Right To Life Lawsuit

Case 1:23-cv-01189 ECF No. 1, PageID.
1 Filed 11/08/23 Page 1 of 36
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
RIGHT TO LIFE OF MICHIGAN;

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PRO-LIFE
OBSTETRICIANS AND GYNECOLOGISTS, No.
on behalf of itself, its members, and their patients;
GINA JOHNSEN, Representative, Michigan
House of Representatives; LUKE MEERMAN,
Representative, Michigan House of COMPLAINT
Representatives; JOSEPH BELLINO, JR., [42 U.S.C. § 1983]
Senator, Michigan Senate; MELISSA
HALVORSON, M.D.; CHRISTIAN MEDICAL
AND DENTAL ASSOCIATIONS, on behalf of
itself, its members, and their patients;
CROSSROADS CARE CENTER; CELINA
ASBERG; GRACE FISHER; JANE ROE, a
fictitious name on behalf of preborn babies;
ANDREA SMITH; JOHN HUBBARD; LARA
HUBBARD; SAVE THE 1, on behalf of itself
and its members; and REBECCA KIESSLING,
Plaintiffs,
v.
GRETCHEN WHITMER, in her official

capacity as Governor of the State of Michigan;
DANA NESSEL, in her official capacity as
Attorney General of the State of Michigan; and
JOCELYN BENSON, in her official capacity as
Secretary of State of the State of Michigan,
Defendants.
Plaintiffs Right to Life of Michigan, American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and
Gynecologists, Representative Gina Johnsen, Representative Luke Meerman, Senator Joseph
Bellino, Jr., Dr. Melissa Halvorson, Christian Medical and Dental Associations, Crossroads Care
Center, Celina Asberg, Grace Fisher, Jane Roe, Andrea Smith, John Hubbard, Lara Hubbard,
Save The 1, and Rebecca Kiessling, by and through undersigned counsel, bring this Complaint
-1-
Case 1:23-cv-01189 ECF No. 1, PageID.2 Filed 11/08/23 Page 2 of 36
against the above-named Defendants, their employees, agents, and successors in office, and in
support thereof allege the following upon information and belief:
INTRODUCTION
1. This case seeks to protect and vindicate fundamental constitutional rights. It is a
civil rights action brought under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution and the Guarantee Clause of the United States Constitution, challenging Proposal 3
and the super-right to “reproductive freedom” it created that is now Article I, § 28 of the
Michigan Constitution.
2. Article VI of the United States Constitution makes clear that our American
Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land, protecting certain fundamental rights that cannot be
abridged by government, including state governments, whether through legislation, ballot
initiatives, or other official acts.
3. The United States Constitution was designed to accomplish two primary and
related goals: to prevent tyranny and protect liberty. These important goals are advanced by
Article IV, Section 4, which is a “guarantee” that each state will have a “Republican Form of
Government” (Guarantee Clause).
4. With the assistance of tens of millions of dollars from out-of-state special interest
groups, which launched a massive, false, and deceptive ballot initiative campaign, Proposal 3
was passed by a simple majority of the Michigan electorate on November 8, 2022.
5. The passage of Proposal 3 resulted in an amendment to the Michigan Constitution
(Article I, § 28), which created a super-right to “reproductive freedom.” At no time in our
nation’s history has such a super-right, immune from all legislative action, ever been created by a
popular vote outside of the checks and balances of a republican form of government.
-2-
6. Proposal 3 added Article I, § 28 to the Michigan Constitution, which, inter alia,
(1) causes great harm to women as a class by exempting them from the legal protections afforded
to other classes of individuals in violation of the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth
Amendment; (2) deprives parents of the right to direct the upbringing and education of their
minor children by excluding the parents from decisions regarding the education, protection, and
medical treatment of their children involving “reproduction,” which is very broad and includes
decisions regarding abortion, contraception, “gender reassignment” medication/procedures,
puberty blocking medications, sterilization (which includes “gender reassignment”), sexual
activity, and other harmful decisions, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment; (3) overrides
any objections to endorsing, providing, or supporting procedures involving “reproduction,” such
as abortion, contraception, “gender reassignment,” puberty blocking, and sterilization, on
religious grounds, thereby infringing the rights of conscience and religious exercise protected by
the First Amendment; and (4) violates the Guarantee Clause of the United States Constitution by
nullifying the legitimate authority of a co-equal branch of government.
7. Federal courts have recognized the propriety of a federal constitutional challenge
to a statewide referendum passed by voters resulting in an amendment to a state constitution. In
1992, a Colorado state constitutional amendment was adopted via a statewide referendum. The
proposal known as Amendment 2 (Colo. Const. art. II, § 30b) prohibited all legislative,
executive, or judicial action at any level of state or local government designed to protect
homosexual persons. In Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996), the U.S. Supreme Court held that
Amendment 2 violated the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment on rational
basis grounds (there was no fundamental right nor suspect class implicated, unlike in this case).
