Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D) has filed a lawsuit directly to the state Supreme Court, arguing that an abortion “trigger law,” which would go into effect if Roe v. Wade is overturned, violates the state’s constitution.
A 1931 law banning nearly all abortions in Michigan would automatically go into effect should the U.S. Supreme Court decide later this year to dismantle the 1973 ruling establishing abortion protections. In December, lawyers representing Mississippi lawmakers argued in favor of overturning Roe during oral arguments over the state’s 15-week abortion ban.
In response, the conservative-majority justices on the Supreme Court have indicated a willingness to undo or at least significantly undermine the protections recognized in Roe.
The Michigan law is still technically on the books, but it has been unenforceable since Roe went into effect. If the law is re-enforced, it would ban abortions in the state at all stages of pregnancy, including in cases of rape or incest, and would only allow the procedure if a pregnant person’s life is at risk.
Whitmer filed her lawsuit in the Oakland County Circuit Court — but using powers she has as a governor, she advanced the litigation directly to the state Supreme Court for consideration.
According to reporting from The Detroit News, Whitmer’s lawsuit claims that the 1931 law is “unconstitutionally vague” and violates rights to “privacy, liberty, bodily integrity, and equal protection” under the state constitution and other statutes.
“No matter what happens to Roe, I am going to fight like hell and use all the tools I have as governor to ensure reproductive freedom is a right for all women in Michigan,” Whitmer said in a statement. “If the U.S. Supreme Court refuses to protect the constitutional right to an abortion, the Michigan Supreme Court should step in.”
Whitmer also explained the reason for her lawsuit on social media.
“If the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, Michiganders could be forced to live under a dangerous 1931 state law that criminalizes abortion. Not on my watch,” she said.
Requests to expedite lawsuits straight to the state Supreme Court are rare and seldom granted. Just this past week, for example, the court refused an expedited appeal from state Attorney General Dana Nessel (D) to hear a case on regulations relating to the pandemic.
Still, the chances of the appeal aren’t impossible — and as the court currently has a 4-3 majority of Democratic-appointed justices, it may be receptive to hearing Whitmer’s lawsuit.
A number of anti-abortion lawmakers across the U.S., particularly in conservative-leaning Republican-controlled states, have passed and enacted restrictive bills and abortion bans. But several states have also seen pro-abortion lawmakers pressing for added protections, in anticipation of the possibility that Roe gets overturned.
On Monday, Colorado Gov. Jared Polis (D) signed into law a bill that codified abortion rights and protections. “In the State of Colorado, the serious decision to start or end a pregnancy with medical assistance will remain between a person, their doctor, and their faith,” Polis said in a statement.
Meanwhile, lawmakers in California have been pushing to make the state a “sanctuary” for anyone seeking an abortion — not just in California, but throughout the entire U.S.
Within the state legislature, the Legislative Women’s Caucus has introduced eight bills to protect the right to get an abortion — including a bill that seeks to enhance privacy statutes, ensuring that those who are traveling from out of state cannot be punished for getting an abortion in California.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.