Michigan Court of Claims Judge Elizabeth L. Gleicher, characterizing the law as a violation of due process; however, the case was appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court. Regardless of the outcome of that appeal, there was no clear constitutional protection for abortion access in Michigan, making further potential regulation of abortion access by the legislature possible. [1]
The amendment was introduced to overturn the 1931 abortion ban and make the right to "reproductive freedom" explicit in the Michigan Constitution. [2] The Reproductive Freedom For All ballot committee gathered 753,759 signatures for the constitutional amendment, the most ever gathered for a ballot measure in state history, and more than enough for it to be placed on the 2022 ballot. On August 31, the Board of State Canvassers, responsible for determining whether candidates and initiatives should be placed on the ballot, deadlocked 2–2, with challengers arguing that the initiative's wording was poorly spaced. On September 9, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled 5-2 that the initiative should be placed on the November ballot. [3]
The proposal appeared on the ballot as follows: [4]
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?
Restrictions on reproductive rights must be implemented in the "least restrictive means", and with a "compelling" interest. [5] [6]
The full text of the section that the proposal added to Article I of the state constitution is as follows: [7]
The proposal's main supporters, Reproductive Freedom for All, state that Proposal 3 would "ensure that all Michiganders have the right to safe and respectful care during birthing, everyone has the right to use temporary or permanent birth control, everyone has the right to continue or end a pregnancy pre-viability, and no one can be punished for having a miscarriage, stillbirth, or abortion." [8]
The proposal's main opponents, Citizens to Support MI Women and Children, have called Proposal 3 "extreme", arguing that it could invalidate 41 state laws related to abortion and other issues (including prostitution, statutory rape, and human cloning). [9] [6] [10] They have argued that due to the right to reproductive freedom applying to "all individuals", that it would repeal the requirement for minors to receive parental consent in order to receive an abortion. The group also asserted that the proposal would allow any "attending health care professional" to perform an abortion (a definition under state law that includes athletic trainers and masseuses), and repeal safety standards and inspections of abortion clinics. [5] [6] University of Detroit Mercy associate law professor Michelle Richards argued that such issues could still be regulated under Proposal 3, as a compelling interest to protect the safety and welfare of residents. [6]
Opponents of Proposal 3 claimed that the amendment would codify an "unlimited right to abortion" by allowing abortions up to the last week of pregnancy for any reason. [11] [12]
It was also argued by opponents that Proposal 3 would allow minors to receive puberty blockers, castration, or a hysterectomy without parental consent, under an interpretation of the proposal that classified these procedures as falling under "infertility" and "sterilization". [5] [6] Washtenaw County Prosecuting Attorney Eli Savit and University of Michigan constitutional law professor Leah Litman disputed the claim, citing that Proposal 3 specifically defines the right to "reproductive freedom" as being within the context of pregnancy, with no explicit references to other contexts such as transgender health care. [13] [5] The Michigan Supreme Court will have to rule on the precise effects of the amendment.
Reproductive Freedom for All has received $44 million, mostly from groups such as the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, and NARAL and Sam Bankman-Fried. [14] [15] Meanwhile, the Citizens to Support MI Women and Children has raised almost $17 million from groups such as the Michigan Catholic Conference and Right to Life of Michigan. Both committees have spent millions of dollars on advertising, including on TV and digital ads. [16] [17] [15]
Opinion polls for the first few months before the referendum indicated significant majority support for the amendment. Its popularity waned from the initial summer backlash from the Dobbs decision, but nonetheless, the amendment had a clear lead in the polls throughout the campaign. [18] Graphical summary
 | Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. |
| Poll source | Date(s) administered | Sample size [a] | Margin of error | For Proposal 3 | Against Proposal 3 | Undecided [b] | Lead |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cygnal (R) [19] | November 1–4, 2022 | 1,603 (LV) | ± 2.5% | 52% | 44% | 5% | 8% |