As stated by the Court, “A law declaring that in general it shall be more difficult for one group of
-3-
citizens than for all others to seek aid from the government is itself a denial of equal protection
of the laws in the most literal sense. The guaranty of equal protection of the laws is a pledge of
the protection of equal laws.” Romer, 517 U.S. at 633-34 (internal quotations and citations
omitted). Proposal 3 (Article I, § 28) fails for similar reasons, and others.
8. Plaintiffs seek a declaration that the creation, adoption, implementation, and
enforcement of Proposal 3, specifically including Article I, § 28 of the Michigan Constitution,
violates Plaintiffs’ fundamental rights under the United States Constitution; a permanent
injunction enjoining the implementation and enforcement of Article I, § 28 of the Michigan
Constitution; and an award of attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and other
applicable laws.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
9. This action arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States.
Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343.
10. Plaintiffs’ claims for declaratory and injunctive relief are authorized by 28 U.S.C.
§§ 2201 and 2202, by Rules 57 and 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and by the
general legal and equitable powers of this Court.
11. Plaintiffs’ claim for an award of its reasonable costs of litigation, including
attorneys’ fees and expenses, is authorized by 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and other applicable law.
12. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because the Michigan Governor, the
Michigan Attorney General, and the Michigan Secretary of State are located in this judicial
district and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred
in this district.
-4-
PARTIES
13. Plaintiff Right to Life of Michigan is a nonpartisan, nonsectarian, nonprofit
organization of diverse and caring people united to protect the precious gift of human life from
fertilization to natural death. It operates as a 501(c)(4) organization and proposes, lobbies for,
and supports legislation that protects the gift of human life.
14. Right to Life of Michigan works on behalf of defenseless or vulnerable human
beings, born and unborn, within its identified issues of abortion, infanticide, euthanasia and
assisted suicide.
15. Right to Life of Michigan was instrumental in forming, and was a main source of
funding for, Citizens to Protect MI Women and Children, a ballot question committee created to
defeat Proposal 3.
16. Article I, § 28 (also referred to herein as “§ 28” or “Section 28”) undermines
decades of work and accomplishments of Right to Life of Michigan—work to ensure that
Michigan law protects mothers and respects all human life, born and unborn. Section 28 stands
as a barrier to promoting legislation designed to protect women and the unborn, thereby
undermining the efforts of Right to Life of Michigan.
17. Plaintiff American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists
(AAPLOG) is a nonprofit organization comprised of board certified, professional medical
experts who practice in the field of Obstetrics and Gynecology (OBGYN). AAPLOG has
members in Michigan, and it seeks relief on behalf of itself, its current and future Michigan
members, and its members’ patients that reside in or that will travel to Michigan for medical care
and treatment.
-5-
18. AAPLOG’s mission is to encourage and equip medical practitioners to provide an
evidence-based rationale for defending the lives of both the pregnant mother and her unborn
child. AAPLOG and its members oppose abortion.
19. AAPLOG’s purpose is to reaffirm the unique value and dignity of individual
human life in all stages of growth and development from fertilization onward. Strong voices
within our culture (and within the OBGYN professional College) espouse induced abortion on
demand as a standard of care for unwanted pregnancies. Often perinatologists are quick to
recommend abortion as a “final solution” for “defective” in utero babies. AAPLOG opposes
these values. AAPLOG views the physician’s role as a caregiver, responsible, as far as possible,
for the well-being of both the mother and her unborn child.
20. AAPLOG is extremely concerned about the potential long term adverse
consequences of abortion on a woman’s future health. AAPLOG realizes that, in the United
States, including Michigan, reporting of both abortions and associated complications is generally
not adequate to provide meaningful conclusions. AAPLOG explores data from around the world
regarding abortion associated complications (such as depression, substance abuse, suicide, other
pregnancy associated mortality, subsequent preterm birth, placenta previa, and breast cancer) to
provide a realistic appreciation of abortion-related health risks.
21. The physician’s right of conscience in medical decision-making is, and will
continue to be, a crucial part of AAPLOG’s advocacy on behalf of pro-life physicians as the
organization and its members oppose, as a matter of conscience, induced abortion with the sole
intent of ending the life of an embryonic or fetal human being as it is contrary to the very nature
and purpose of medical care. AAPLOG opposes § 28 because it forces its members to accept
abortion as medical care contrary to its members’ professional judgment, moral values, and
-6-
consciences. Accordingly, AAPLOG members fear the loss of medical licensure and other
government-based regulatory harms due to § 28. Section 28 also removes any statutory
protection of their right of conscience and thus substantially interferes with fundamental
constitutional liberty interests held by those who oppose abortion on moral and religious
grounds.
22. AAPLOG also advances the rights of its members’ patients and potential patients,
such as a baby born alive following a failed abortion. Section 28 permits medical neglect to
allow this baby to die, in violation of the child’s inviolable right to life. As stated by the
Supreme Court, “We have long permitted abortion providers to invoke the rights of their actual
or potential patients in challenges to abortion-related regulations.” June Med. Servs. L.L.C. v.
