# 2022 Michigan Proposal 3

"none" is preferred when the title is already sufficiently detailed; see [[WP:SDNONE]]
Elections in Michigan :
Federal government
U.S. President
1836
1840
1844
1848
1852
1856
1860
1864
1868
1872
1876
1880
1884
1888
1892
1896
1900
1904
1908
1912
1916
1920
1924
1928
1932
1936
1940
1944
1948
1952
1956
1960
1964
1968
1972
1976
1980
1984
1988
1992
1996
2000
2004
Dem
2008
Dem
GOP
2012
Dem
GOP
2016
Dem
2020
Dem
GOP
2024
Dem
GOP
U.S. Senate
1835
1840 (sp)
1841
1847
1849 (sp)
1853
1857
1858
1862 (sp)
1863
1865
1869
1871
1874
1877
1879 (sp)
1881
1881 (sp)
1887
1889
1893
1895
1895 (sp)
1899
1901
1903 (sp)
1905
1907
1907 (sp)
1911
1913
1916
1918
1922
1924
1924 (sp)
1928
1928 (sp)
1930
1934
1936
1940
1942
1946
1948
1952
1952 (sp)
1954
1958
1960
1964
1966
1970
1972
1976
1978
1982
1984
1988
1990
1994
1996
2000
2002
2006
2008
2012
2014
2018
2020
2024
2026
U.S. House
1835
1837
1838
1840
1843
1844
1846
1847
1st sp
1848
1850
1852
1854
1856
1858
1860
1862
1864
1866
1868
1870
1871
4th sp
1872
1873
5th sp
1874
1876
1878
1880
1881
7th sp
1882
1884
1886
1888
11th sp
1890
1891
5th sp
1892
1893
1st sp
1894
1895
3rd sp
1896
1898
1900
1901
10th sp
1902
1904
1906
1907
5th sp
1908
1910
1912
1914
1916
1917
2nd sp
1918
1920
13th sp
1921
3rd sp
1922
1923
3rd sp
1924
1925
3rd sp
1926
1928
1930
1931
8th sp
1932
1934
1935
3rd sp
1936
1938
1940
5th sp
1942
1944
1946
1947
11th sp
1948
1950
1952
1954
1955
15th sp
1956
1958
1960
1961
1st sp
1962
14th sp
1964
1968
1970
1972
1974
5th sp
8th sp
1976
1978
1980
13th sp
1981
4th sp
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1993
3rd sp
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
11th
11th sp
2014
2016
2018
13th sp
2020
2022
2024 :
State government
State elections
2010
2014
2016
2018
2020
2021
2022
2024
Gubernatorial elections
1835
1837
1839
1841
1843
1845
1847
1849
1851
1852
1854
1856
1858
1860
1862
1864
1866
1868
1870
1872
1874
1876
1878
1880
1882
1884
1886
1888
1890
1892
1894
1896
1898
1900
1902
1904
1906
1908
1910
1912
1914
1916
1918
1920
1922
1924
1926
1928
1930
1932
1934
1936
1938
1940
1942
1944
1946
1948
1950
1952
1954
1956
1958
1960
1962
1964
1966
1970
1974
1978
1982
1986
1990
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
Attorney General elections
1974
1978
1982
1986
1990
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
Secretary of State elections
1978
1982
1986
1990
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
Auditor General elections
1962
State Senate elections
2002
2006
2010
2014
2016
4th sp
2018
2021 (sp)
2022
State House elections
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024 :
Ballot proposals
1996Proposal E
2004Proposal 04-2
2006Proposal 06-2
2008Proposal 1
2012
Proposal 1
Proposal 2
Proposal 3
Proposal 4
Proposal 5
Proposal 6
2015
Proposal 1
2018
Proposal 1
Proposal 2
Proposal 3
2020
Proposal 1
Proposal 2
2022
Proposal 1
Proposal 2
Proposal 3 :
Detroit
Mayoral elections
1824
1825
1826
1827
1828
1829
1830
1831
1832
1833
1834
1834 (sp)
1835
1836
1837
1838
1839
1840
1841
1842
1843
1844
1845
1846
1847
1848
1849
1850
1851
1852
1853
1854
1855
1856
1857
1858
1859
1861
1863
1865
1867
1869
1871
1873
1875
1877
1879
1881
1883
1885
1887
1889
1891
1893
1895
1897
1899
1901
1903
1905
1907
1901
1903
1905
1907
1909
1911
1913
1915
1917
1919
1921
1923
1925
1927
1929
1930 (recall)
1930 (sp)
1931
1933
1935
1937
1939
1941
1943
1945
1947
1949
1950 (sp)
1951
1953
1957
1961
1965
1969
1973
1977
1981
1985
1989
1993
1997
2001
2005
2009 (sp)
2009
2013
2017
2021
2025 :
Flint
Mayoral elections
2015
2017 (recall)
2019
2022 :
Grand Rapids
Mayoral elections
2015
2019
2024 :
Lansing
Mayoral elections
2017
2021 :
vte :
2022 Michigan Proposal 3, the Right to Reproductive Freedom Initiative, also known as Reproductive Freedom for All, was a citizen-initiated proposed constitutional amendment in the state of Michigan, which was voted on as part of the 2022 Michigan elections. The amendment, which passed, codified reproductive rights, including access to abortion, in the Constitution of Michigan.

