You’re invited! Join LifeSite in celebrating 25 years of pro-life and pro-family reporting at our anniversary Gala August 17th in Naples, Florida. Tickets and sponsorships can be purchased by clicking here.
LANSING, Michigan (LifeSiteNews) – Republican politicians in Michigan have filed a request with the Court of Appeals to overturn a Michigan judge’ injunction preventing the state’s pre-Roe abortion ban from having effect.
In a filing with the Michigan Court of Appeals dated July 6, 2022, Republican legislators argued that a current ban on the state’s abortion ban was “judicial overreach, indeed, extreme judicial overreach.”
In May, Judge Elizabeth Gleicher from the Michigan Court of Claims ruled in favor of Planned Parenthood and blocked the state’s 1931 abortion ban, which was due to take effect upon the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
The 1931 law had made it a felony to commit abortions except to save the life of the mother, and banned the advertisement or sale of abortion-inducing drugs.
At the time, Gleicher ruled that “a preliminary injunction furthers the public interest, allowing the court to make a full ruling on the merits of the case without subjecting plaintiff and their patients to the impact of a total ban on abortion services in the state.”
The ruling was welcomed by State Governor Gretchen Whitmer, who wrote “I’ll keep fighting like hell to protect access to abortion in Michigan.”
Today’s opinion is clear: Michigan’s 1931 law banning abortion should not go into effect even if Roe is overturned. Women should decide what’s best for their own bodies, end of story.
No matter what, I’ll keep fighting like hell to protect access to abortion in Michigan. pic.twitter.com/JGkt7TKsqg
— Governor Gretchen Whitmer (@GovWhitmer) May 17, 2022
With Roe now having been overturned by the Supreme Court on June 24, Michigan legislators from the state’s House of Representatives and the State Senate are seeking an overturning of the injunction against the state’s pro-life law.
“The Michigan Constitution contains no right to abortion,” reads the motion.
The motion states that Gleicher’s decision ignored “significant jurisdictional concerns,” and “recognized a brand new right to abortion under the Michigan Constitution—a right this Court previously and explicitly held does not exist.”
This recognition of abortion as “a brand new constitutional right…threatens to upend many eminently reasonable and sensible statutes enacted by this Legislature,” reads the motion.
Among the pro-life safeguards which could be under attack given Gleicher’s ruling, the motion identified Michigan’s “prohibition on partial-birth abortions; the requirement of parental consent before the performance of abortions on minors; the statutory right of hospitals and doctors to refuse to perform abortion [sic]; the 24-hour waiting period; and the statutory duty of a doctor to refuse to perform abortions on patients who have been coerced to abort.”
“Because of the myriad errors the Court of Claims made below, the Legislature asks this Court to grant its application for leave to appeal the lower court’s issuance of a preliminary injunction,” the motion concludes.
In addition to Gleicher’s injunction against the 1931 abortion ban, the state’s radical lesbian Attorney General Dana Nessel has also refused to enforce it.
Michigan citizens could also have the chance to vote on enshrining a “right” to abortion into the state’s constitution this November, following a signature campaign. The proposed amendment states, “Every individual has a fundamental right to reproductive freedom,” including the right to make decisions about so-called “abortion care.”
There is no safeguard in the proposed amendment to prevent abortion up to birth from being allowed, should such an action be deemed “medically indicated to protect the life or physical or mental health of the” mother – described by the text as the “pregnant individual.”