Russo, 140 S. Ct. 2103, 2118 (2020). Here, AAPLOG, which is comprised of pro-life medical
professionals, is invoking the rights of its members’ actual or potential patients in this challenge
to an “abortion-related” regulation. As the Supreme Court further noted, “In such cases, we have
explained, the obvious claimant and the least awkward challenger is the party upon whom the
challenged statute imposes legal duties and disabilities.” Id. at 2119. Here, § 28 imposes “legal
duties and disabilities” upon AAPLOG and its members regarding matters related to
“reproduction.”
23. Plaintiff Gina Johnsen is a member of the Michigan House of Representatives.
She represents the 78th House District. Plaintiff Luke Meerman is also a member of the
Michigan House of Representatives. He represents the 89th House District. Plaintiff Joseph
Bellino, Jr. is a member of the Michigan Senate. He represents the 16th Senate District. These
legislators (collectively referred to as “Plaintiff Legislators”) have actively worked, and would
like to continue their work, through the Michigan Legislature, to propose and/or pass legislation
-7-
protecting the unborn, protecting women from the harm of abortion, protecting the right of
conscience of healthcare providers, and protecting parental rights, among other legislative
initiatives designed to advance a pro-life agenda. Plaintiff Legislators want to continue to work
to pass legislation that advances these important state interests. However, § 28 prevents them
from doing so.
24. Plaintiff Melissa Halvorson, M.D., is a pro-life physician and member of
AAPLOG. Plaintiff Halvorson is a board-certified OBGYN, and she opposes abortion, “gender
reassignment,” puberty blocking, and sterilization on religious grounds and as a matter of
conscience as these services violate her sincerely held religious beliefs, and she opposes such
services on medical grounds as they are harmful to her patients and potential patients. Plaintiff
Halvorson opposes § 28 because it forces her to provide the objectionable services in violation of
her sincerely held religious beliefs and her professional medical judgment, moral values, and
conscience. Plaintiff Halvorson fears the loss of her medical license and other government-based
regulatory harms due to § 28.
25. Plaintiff Halvorson opposes § 28 because it forces her to accept abortion as
medical care contrary to her professional judgment, moral values, and conscience. Section 28
removes any statutory protection of her right of conscience and her right to object to providing
medical procedures that are now a constitutional “right” under the Michigan Constitution for her
patients and prospective patients, thus substantially burdening Plaintiff Halvorson’s ability to
practice medicine in accord with her professional medical judgment, moral values, and religious
beliefs.
26. Plaintiff Halvorson opposes § 28 because it harms women and preborn babies and
thus causes unnecessary harm to her potential patients.
-8-
27. Plaintiff Crossroads Care Center (Crossroads) is a pro-life, faith-based, non-profit
organization committed to serving men and women by providing medical, educational, and
support services and resources related to pregnancy and sexual health. Crossroads is a member
of AAPLOG, and it is located in Michigan.
28. Crossroads offers a variety of medical services including pregnancy testing,
ultrasounds, STD services, contraception information, early prenatal care, and post abortion
medical care. The medical services are provided by licensed, trained medical staff. All services
are under the direction of a board-certified OBGYN.
29. Crossroads is subject to state laws and regulations, which will now be directed
toward promoting and supporting “reproductive freedom” pursuant to § 28, thereby causing
harm to Crossroads.
30. Crossroads opposes § 28 because it will force the organization and those who
work for and/or support it to endorse and support abortion, undermining Crossroads’ efforts to
provide services that will benefit and protect women and their unborn babies. Indeed, § 28 will
cause a proliferation of abortion and other harmful procedures that will harm the very women
Crossroads is trying to help and protect from such harm.
31. Crossroads opposes § 28 because it subjects the organization and those who work
for and/or support it to penalties/regulatory harms if they refuse to accept abortion as medical
care contrary to their professional judgment, moral values, and consciences.
32. Section 28 harms the women and their unborn babies who would otherwise
receive services from Crossroads.
33. Crossroads and those who work for and/or support the organization oppose
abortion on religious grounds and as a matter of conscience as these services violate their
-9-
sincerely held religious beliefs. Crossroads and those who work for and/or support the
organization oppose § 28 because it forces them to accept, and/or provide support for,
objectionable services in violation of their sincerely held religious beliefs.
34. Section 28 removes any statutory protection of Crossroads’ right to promote its
pro-life values through its work and thus discriminates against those who oppose abortion on
moral, religious, and scientific evidence grounds. Plaintiff Crossroads fears government-based
regulatory harms due to § 28.
35. Plaintiff Christian Medical and Dental Associations (CMDA) is a nonprofit
organization comprised of healthcare students as well as board-eligible and board-certified
healthcare professionals, including experts in various medical fields. CMDA has members in
Michigan, and it seeks relief on behalf of itself, its current and future Michigan members, and its
members’ patients that reside in or that will travel to Michigan for medical care and treatment.
36. CMDA educates, encourages, and equips Christian healthcare professionals to
glorify God. Christian healthcare professionals glorify God by following Christ, serving with
excellence and compassion, caring for all people, and advancing Biblical principles of healthcare
within the Church and throughout the world.
