(Source: MIRS.news, Published 08/22/22) (LANSING) – Washtenaw County Prosecutor Eli Savit says the argument that the Reproductive Freedom for All ballot initiative opens the door for unrestricted and non-regulated abortion access "is simply false" and "flatly contradicted" by the proposal's text.
Savit, who has also served as a lecturer at the University of Michigan Law School, spoke to MIRS about the Reproductive Freedom for All ballot initiative during the 2022 state convention hosted by the Michigan Democratic Party (MDP).
"The reproductive freedom ballot initiative, at its core, preserves the status quo that has existed in this country for the past half century," Savit said.
He explained the effort additionally features access to birth control, especially after U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas mentioned Griswold v. Connecticut -- the 1965 landmark ruling allowing married couples to purchase and utilize contraception without government limitations -- as an item to be reconsidered after Roe v. Wade was overturned earlier this summer.
The effort to enshrine Roe v. Wade era abortion access into the state's constitution – as well as further solidifying protections around postpartum care, contraception, infertility care and miscarriage management – has been criticized by the pro-life community for being too extensive in its reach.
For example, the proposal's text would authorize the Michigan Legislature to regulate abortion after fetal viability, which is often marked at around six months of pregnancy.
However, it then provides "in no circumstances shall the state prohibit an abortion that, in the professional judgement of an attending health care professional, is medically indicated to protect the life or physical or mental health of the pregnant individual."
John Bursch – the vice president of appellate advocacy for the pro-life and religious liberty organization Alliance Defending Freedom – has illustrated a scenario under the amendment where a pregnant woman can acquire an abortion near or directly upon her due date by expressing emotional disarray.
When asked if a state of panic could merit a significantly late-term abortion, Savit said "No, of course not."
"Find me a time where that has ever happened in the United States. People with late-term pregnancies who get abortions, they're doing so for really serious medical issues – either devastating news about the baby's viability or necessary to save their own lives," Savit said. "These are people that have been planning for a child, have probably picked out a name . . . abortions just don't happen at eight or nine months because somebody gets anxious."
Savit described the aforementioned suspicion as an "absurd hypothetical," adding that the idea that the proposal allows for medical professionals to go beyond their standards "is just totally misinformation. It's a scare tactic."
He also said he doesn't believe Michigan's parental consent requirements for minors seeking abortion – with the exception of successfully obtained court waivers – would be prohibited under the constitutional amendment.
"A pretty good analog to this is gun laws, right? People have a right to have a gun, but we have different restrictions for minors than we do for other people," Savit said. "This allows for regulations, including precisely the type of regulations that we've had in this state for a very long time."
Savit said what the amendment does prohibit, is "things like Michigan's 1931 draconian abortion law." For example, he said a pregnant 10-year-old in Michigan would undisputedly be unable to obtain an abortion under the 1931 manslaughter ban on abortion.
"Her provider could be potentially subject to criminal liability. Her parents might be subject to criminal liability. So you want to talk about what's extreme? What's extreme is this 1931 law that this reproductive freedom initiative would undo," he said.
Savit has been involved in Gov. Gretchen Whitmer's litigation to enjoin the 91-year-old ban on abortion, with an Oakland County Circuit Court judge recently extending the preliminary injunction that has been maintaining abortion access in the state since Roe v. Wade was overturned.
When asked about his relationship with the Reproductive Freedom for All team, Savit said he has a t-shirt, has spoken at some of their events and "I'm just a supporter and a cheerleader and somebody who's trying to get the word out."
"The reason that I've been pushing the reproductive freedom initiative is because fundamentally, I don't want anybody to be thinking about what their county prosecutor might do when faced with one of the most important and profound decisions of their life," Savit said. "If you or a loved one was facing a medical emergency, the prosecutor of that county should be the last person on anyone's mind. What a judge might do should be the last thing on anyone's mind."
