 | |||||||||||||
November 8, 2022 | |||||||||||||
Right to Reproductive Freedom Initiative | |||||||||||||
| Results | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||
 County results Congressional district results State senate district results Municipality results
| |||||||||||||
2022 Michigan Proposal 3 (also referred to asProposal 22-3), theRight to Reproductive Freedom Initiative (also known asReproductive Freedom for All), was acitizen-initiated proposed constitutional amendment in the state ofMichigan, which was voted on as part of the2022 Michigan elections. The amendment, which passed, codifiedreproductive rights, including access toabortion, in theConstitution of Michigan.
Following theDobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization ruling which overturnedRoe v. Wade, access toabortion 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 JudgeElizabeth L. Gleicher, characterizing the law as a violation ofdue process; however, the case was appealed to theMichigan 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, theMichigan 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 (includingprostitution,statutory rape, andhuman 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 andmasseuses), 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 receivepuberty blockers,castration, or ahysterectomy without parental consent, under an interpretation of the proposal that classified these procedures as falling under "infertility" and "sterilization".[5][6]Washtenaw County prosecuting attorneyEli Savit and University of Michigan constitutional law professorLeah 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 astransgender 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 theACLU,Planned Parenthood, andNARAL andSam 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 theDobbs decision, but nonetheless, the amendment had a clear lead in the polls throughout the campaign.[18]Graphical summary
 | This graph was using thelegacy Graph extension, which is no longer supported. It needs to be converted to thenew Chart extension. |
| 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] Among the factors contributing to the proposal's passage were the increased participation in the midterm election by younger voters,[37] and a heightened involvement exhibited by non-activist Michiganders.[38]
| 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 nine of 13 congressional districts, including two that elected 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.[39] The Reproductive Health Act, which repealed several abortion restrictions, was enacted on November 21, 2023.[40][41] 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".[42]
The America Project, aDonald Trump-aligned organization, funded a partial recount of this proposal, as well as2022 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.[43][44]