37. CMDA opposes abortion on biblical, biological, ethical, medical, and sociological
grounds. CMDA and its members adhere to Christian principles of ethics and morality in their
provision of healthcare.
38. A healthcare professional’s right of conscience in medical/healthcare decision-
making is, and will continue to be, a crucial part of CMDA’s advocacy on behalf of healthcare
professionals as the organization and its members oppose, as a matter of conscience, abortion in
every way as it is contrary to the very nature and purpose of healthcare. CMDA opposes § 28
- 10 -
because it forces its members to accept abortion as medical care contrary to its members’
professional judgment, moral values, and consciences. Section 28 also removes any statutory
protection of their right of conscience and thus substantially interferes with fundamental
constitutional liberty interests held by those who oppose abortion on moral and religious
grounds.
39. Plaintiff Celina Asberg is an adult citizen of the United States and a resident of
Michigan. Plaintiff Asberg was recently pregnant and plans to be pregnant again in the future
and have more children. She opposes § 28 because it immunizes from legal liability anyone who
aids or assists with her prenatal care, childbirth, all aspects of her pregnancy, and her postpartum
care (her “reproductive freedom”) for any harm they may commit as a result of her pregnancy,
prenatal care, delivery of her baby in childbirth, and postpartum care. She also opposes § 28
because it lessens the standard of care for her prenatal care, pregnancy care, childbirth, and
postpartum care, among others, as it legally changed the required consent for such care from
informed consent to only voluntary consent. Plaintiff Asberg also sues on behalf of her future
preborn baby and all preborn babies as a class, referred to herein as Jane Roe.
40. Below are true and correct ultrasound images of Plaintiff Asberg’s preborn baby.
One of the images shows the baby sucking his thumb.
41. Plaintiff Asberg’s son, Malachi, was born on August 13, 2023.
- 11 -
42. Plaintiff Grace Fisher is an adult citizen of the United States and a resident of
Michigan. Plaintiff Fisher is currently pregnant and plans to be pregnant again in the future and
have more children. She opposes § 28 because it immunizes from legal liability anyone who
aids or assists with her prenatal care, childbirth, all aspects of her pregnancy, and her postpartum
care (her “reproductive freedom”) for any harm they may commit as a result of her pregnancy,
prenatal care, delivery of her baby in childbirth, and postpartum care. She also opposes § 28
because it lessens the standard of care for her prenatal care, pregnancy care, childbirth, and
postpartum care, among others, as it legally changed the required consent for such care from
informed consent to only voluntary consent. Plaintiff Fisher also sues on behalf of her preborn
baby and all preborn babies as a class, referred to herein as Jane Roe.
43. Plaintiff Fisher has a sibling with a disability (Trisomy 18). Plaintiff Fisher’s
parents were pressured to abort her sibling as a result of the disability. Her parents refused.
Seeing this beautiful witness of her parents and the miraculous and beautiful life of her disabled
sibling has further convinced Plaintiff Fisher that abortion is an evil act of violence that targets
the most innocent in our society.
44. Plaintiff Jane Roe, a fictitious name, represents all those children in the womb
who will be harmed by § 28, including those babies born alive who survive an abortion attempt
by an abortion provider. AAPLOG, CMDA, Plaintiff Asberg, and Plaintiff Fisher similarly
represent the interests of Jane Roe in this litigation, as set forth above. Jane Roe is a potential
patient of members of AAPLOG and CMDA and child of Plaintiffs Asberg and Fisher.
45. Plaintiffs Andrea Smith, John Hubbard, and Lara Hubbard are parents of minor
children who attend public schools in Michigan (collectively referred to as “Plaintiff Parents”).
Plaintiff Smith’s daughter is a high school student (sophomore) in the Charlotte, Michigan public
- 12 -
school system. Plaintiffs John and Lara Hubbard have a daughter in elementary school (4th
grade) and a daughter in middle school (7th grade) in the Grand Ledge, Michigan public school
system. Plaintiff Parents oppose § 28 because it removes from them the authority to direct the
upbringing of their children by permitting school officials and others to aid and assist their
children with obtaining contraception; procuring an abortion; seeking “gender reassignment,”
puberty blocking medication, or sterilization; and engaging in sexual intercourse or other sex acts
with an adult, all without Plaintiff Parents’ consent or knowledge and with impunity. Pursuant to
§ 28, “[a]ll individuals,” which includes minors, have a super-right to “reproductive freedom,”
which includes “all matters relating to pregnancy,” thereby including acts necessary to become
pregnant. The state is powerless to regulate in this area as the “individual’s autonomous decision
making” trumps any state interests, including those that would otherwise be considered
“compelling.”
46. Plaintiff Save The 1 is a nonprofit, Michigan corporation. It has a network of
over 1,200 individuals who were conceived in rape and mothers who became pregnant by rape,
plus hundreds of individuals who were told by doctors to abort their disabled children in the
womb. Save The 1 seeks relief on behalf of itself and its current and future Michigan members.
47. Save The 1’s mission is to educate everyone on why all preborn children should
be protected by law and accepted by society, without exception and without compromise.