## Background

Following the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization ruling which overturned Roe v. Wade, access to abortion 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 Judge Elizabeth L. Gleicher, characterizing the law as a violation of due process; however, the case was appealed to the Michigan 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.
The amendment was introduced to overturn the 1931 abortion ban and make the right to "reproductive freedom" explicit in the Michigan Constitution. 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, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled 5-2 that the initiative should be placed on the November ballot.

## Contents

The proposal appeared on the ballot as follows:
   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.
The full text of the section that the proposal added to Article I of the state constitution is as follows:
    Sec. 28. (1) 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.
    Notwithstanding the above, the state may regulate the provision of abortion care after fetal viability, provided that in no circumstance shall the state prohibit an abortion that, in the professional judgment of an attending health care professional, is medically indicated to protect the life or physical or mental health of the pregnant individual.
    (2) The state shall not discriminate in the protection or enforcement of this fundamental right.
    (3) The state shall not penalize, prosecute, or otherwise take adverse action against an individual based on their actual, potential, perceived, or alleged pregnancy outcomes, including but not limited to miscarriage, stillbirth, or abortion. Nor shall the state penalize, prosecute, or otherwise take adverse action against someone for aiding or assisting a pregnant individual in exercising their right to reproductive freedom with their voluntary consent.
    (4) For the purposes of this section:
    A state interest is “compelling” only if it is for the limited purpose of protecting the health of an individual seeking care, consistent with accepted clinical standards of practice and evidence-based medicine, and does not infringe on that individual’s autonomous decision-making. “Fetal viability” means: the point in pregnancy when, in the professional judgment of an attending health care professional and based on the particular facts of the case, there is a significant likelihood of the fetus’s sustained survival outside the uterus without the application of extraordinary medical measures.
    (5) This section shall be self-executing. Any provision of this section held invalid shall be severable from the remaining portions of this section.

## Arguments
### Proponents of Proposal 3

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."

### Opponents of Proposal 3

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 (including prostitution, statutory rape, and human cloning). 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 and masseuses), and repeal safety standards and inspections of abortion clinics. 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.
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.
It was also argued by opponents that Proposal 3 would allow minors to receive puberty blockers, castration, or a hysterectomy without parental consent, under an interpretation of the proposal that classified these procedures as falling under "infertility" and "sterilization". Washtenaw County Prosecuting Attorney Eli Savit and University of Michigan constitutional law professor Leah 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 as transgender health care. The Michigan Supreme Court will have to rule on the precise effects of the amendment.

## Fundraising

Reproductive Freedom for All has received $44 million, mostly from groups such as the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, and NARAL and Sam Bankman-Fried. 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.

## Polling

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 the Dobbs decision, but nonetheless, the amendment had a clear lead in the polls throughout the campaign. Graphical summary
| Poll source | Date(s) administered | Sample size | Margin of error | For Proposal 3 | Against Proposal 3 | Undecided | Lead |
| Cygnal (R) | November 1–4, 2022 | 1,603 (LV) | ± 2.5% | 52% | 44% | 5% | 8% |
| Mitchell Research | November 3, 2022 | 658 (LV) | ± 3.8% | 51% | 46% | 3% | 5% |
| Cygnal (R) | October 31 – November 2, 2022 | 1,754 (LV) | ± 2.3% | 52% | 43% | 5% | 9% |
| EPIC-MRA | October 28 – November 1, 2022 | 600 (LV) | ± 4.0% | 57% | 40% | 4% | 17% |
| Emerson College | October 28–31, 2022 | 900 (LV) | ± 3.2% | 51% | 42% | 7% | 9% |
| The Glengariff Group, Inc. | October 26–28, 2022 | 600 (LV) | ± 4.0% | 55% | 41% | 4% | 14% |
| Mitchell Research | October 19, 2022 | 541 (LV) | ± 4.2% | 50% | 47% | 3% | 3% |
| CNN/SSRS | October 13–18, 2022 | 901 (RV) | ± 4.2% | 54% | 45% | 1% | 9% |
| CNN/SSRS | October 13–18, 2022 | 651 (LV) | ± 4.9% | 54% | 45% | 2% | 9% |
| Emerson College | October 12–14, 2022 | 580 (LV) | ± 4.0% | 52% | 38% | 10% | 14% |
| EPIC-MRA | October 6–12, 2022 | 600 (LV) | ± 4.0% | 60% | 33% | 7% | 27% |
| CBS News/YouGov | October 3–6, 2022 | 1,285 (RV) | ± 3.6% | 54% | 38% | 7% | 16% |
| The Glengariff Group, Inc. | September 26–29, 2022 | 600 (LV) | ± 4.0% | 62% | 24% | 14% | 38% |
| EPIC-MRA | September 15–19, 2022 | 600 (LV) | ± 4.0% | 64% | 27% | 9% | 37% |
| EPIC-MRA | September 7–13, 2022 | 800 (LV) | ± 3.5% | 56% | 23% | 21% | 33% |
| EPIC-MRA | August 18–23, 2022 | 600 (LV) | ± 4.0% | 67% | 24% | 9% | 43% |

## Results

Proposal 3 was approved with 56.66% of the vote. One factor in the proposal's passage was the increased participation in the midterm election by younger voters.
Proposal 3 :
| 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 9 of 13 congressional districts, including two that elected Republicans.
| Congressional district | Yes | Yes | No | No | Total Votes | Representative |
| Congressional district | # | % | # | % | # | 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. The Reproductive Health Act, which repealed several abortion restrictions, was enacted on November 21, 2023. 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'.

## Recount

The America Project, a Donald Trump-aligned organization, funded a partial recount of this proposal, as well as 2022 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.