| Mitchell Research [20] | November 3, 2022 | 658 (LV) | ± 3.8% | 51% | 46% | 3% [c] | 5% |
| Cygnal (R) [21] | October 31 – November 2, 2022 | 1,754 (LV) | ± 2.3% | 52% | 43% | 5% | 9% |
| EPIC-MRA [22] [d] | October 28 –November 1, 2022 | 600 (LV) | ± 4.0% | 57% | 40% | 4% | 17% |
| Emerson College [23] | October 28–31, 2022 | 900 (LV) | ± 3.2% | 51% | 42% | 7% | 9% |
| The Glengariff Group, Inc. [24] [e] | October 26–28, 2022 | 600 (LV) | ± 4.0% | 55% | 41% | 4% | 14% |
| Mitchell Research [25] | October 19, 2022 | 541 (LV) | ± 4.2% | 50% | 47% | 3% [c] | 3% |
| CNN/SSRS [26] | October 13–18, 2022 | 901 (RV) | ± 4.2% | 54% | 45% | 1% [f] | 9% |
| 651 (LV) | ± 4.9% | 54% | 45% | 2% [g] | 9% | ||
| Emerson College [27] | October 12–14, 2022 | 580 (LV) | ± 4.0% | 52% | 38% | 10% | 14% |
| EPIC-MRA [28] | October 6–12, 2022 | 600 (LV) | ± 4.0% | 60% | 33% | 7% | 27% |
| CBS News/YouGov [29] | October 3–6, 2022 | 1,285 (RV) [h] | ± 3.6% | 54% | 38% | 7% [i] | 16% |
| The Glengariff Group, Inc. [30] [e] | September 26–29, 2022 | 600 (LV) | ± 4.0% | 62% | 24% | 14% | 38% |
| EPIC-MRA [31] [d] | September 15–19, 2022 | 600 (LV) | ± 4.0% | 64% | 27% | 9% | 37% |
| EPIC-MRA [34] | September 7–13, 2022 | 800 (LV) | ± 3.5% | 56% | 23% | 21% | 33% |
| EPIC-MRA [35] | August 18–23, 2022 | 600 (LV) | ± 4.0% | 67% | 24% | 9% | 43% |
Proposal 3 was approved with 56.66% of the vote. [36] One factor in the proposal's passage was the increased participation in the midterm election by younger voters. [37]
| Choice | Votes | % |
|---|---|---|
 Yes | 2,482,382 | 56.66 |
| No | 1,898,906 | 43.34 |
| Total votes | 4,381,288 | 100.00 |
Results by congressional district are shown below. "Yes" won 9 congressional districts, including 2 held by Republicans.
| Congressional district | Yes | No | Total Votes | Representative | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| # | % | # | % | # | Name | |||||||
| District 1 | 190,678 | 49.2% | 197,133 | 50.8% | 387,811 | Jack Bergman | ||||||
| District 2 | 153,029 | 44.6% | 189,911 | 55.4% | 342,940 | John Moolenaar | ||||||
| District 3 | 188,644 | 55.8% | 149,562 | 44.2% | 338,206 | Hillary Scholten | ||||||
| District 4 | 174,564 | 51.5% | 164,312 | 48.5% | 338,876 | Bill Huizenga | ||||||
| District 5 | 146,014 | 46.3% | 169,428 | 53.7% | 315,442 | Tim Walberg | ||||||
| District 6 | 254,036 | 68.5% | 116,855 | 31.5% | 370,891 | Debbie Dingell | ||||||
| District 7 | 212,554 | 57.4% | 157,867 | 42.6% | 370,421 | Elissa Slotkin | ||||||
| District 8 | 186,899 | 56.2% | 145,546 | 43.8% | 332,445 | Dan Kildee | ||||||
| District 9 | 177,814 | 46.9% | 201,012 | 53.1% | 378,826 | Lisa McClain | ||||||
| District 10 | 185,349 | 57.6% | 136,305 | 42.4% | 321,654 | John James | ||||||
| District 11 | 246,413 | 66.9% | 121,644 | 33.1% | 368,057 | Haley Stevens | ||||||
| District 12 | 197,198 | 71.1% | 80,181 | 28.9% | 277,379 | Rashida Tlaib | ||||||
| District 13 | 170,943 | 72.1% | 66,155 | 27.9% | 237,098 | Shri Thanedar | ||||||
| Totals | 2,482,382 | 56.7% | 1,898,906 | 43.3% | 4,381,288 | 7D, 6R | ||||||
| Source: Google Sheets | ||||||||||||
In the wake of the constitutional amendment's approval, the 1931 abortion law was repealed on April 5, 2023. [38] The Reproductive Health Act, which repealed several abortion restrictions, was enacted on November 21, 2023. [39] [40] The act also repealed a Republican-passed 10-year-old law requiring a separate health insurance add-on for abortion coverage that critics called 'rape insurance'. [41]
The America Project, a Donald Trump-aligned organization, funded a partial recount of this proposal, as well as 2022 Michigan Proposal 2, despite their passage by wide margins. The recount was spearheaded by Jerome Jay Allen of the conservative group Election Integrity Fund and Force. The recount lasted two weeks, and added 116 "yes" votes and 7 "no" votes to the totals. This led to calls to tighten recount rules, to disallow, or make more expensive for those who request them, frivolous recounts with no chance of changing the vote outcome. [42] [43]
Public opinion on abortion has changed dramatically in Ireland. Abortion in Ireland is regulated by the Health Act 2018. Abortion is permitted in Ireland during the first twelve weeks of pregnancy, and later in cases where the pregnant woman's life or health is at risk, or in the cases of a fatal foetal abnormality. Abortion services commenced on 1 January 2019, following its legalisation by the aforementioned Act, which became law on 20 December 2018. Previously, the 8th Constitutional Amendment had given the life of the unborn fetus the same value as that of its mother, but the 36th constitutional amendment, approved by referendum in May 2018, replaced this with a clause permitting the Oireachtas (parliament) to legislate for the termination of pregnancies.