Further, it educates pro-life advocates, legislators, leaders, and clergy on how to articulate a
proper defense of children conceived in rape or incest, as well as those with special needs. It is a
stark reality that unborn children with disabilities are disproportionately more likely to become
victims of abortion. As a result, abortion discriminates against disabled children.
- 13 -
48. Save The 1’s purpose is to demonstrate the value and dignity of life, specifically
including the lives of its members, and to take the discussion of the “hard cases” from “concept”
to “real life.” Save The 1 strives to reveal the truth that there have been tens of thousands of
mothers pregnant by rape and tens of thousands of rape-conceived children all around us, and
that there is help, support, and hope for all in those unfortunate circumstances. Save The 1
knows that abortion is not the answer to a crisis pregnancy; it only creates a new crisis.
49. Save The 1 provides a living witness to the fact that laws restricting abortion save
lives worthy of living as many of the members of Save The 1 would not be here today but for
legal restrictions on abortion. Section 28 removes all such restrictions and undermines the
efforts of Save The 1.
50. Plaintiff Rebecca Kiessling is an adult citizen of the United States and a resident
of Michigan. She is the Founder and President of Save The 1. Rebecca was conceived from
rape, and she loves her life. Her birth mother, the victim of the horrible crime, wanted to abort
Rebecca, but she did not do so because abortion was illegal. Thus, Michigan law prohibiting
abortion protected Rebecca and is the reason why she is alive today. In fact, Rebecca’s birth
mother went to have an abortion on two separate occasions and only backed out each time
because abortion was illegal. Rebecca represents all those innocent unborn children who may be
the second victims of a crime and who do not deserve to be killed because men raped their
mothers. Accordingly, Rebecca spends much of her time and talent advocating for laws that
strictly limit the availability of abortion. Section 28 is the most permissive abortion law in the
country, undermining her efforts and those of Save The 1.
- 14 -
51. Defendant Gretchen Whitmer is the Governor of Michigan. As the Governor, she
is sworn to uphold the Constitution and laws of the State of Michigan, including Article I, § 28
of the Michigan Constitution. Defendant Whitmer is sued in her official capacity only.
52. Defendant Dana Nessel is the Attorney General of Michigan. As the Attorney
General, she is responsible for enforcing and upholding the Constitution and laws of the State of
Michigan, including Article I, § 28 of the Michigan Constitution. Defendant Nessel is sued in
her official capacity only.
53. Defendant Jocelyn Benson is the Secretary of State of Michigan. As the Secretary
of State, she is responsible for enforcing and implementing the ballot initiative procedures set
forth in Article XII, § 2 of the Michigan Constitution. Accordingly, Defendant Benson was
responsible for enforcing and implementing the ballot initiative procedures that resulted in the
passage of Proposal 3. Defendant Benson is sued in her official capacity only.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
54. On November 8, 2022, the Michigan voters passed Proposal 3 by a simple
majority (56.7% of the voters supported the proposal and 43.3% opposed it).
55. The primary political action committee that supported the passage of Proposal 3,
Reproductive Freedom for All, contributed $47,835,464.79 to the passage of this proposal. At
least $34,000,000 of this funding came from out-of-state sources. Consequently, most of the
funding for the passage of Proposal 3 came from out-of-state supporters who wanted to influence
the election in Michigan with regard to this proposal.
56. In comparison, the primary political action committee that opposed Proposal 3,
Citizens to Protect MI Women and Children, contributed $21,065,062.08 to defeating this
proposal. Only a fraction (less than $300,000) of this funding came from out-of-state sources.
- 15 -
57. Proposal 3 is contrary to the strong public policy to protect innocent human life
that prevailed in Michigan for many decades. People v. Kurr, 654 N.W.2d 651, 654 (Mich. Ct.
App. 2002) (“[F]etuses are worthy of protection as living entities as a matter of public policy.”);
People v. Bricker, 208 N.W.2d 172, 175 (Mich. 1973) (“It is the public policy of the state to
proscribe abortion.”); see also People v. Ambrose, 895 N.W.2d 198, 200 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016)
(“[W]e respect the right of a fetus to calm and peaceful environmental circumstances without
threat of harm to them.”) (quoting trial court).
58. Proposal 3 added § 28 to Article I of the Michigan Constitution. Section 28 states
as follows:
(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
- 16 -
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.
Mich. Const. Art. I, § 28 (emphasis added) (also referred to herein as “§ 28” or “Section 28”).
59. Section 28 expressly provides that “[e]very individual,” which includes minors,
“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.” This broad right to “reproductive freedom” necessarily includes decisions
involving gender and “gender reassignment” surgeries and other harmful procedures as well as
decisions by minors to engage in sexual intercourse with adults. There are no exceptions.
60. The provisions of § 28 are “self-executing.” That is, the provisions do not need
any legislation to implement them or any other action for them to become effective.
61. As noted in the ballot proposal, the passage of Proposal 3 (now § 28) invalidated
numerous state laws, including many laws that protect women, children, parental rights, and the
right to religious exercise, among others.
