By Alethia Kasben
Gongwer News Service
Right to Life of Michigan and other anti-abortion lawmakers, individuals and organizations lack standing to sue the state over the abortion rights amendment added to the Constitution via ballot proposal in 2022, a court ruled this week.
In 2023, Right to Life of MI v. Whitmer was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan challenging the constitutionality of the ballot proposal that legalized abortion in the state in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court overruling Roe v. Wade.
The groups argued the amendment, which passed with 57 percent of the vote, violated the U.S. Constitution by creating a “super-right” to reproductive freedom.
“At no time in our nation’s history has such a super-right, immune from all legislative action, ever been created by a popular vote outside of the checks and balances of a republican form of government,” the suit said.
The amendment is broad, the suit says, and creates harm to women “by exempting them from the legal protections afforded to other classes of individuals.” They argued it also deprives parents of the right to determine medical treatment of their children regarding “reproduction.”
Judge Paul Maloney, in an order dated Sept. 30, dismissed the suit for lack of standing.
“No injury or imminent injury means no standing,” he wrote. “The allegations in the complaint fail to establish standing for any individual plaintiff. The allegations also fail to show a direct injury to any organization. Because none of the induvial plaintiffs have standing, the organizations cannot show standing based on standing of their members.”
Attorney General Dana Nessel said medical decisions belong to individuals and their doctors.
“This ruling is a reminder that our Constitution and the will of Michigan voters cannot be struck down because anti-abortion individuals don’t like the outcome,” she said in a statement. “My office will continue to defend Michiganders against attempts to roll back their rights and protect bodily autonomy.”
Right to Life of Michigan President Amber Roseboom said the group is focusing on the road ahead.
“That means ensuring each and every woman facing an unplanned pregnancy in Michigan has the care and support she needs to make a choice for life for her unborn child if she would like to do so,” Roseboom said in a statement. “That means doing all we can to support couples looking to grow their families by removing economic barriers. A right to abortion is both enshrined in our state constitution and codified in state law. It’s high time we focus on the woman
impacted by this extraordinarily important issue.”
Gongwer News Service
Right to Life of Michigan and other anti-abortion lawmakers, individuals and organizations lack standing to sue the state over the abortion rights amendment added to the Constitution via ballot proposal in 2022, a court ruled this week.
In 2023, Right to Life of MI v. Whitmer was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan challenging the constitutionality of the ballot proposal that legalized abortion in the state in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court overruling Roe v. Wade.
The groups argued the amendment, which passed with 57 percent of the vote, violated the U.S. Constitution by creating a “super-right” to reproductive freedom.
“At no time in our nation’s history has such a super-right, immune from all legislative action, ever been created by a popular vote outside of the checks and balances of a republican form of government,” the suit said.
The amendment is broad, the suit says, and creates harm to women “by exempting them from the legal protections afforded to other classes of individuals.” They argued it also deprives parents of the right to determine medical treatment of their children regarding “reproduction.”
Judge Paul Maloney, in an order dated Sept. 30, dismissed the suit for lack of standing.
“No injury or imminent injury means no standing,” he wrote. “The allegations in the complaint fail to establish standing for any individual plaintiff. The allegations also fail to show a direct injury to any organization. Because none of the induvial plaintiffs have standing, the organizations cannot show standing based on standing of their members.”
Attorney General Dana Nessel said medical decisions belong to individuals and their doctors.
“This ruling is a reminder that our Constitution and the will of Michigan voters cannot be struck down because anti-abortion individuals don’t like the outcome,” she said in a statement. “My office will continue to defend Michiganders against attempts to roll back their rights and protect bodily autonomy.”
Right to Life of Michigan President Amber Roseboom said the group is focusing on the road ahead.
“That means ensuring each and every woman facing an unplanned pregnancy in Michigan has the care and support she needs to make a choice for life for her unborn child if she would like to do so,” Roseboom said in a statement. “That means doing all we can to support couples looking to grow their families by removing economic barriers. A right to abortion is both enshrined in our state constitution and codified in state law. It’s high time we focus on the woman
impacted by this extraordinarily important issue.”
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