In re Article 26 and the Regulation of Information Bill 1995 [1995] 1 IR 1 was a decision of the Supreme Court of Ireland after a referral by President Mary Robinson under Article 26 of the Constitution of Ireland. This is a procedure whereby the constitutionality of a bill is considered by the Supreme Court before it is signed into law, similar to the concept of a facial challenge in the United States. If the Court finds that it is constitutional, it may not later be challenged after its enactment.
The Twenty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2001 was a proposed amendment to the Constitution of Ireland to tighten the constitutional ban on abortion. It would have removed the threat of suicide as a grounds for legal abortion in the state, as well as introducing new penalties for anyone performing an abortion, by giving constitutional status to legislation proposed to be enacted after the amendment. It was narrowly rejected in a referendum held on 6 March 2002, with 50.4% against.
The legality of abortion in the United States and the various restrictions imposed on the procedure vary significantly, depending on the laws of each state or other jurisdiction, although there is no uniform federal law. Some states prohibit abortion at all stages of pregnancy, with few exceptions; others permit it up to a certain point in a woman's pregnancy, while some allow abortion throughout a woman's pregnancy. In states where abortion is legal, several classes of restrictions on the procedure may exist, such as parental consent or notification laws, requirements that patients be shown an ultrasound before obtaining an abortion, mandatory waiting periods, and counseling requirements.
Abortion in Michigan is legal throughout pregnancy. A state constitutional amendment to explicitly guarantee abortion rights was placed on the ballot in 2022 as Michigan Proposal 22–3; it passed with 57 percent of the vote, adding the right to abortion and contraceptive use to the Michigan Constitution. The amendment largely prevents the regulation of abortion before fetal viability, unless said regulations are to protect the individual seeking an abortion, and it also makes it unconstitutional to make laws restricting abortions which would protect the life and health, physical and/or mental, of the pregnant individual seeking abortion.
The 2022 Kansas abortion referendum was a rejected legislatively referred constitutional amendment to the Kansas Constitution that appeared on the ballot on August 2, 2022, alongside primary elections for statewide offices, with early voting from July 13. If enacted, the amendment would have declared that the Kansas Constitution does not guarantee a right to abortion, giving the Kansas state government power to prosecute individuals involved in abortions, and further declared that the Kansas government is not required to fund abortions.
Proposition 1, titled Constitutional Right to Reproductive Freedom and initially known as Senate Constitutional Amendment 10 (SCA 10), was a California ballot proposition and state constitutional amendment that was voted on in the 2022 general election on November 8. Passing with more than two-thirds of the vote, the proposition amended the Constitution of California to explicitly grant the right to an abortion and contraceptives, making California among the first states in the nation to codify the right. The decision to propose the codification of abortion rights in the state constitution was precipitated in May 2022 by Politico's publishing of a leaked draft opinion showing the United States Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. The decision reversed judicial precedent that previously held that the United States Constitution protected the right to an abortion.
The following is a list of ballot measures, whether initiated by legislators or citizens, which have been certified to appear on various states' ballots during the 2024 United States elections as of September 6, 2024.
The 2023 Ohio reproductive rights initiative, officially titled "The Right to Reproductive Freedom with Protections for Health and Safety" and listed on the ballot as Issue 1, was a citizen-initiated constitutional amendment adopted on November 7, 2023, by a majority (56.8%) of voters. It codified reproductive rights in the Ohio Constitution, including contraception, fertility treatment, miscarriage care, and abortion up to the point of fetal viability, restoring Roe v. Wade-era access to abortion in Ohio.