62. Section 28 expressly applies to all “individuals.” Under this constitutional
provision, “every individual” is autonomous and possesses certain rights, including the right to
“prenatal care.” All human beings, from their very beginning, are “individuals” with distinct,
separate, and unique DNA. Pursuant to § 28, all human beings, therefore, possess “reproductive
freedom” and thus the right to “prenatal care.” The authors of § 28 specifically chose
- 17 -
“individual” for purposes of this amendment, and this term is commonly defined as “of or
relating to an individual, especially a single human.” See American Heritage Dictionary. A
preborn baby (Jane Roe and others similarly situated) is “a single human.”
63. Science teaches without reservation that human life begins at fertilization
(conception). It is a scientific fact that an organism exists after fertilization that did not exist
before. This new life has its own DNA distinct from the mother and father, meaning that it is a
unique, individual, human life. Indeed, this human life can have a gender (male) that is different
from its mother (female).
64. As the human embryo grows, it develops a heartbeat (22 days after fertilization),
its own circulatory system, and its own organs. From fertilization, it is a new organism that is
alive and will continue to grow and develop as long as nutrition is provided and its life is not
ended through illness or violence (such as abortion).
65. The new life, which is indisputably human as it has human DNA, is viable (can
live outside of its mother’s womb) and can feel pain as early as 24 weeks after gestation. In fact,
the evidence suggests that this human life can feel pain as early as the first trimester. Section 28
redefines viability to ensure the demise of this human life.
66. This new human life has an interest in “life.” And this interest is protected by the
equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment.
67. Below is a true and accurate image of a preborn baby alive in the womb at 12
weeks following fertilization. This image is indisputable proof that this new life is a human life.
And this innocent human life deserves the full protection of the law.
- 18 -
68. For the law to turn a blind eye to the existence of this innocent human life and
thus deny it the legal protection every human life deserves defies irrefutable biological facts,
logic, and commonsense, and it is nothing short of evil.
69. The Fourteenth Amendment bars states from depriving “any person of life”
“without due process of law” or denying “to any person” “the equal protection of the laws.” This
includes preborn human “life.”
70. The Fourteenth Amendment was adopted against a backdrop of established
common-law principles, legal treatises, and statutes recognizing unborn children as persons
possessing fundamental rights.
71. Authoritative treatises—including those deployed specifically to support the Civil
Rights Act of 1866, which the Fourteenth Amendment aimed to sustain and enhance—
prominently acknowledged the unborn as persons with legal rights, including the right to life.
Leading eighteenth-century English cases, later embraced in authoritative American precedents
decades before ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, declared the general principle that
unborn humans are rights-bearing persons from conception. And even before statutory
prohibitions on abortion appeared throughout the nation in the mid-nineteenth century, the
common law firmly regarded abortion as an offense from the moment when a new individual
member of the human species emerged. Once a unique, distinct human being came into
- 19 -
existence (based in large measure on the understanding of science at the time) that life was
protected from abortion.
72. The only counterarguments to the claim that the Fourteenth Amendment includes
all human life, including the preborn, were set forth in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). But
these counterarguments rest on groundless extrapolations and stark historical falsehoods
subsequently exposed in unanswered academic scholarship. Indeed, the Supreme Court in
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, thoroughly dismantled and discredited Roe v.
Wade, noting that “Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally
weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences.” Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health
Org., 142 S. Ct. 2228, 2243 (2022).
73. Section 28 is internally inconsistent. On one hand, § 28 expressly provides the
right to “prenatal” care to “every individual”—that is, to every human being, which includes the
preborn—and on the other hand, § 28 strips this individual of the most fundamental right—the
right to life—by allowing abortion, which is the opposite of “prenatal care.”
74. Accordingly, § 28 creates several untenable dilemmas, forcing medical personnel
and others, including Plaintiffs involved in the medical profession, to choose among opposing
and impossibly inconsistent courses of action. Because § 28 is internally inconsistent, it violates
fundamental principles of due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
75. Among the most fundamental protections of due process is the principle that no
one may be required at peril of life, liberty, or property to speculate as to the meaning of a law.
All are entitled to be informed as to what the law commands or forbids. Section 28 violates this
fundamental principle of due process.
- 20 -
76. The following is a list of some of the Michigan laws that were invalidated or
otherwise repealed, nullified, or revised following the passage of § 28: Mich. Comp. Laws §
750.14 (criminal ban on abortion); Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.15 (abortion, drugs, or medicine;
advertising or sale to procure; misdemeanor); Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.40 (private diseases;
conceptive preventatives; publication of cures); Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.322 (manslaughter;
willful killing of unborn quick child); Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.901, et seq. (The Parental Rights
Restoration Act); Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 333.17015 & 333.17015a (informed consent laws,
including 24 hour waiting period and prohibition on coercive abortions); Mich. Comp. Laws §
333.20115 (clinical licensing); Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 550.541 to 550.551 (abortion insurance
opt-out); Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 333.1071, et seq. (Born Alive Infant Protection Act); Mich.
