Michigan’s abortion bills

Abortion battles in hot-spots across the nation are inreasingly bringing to light the incoherence of one side of the battle. Michigan is one of the current hot spots, and the argument is interesting to hear.

A precedent-setting package of abortion bills is now before the Michigan Senate, having passed the House in late July. Collectively called the Coercive Abortion Bills, the package is intended to protect women from being forced or intimidated into having abortions.

Proponents call them a “revolutionary first in the nation.” Feminists claim they attack women’s reproductive rights; men’s rights advocates say they violate their Constitutional rights.

Wait. How does it “attack women’s reproductive rights” to protect them from being forced into an abortion? And, how does it violate men’s constitutional rights to protect women from being forced into an abortion?

Because abortion is a flash point, public debate has focused on the Bills’ anti-abortion thrust, with Michigan National Organization for Women squaring off against Right to Life of Michigan. NOW rejects the additional legal obligations imposed upon abortionists including, in some cases, the obligation to postpone an abortion for 24 hours.

And the problem with that is…? If the woman is doing this through “choice,” what’s their argument against giving her a day before making what will be a life and death one?

Other feminists ask, “if the purpose is to protect women and not restrict abortion, why is there no comparable bill against coercing women into giving birth?”

What? Are these the same people who refuse to allow the parity of consent bills, which essentially say that if “choice” is to be protected at least make sure it’s informed?

Yes. And this opinion piece, which appears on Fox News online, is written by IFeminists editor Wendy McElroy, who is sympathetic to the pro-abortion arguments. But at least the piece states what the argument is about and what the bills cover, so…you decide.

Consider HB 5882 known as the Coercive Abortion Prevention Act. Sec. 15a. (2) makes it illegal to compel a woman to seek an abortion by “an act, attempted act, or threat to act by a person that is conditioned upon the pregnant female disregarding or refusing the person’s demand that she seek an abortion.” In short, it is illegal to force or pressure a woman into aborting.

The problem arises with the definition of “coercive acts” and “threats.” The definitions include filing or an “attempt to file for a divorce,” the withdrawal or “attempt to withdraw financial support,” and the changing “or attempt to change an existing housing or cohabitation arrangement with the pregnant female.”

Threatening to take such actions is also illegal if the threat can be viewed as a pattern; “2 or more statements” establish a pattern.

At one point, in defining a “threat,” HB 5882 becomes confusing.

Actually, we’ve already passed that point. The best legislation combines good law with good writing and clarity of intent. South Dakota had that, and will now go back and refine it further so it can’t be misrepresented by abortion activists. But this bill could use some of that clarity.

It states, “a threat does not include constitutionally protected speech or any generalized statement regarding a lawful pregnancy option.” Yet saying “I want a divorce or to move out unless you abort” would seem to be a constitutionally protected statement of personal intent. Moreover, abortion is a “lawful pregnancy option”; does HB 5882 means that a statement about a legal option becomes itself illegal when it becomes specific rather than general?

The legislators will have to tackle that and specify its intent. At the bottom of this piece, McElroy lumps together the other bills in the package for a quick summary.

The four other bills before the Senate are as follows: H.B. 5883 on sentencing guidelines for the courts; H.B. 5881 on the civil liability a convicted perpetrator owes to his victim; HB 5880 and 5879 on the responsibilities of abortionists to screen for possible coercion and take action if coercion is revealed.

Hold on…That last reference is worth more than a passing sentence. Where are abortionists being held to such standards? In South Dakota, the informed consent bill caused Planned Parenthood to rush into court for injunctive relief against having to give women information to make their “choice”, and the judge in that case decided to let the abortionists’ keep doing business as usual while it goes through the appeals process.

So where do these stand in Michigan?

The five bills easily passed through the Michigan House with HB 5882 receiving a vote of 67 to 38.

Perhaps legislators were reluctant to vote against a bill with a title akin to “The Motherhood and Decency Act.” If so, the bills should be more accurately renamed to “The Contempt for Male and Constitutional Rights Act.”

So, does this bill make IFeminists think of Motherhood and Decency? That’s interesting.