The 2024 Maryland Question 1 was a voter referendum that appeared on the ballot on November 5, 2024. It established in the Constitution of Maryland a right to reproductive freedom. The referendum was approved overwhelmingly, with more than three times as many voters voting in favor of it than against it, and only losing in Garrett County.
Florida Amendment 4 was a proposed amendment to the Florida Constitution, which failed on November 5, 2024. Through a statewide referendum, the amendment achieved 57% support among voters in the U.S. state of Florida, short of the 60% supermajority required by law. Despite its failure to pass, the double digit percentage majority that it received is considered by some to be indicative of a nationwide consensus on abortion, similar to similar referendums in other moderately conservative swing states such as Michigan, Ohio, Missouri, and Arizona, the last of which had an abortion rights amendment pass with a 3/5 majority, although unlike Florida it did not actually need one.
The 2022 Vermont reproductive rights initiative, officially titled the "Reproductive Liberty Amendment", and listed on the ballot as Proposition 5, was a legislatively referred constitutional amendment that was adopted on November 8, 2022, by a landslide majority of 76.8% of voters. It codified reproductive rights in the Constitution of Vermont. It was signed into the constitution by Republican governor Phil Scott on 13 December 2022.
New York Proposal 1, called the Amendment to Protect Against Unequal Treatment on the ballot, was a proposed legislatively referred constitutional amendment to the New York Constitution, which was approved by voters on November 5, 2024 and will take effect on January 1, 2025. Also informally known as the Equal Rights Amendment, it includes several rights in the New York State Constitution's Equal Protection Clause with its chief purpose to preserve the right to abortion. It also adds a prohibition of discrimination on attributes such ethnicity, gender identity, disability, or reproductive autonomy. The amendment was approved in consecutive legislating sessions in 2022 and 2023 and was approved by voters in a referendum on November 5, 2024. While the text of the amendment was determined by the legislature, the wording of the ballot proposal about the amendment went through several changes and legal challenges before the Board of Elections' draft was replaced by an Albany County Judge.
2024 Colorado Amendment 79 was a constitutional amendment that appeared on the November 5, 2024 ballot. The amendment established a right to abortion in the Constitution of Colorado and repealed a constitutional ban on public funding for abortions. The amendment passed, surpassing the 55% supermajority vote required for the amendment to be approved.
Arizona Proposition 139 is a constitutional amendment that was approved by voters on November 5, 2024, establishing a right to abortion in the Constitution of Arizona up until fetal viability.
2024 Missouri Constitutional Amendment 3, also known as the Right to Reproductive Freedom Initiative, is a proposed constitutional amendment that appeared on the ballot on November 5, 2024. The initiative amended the Constitution of Missouri to legalize abortion in Missouri until fetal viability. The amendment narrowly passed.
Nebraska Initiative 439, officially titled "Nebraska Right to Abortion Initiative", was a proposed constitutional amendment that appeared on the November 5, 2024 ballot in Nebraska. If passed, it would have amended the Nebraska Constitution to establish a right to abortion until fetal viability. It and Initiative 434 were mutually exclusive; the one with more votes in favor would become law in the event both amendments passed.
Initiative 128 was a ballot initiative that appeared on the ballot on November 5, 2024, to establish in the Constitution of Montana a right to abortion up to fetal viability. The initiative was approved by 58 percent of voters.
Nebraska Initiative 434, officially titled "Nebraska Protect Women & Children Initiative" or "Prohibit Abortions After the First Trimester Amendment", and listed on the ballot as Initiative Measure 434, was a proposed constitutional amendment that appeared on the November 5, 2024 ballot in Nebraska. It amends the Nebraska Constitution to ban elective abortions in the second and third trimester, though it allows more restrictive laws such as the 12-week ban passed by the Legislature in 2023, which like the constitutional amendment includes exceptions for rape, incest and medical emergencies. Initiative 434 and Initiative 439 were mutually exclusive; only the one with more votes in favor would become law in the event both amendments passed.
2024 Nevada Question 6 is a proposed constitutional amendment for the state of Nevada in the United States, that would protect the right to an abortion until fetal viability, which is generally considered about 23 or 24 weeks, or when necessary to protect the life or health of the pregnant patient. The Question initially appeared on the November 5th, 2024, ballot in Nevada. The ballot measure was approved with 64.03% of the votes. As Question 6 was approved in 2024, a second vote will be held on November 3, 2026.