Comp. Laws § 333.2836 (disposal of fetal remains); Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.1091 (family
planning or reproductive services; allocation of funds); Mich. Comp. Laws § 400.109a (ban on
Medicaid funding of abortion); Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 722.851, et seq. (The Michigan Surrogate
Parenting Act); Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.90h (Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act); Mich. Comp.
Laws § 750.520b (statutory rape law); Mich. Comp. Laws § 388.1766 (public school abortion
policy prohibiting referral of a student for abortion); Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 333.2835 &
333.2837 (abortion reporting and abortion complication reporting); Mich. Comp. Laws §§
333.20181 & 333.20183 (hospital and physician immunity from having to perform abortions);
Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.2202 (Elliot-Larsen law that prevents discrimination of employees for
pregnancy); Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2971 (ban on wrongful birth lawsuits); Mich. Comp. Laws
§ 390.1951, et seq. (establishes “the pregnant and parenting student services fund”); Mich.
Comp. Laws § 206.30(2)(c) (The Stillborn Tax Equity); Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.9141 (grants
for ultrasound equipment, but prohibiting grants for elective abortion use).
- 21 -
77. Recently, Democratic members of the Michigan Legislature passed the
“Reproductive Health Act,” which sought to codify the provisions of § 28 and affirmatively
repeal certain laws, including Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.90h (the ban on partial-birth abortion);
Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.323 (quick child law); Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 550.541-550.551
(abortion insurance opt-out); Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.2835 (abortion reporting); Mich. Comp.
Laws § 333.2836 (disposal of fetal remains); Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.2837 (abortion
complication reporting); Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.17014 (legislative findings for informed
consent); Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.17016 (partial birth abortion ban) (health code); and Mich.
Comp. Laws §§ 333.20115 & 333.22224 (clinic licensing). Should legislation such as the
“Reproductive Health Act” become the law (which Defendant Whitmer said she would sign), the
Michigan Legislature, including Plaintiff Legislators, is powerless to repeal such laws or pass
laws seeking to mitigate the harm caused by such laws as a result of § 28.
78. As noted, by the express language of § 28, which grants broad “reproductive
freedom” to everyone, including minors, the Michigan Legislature is without power to restrict
statutory rape. Under § 28, a minor is capable of consenting to, inter alia, abortion, sexual
intercourse, “gender reassignment,” the use of contraception, and sterilization. Those who aid
and assist the minor can do so with impunity because any efforts by the state to deny, burden, or
infringe the “individual’s autonomous decision-making” in the area of “reproductive freedom”
run afoul of § 28.
79. Section 28 removes all state law protections for (actual or perceived) pregnant
women harmed by exercising their right to reproductive freedom, which § 28 defines as
including, inter alia, “prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care” and “miscarriage management.”
- 22 -
80. Section 28 lessens the standard of care for the reproductive health of a woman
harmed by an abortion (or anyone aiding or assisting with the abortion) for which she gave her
“voluntary consent,” whether or not the consent was informed.
81. Section 28 prevents the state from enacting or enforcing laws that protect women
from the harm of abortion, including laws that require informed consent or waiting periods, laws
that regulate the safety and credentials of abortion clinics, and laws that regulate the licensing
and credentials of abortionists, among others.
82. Science teaches that only women can become pregnant. This is a biological fact.
83. Abortion is a violent act that results in the death of an innocent human life. It is
an intentional and overt act that destroys vulnerable human life.
84. Section 28 permits abortion on demand through all nine months of pregnancy, and
it permits medical neglect leading to the death of a fetus born after an initial failed abortion
attempt as this is the continuation of the “individual’s autonomous decision-making” to exercise
her right to “reproductive freedom” by aborting her baby.
85. Section 28 permits any method for aborting a child as any regulation on abortion,
including the methods used to procure the abortion, is subject to the “individual’s autonomous
decision-making.” In other words, the desire to procure an abortion trumps any regulation of the
abortion and those who provide it.
86. As a result of § 28, the Michigan Legislature, and thus the people of Michigan,
through their duly elected representatives, including Plaintiff Legislators, are unable to regulate
abortion (or sterilization, contraception, and a host of other matters involving “reproductive
freedom”) in any way. Even if the state can present a “compelling interest” for legislation that
regulates abortion for the health and safety of the mother or for the protection of viable and
- 23 -
innocent human life or for any other legitimate interest, this interest is trumped by the
“autonomous decision” to have an abortion or the exercise of any of the other broadly construed
“reproductive freedoms.” Never has such a super-right been created under a state constitution—
a right that removes the legislative branch from the process of governing and thus deprives
Plaintiffs of their fundamental rights, including the right to a republican form of government.
87. The U.S. Supreme Court has identified legitimate state interests for regulating
abortion (and thus legislating in this area of the law), including, among others, “respect for and
preservation of prenatal life at all stages of development . . .; the protection of maternal health
and safety; the elimination of particularly gruesome or barbaric medical procedures; the
preservation of the integrity of the medical profession; the mitigation of fetal pain; and the
prevention of discrimination on the basis of race, sex, or disability.” Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s
Health Org., 142 S. Ct. 2228, 2284 (2022) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Section
28 does not permit the Michigan Legislature to advance any of these legitimate interests
(including those interests deemed compelling) for regulating abortion as any such interests are
subordinate to the newly-created, super-right to “reproductive freedom” and the “autonomous
decision-making” of individuals to exercise that right.
