A proposal on the Michigan ballot next month would reportedly enshrine in the state constitution transgender care, up to and including sterilization surgery, for minors, and parents would be powerless to stop it. And Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D), who is running for reelection, has vowed to “fight like hell” to make sure it passes.
Right to “sterilization,” hidden in plain sight
According to the alarming legal analysis of Margot Cleveland of the Federalist, the so-called “gender affirming” care Proposal 3 would ensure for minors is buried in vague language about “reproductive freedom,” deceiving voters into believing that the proposal relates to abortion only. But the ambiguous language of the proposal, carefully crafted by Planned Parenthood and other “gender affirming” and abortion outlets, incorporates children as well as adults and deliberately excludes parents from interfering, Cleveland said.
The opening paragraph of Proposal 3, entitled the “Reproductive Freedom for All” initiative, reportedly reveals just how broadly such “reproductive freedom” would extend:
Every individual has a fundamental right to reproductive freedom, which entails the right to make and effectuate decisions about all matters relating to pregnancy, including but not limited to prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, contraception, sterilization, abortion care, miscarriage management, and infertility care. An individual’s right to reproductive freedom shall not be denied, burdened, nor infringed upon unless justified by a compelling state interest achieved by the least restrictive means. (Emphasis added.)
Cleveland claims that the term “individual” applies to men and women, boys and girls, regardless of age. And because the proposal later says that the state may not “discriminate in the protection or enforcement of this fundamental right,” parents would no longer have any legal recourse, she said, to contest the “sterilization” demands of their minor children, since denying them such “care” based on their young age would be an act of discrimination.
And lest parents believe that other preexisting parental notification laws would supersede this amendment, Cleveland also warned that such parental notification laws regarding abortion have already been ruled unconstitutional in states like Alaska and Florida. California, Massachusetts, and New Jersey have likewise curtailed parental rights regarding abortion, she said.
An irreversible medical “experiment” on the ballot
As part of the “Fight Like Heaven” effort, the diocese has enlisted experts in many related fields, including medicine, to speak about the evil it believes is buried within the proposal. One such expert, Dr. Patrick Lappert, a renowned plastic surgeon from Alabama with over 25 years of experience, has sounded the alarm that Proposal 3 and others like it would inflict irreversible medical damage on young people.
“Essentially, it’s guaranteed that your child is going to be rendered sterile by these interventions, such as puberty blockage and cross-sex hormones,” Dr. Lappert asserted, “and that is something your child cannot fully understand nor give informed consent to and, certainly, something no parent would want.”
Lappert further called puberty blockers “a public experiment” with unknown long-term effects.
Finally, Lappert suggested that the ultimate goal of the proposal is not the well-being of children but the destruction of families.
“The amendment asserts that the state somehow has more wisdom than the family that knows, and has loved, this child for all their life,” he said. “That’s a terrible idea. It’s a terrible idea that must be rejected.”
Abortion on demand
If the amendment to the state constitution passes, the use of the amendment to obtain medical transgender procedures for minors would be part of the broader enshrinement of abortion on demand with no restrictions, for women and minor girls alike.
Whitmer and others advocating for this proposal have argued that Proposal 3 would merely restore the abortion rights women had for 50 years under Roe, but Cleveland and Bishop Boyea both vehemently deny that assertion.
“If passed, the constitutional amendment would create an extreme regime in Michigan of abortion on demand, at any time, for any reason, without informed or parental consent, and paid for by taxpayers,” writes Cleveland.
“The Reproductive Freedom for All initiative is the most extreme abortion proposal this country has ever witnessed,” Boyea added. “Based on the wording of the proposed amendment, this initiative seeks to enshrine abortion up to, and including, the day of birth in our state constitution. …
“It will also likely prohibit parental consent rights if your child wishes to pursue – or is being pressured into pursuing – medical procedures or chemical treatments intended to change the outward appearance of his or her biological sex,” he added.
In other words, Cleveland argues, Proposal 3 in Michigan seeks to sacrifice “the children of the state — both born and unborn” through unfettered access to abortion and transgender treatment.
Whitmer’s office did not respond to request for comment.