EDITOR:

With the passage of an amendment to the Michigan constitution known as “Proposal 3”, many people were quite disturbed by its implications. After reading the proposal I came to the realization that several nuances may now be derived from it and will have concerns on all reproductive freedom since “Every individual has a fundamental right to reproductive freedom… (and) An individual’s right to reproductive freedom shall not be denied, burdened, nor infringed upon…”

This is actually quite liberating for all since the words “woman, women, female, etc.” which would indicate the proposal is restricted to one sex are not present. Furthermore “The state shall not discriminate in the protection or enforcement of this fundamental right”. From this, it could be argued that men have an equal right to reproductive freedom to become the father of a child (thereby reproducing their genetic line), or not. If a man choses not to reproduce, he should be able to determine the destiny of any fetus where half its DNA is contributed by him. Since the now passed proposal is law, he has equal access to the act of abortion to support his reproductive freedom. If he is denied the right to not reproduce, then he should have no responsibility for the outcome of the pregnancy.

I’m sure it will be argued that a woman has special concerns, but does the proposal provide sole discretion to her relative to termination of a pregnancy? If the decision to terminate is held solely by her then she interferes with the man’s reproductive rights should he decide to continue his genetic line. Otherwise, the woman holds all reproductive rights and the man holds none.

Rape and incest are obvious considerations in any interpretation of this. Both are crimes of the most heinous type and should be vigorously investigated, prosecuted and justice administered. No one who is victimized in this fashion should be subjected to a continued insult as a result of this crime.

The rule of unintended consequences may be at play here. I wonder if the rush to simply reestablish the “rights” supposedly denied by the cancellation of Roe v Wade contributed to the poorly considered (or even if considered) wording of this proposal. Oh well… it’s law now and if you voted for it… you own it.

I await the first court case.

Michael A. Glass

Nahma