88. Section 28 prohibits the state from punishing or holding liable anyone who harms
a woman through abortion so long as there was voluntary consent at some point. Thus, a woman
who is substantially harmed by a person performing the abortion—whether the person is
qualified or not or uses safe procedures or not—has no state protection under the law to prevent
or remedy any harm to her if she provided voluntary consent to the procedure because § 28
effectively immunizes any person performing an abortion from such liability under the
circumstances. Likewise, a baby born alive during an attempted abortion, and then left to die by
- 24 -
the aborting individual, has no state protection under the law to prevent or remedy any harm.
Section 28(3) expressly prohibits the state from “penalize[ing], prosecut[ing], or otherwise
take[ing] adverse action against someone for aiding or assisting a pregnant individual in
exercising their right to reproductive freedom with their voluntary consent.” No exceptions
exist. Consequently, women who are or could become pregnant and babies, preborn and born
following a failed abortion, are deprived of the equal protection of the law by § 28.
89. Section 28 withdraws from women specific legal protections for the injuries
caused by abortion or other “reproductive” matters.
90. Section 28 is so broad that a woman whose “reproductive freedom” involves
having a child is denied the equal protection of the law if she or her baby is harmed by anyone
“aiding or assisting” with the pregnancy.
91. Pursuant to § 28, a woman could “voluntarily consent” to a coat-hanger abortion
and would have no state protection or remedy for the harm caused by the person performing the
abortion. The same woman could “voluntarily consent” to having a non-physician “aid or assist”
(i.e., perform) the abortion (e.g., having a boyfriend perform a coat-hanger abortion on a kitchen
table), and the woman would have no state protection or remedy under the law should she be
harmed in the process.
92. Section 28 permits women to seek abortions from non-physicians as the state is
without power to restrict the performance of abortions to licensed medical professionals as the
women’s “autonomous decision-making” trumps all attempts to regulate abortion.
93. Pursuant to § 28, anyone can assist a pregnant woman with an abortion with her
“voluntary consent.” The state is unable to deny, burden, or infringe upon that right if the state’s
reasons for creating any law restricting abortion infringe upon an individual’s autonomous
- 25 -
decision-making. This essentially legalizes coat-hanger and back-alley abortions by non-
qualified individuals.
94. In addition, since the state cannot prosecute, penalize, or otherwise take adverse
action against another for assisting a pregnant individual with an abortion, the state cannot enact
legislation to protect women by ensuring that they in fact gave their “voluntary consent.” Quite
literally, a pimp or sex trafficker or abusive boyfriend/husband could “aid” or “assist” the
woman with her abortion, and the person could do so with impunity.
95. Section 28 also harms women by changing the standard of care for “matters
relating to pregnancy” from “informed consent” to simply “voluntary consent.”
96. “Gosnell-like” abortion clinics are possible because the state no longer has the
ability to inspect and license a clinic to advance a “compelling” interest as this authority is
eliminated by § 28.
97. Like the effects caused by the legalization of marijuana, § 28 will result in
abortion shops springing up across the state as abortion—which is a profit-driven business—is
now unregulated.
98. On October 23, 2023, Defendant Nessel, along with other pro-abortion attorneys
general, signed an open letter falsely accusing pro-life pregnancy centers of spreading
“misinformation and harm.” In this letter, Defendant Nessel and her fellow pro-abortion
attorneys general express concern about the rise of “anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers
(CPCs)” that they falsely claim are “misleading consumers and delaying access to critical, time-
sensitive reproductive healthcare.” In this letter, Defendant Nessel and her pro-abortion
companions state that they “oppose efforts by CPCs to mislead consumers and delay or impede
access to the full spectrum of reproductive healthcare, including abortion,” and that they will
- 26 -
take “numerous actions aiming to mitigate the harmful effects of CPC misinformation and
delays.” Section 28 empowers Defendant Nessel to take her threatened action, including
regulatory action, to harm crisis pregnancy centers, including Crossroads, and to force them to
accept abortion as a legitimate form of “healthcare.” Defendant Nessel opposes the fact that
these pro-life centers convince women to protect their unborn children from abortion, and they
provide much needed services to inform women of the harm caused by abortion to them and their
unborn children. Through these false claims and threatened action against crisis pregnancy
centers, Defendant Nessel and others are doing the bidding of the abortion industry, which
provides major donations to their political campaigns, because these pro-life centers undermine
the profits of the abortion industry through the centers’ pro-life efforts.
99. Section 28 permits minors to make independent medical decisions and obtain
medical treatment involving “reproduction,” which includes abortion, contraception, “gender
reassignment” medication/procedures, sterilization (which includes “gender reassignment”), and
other harmful medical decisions, without the need for parental consent.
100. School officials or medical professionals could aid or assist a minor with
procuring an abortion, obtaining contraception, obtaining “gender reassignment” medication or
procedures, and becoming sterilized without parental consent. These officials/professionals
could do so with impunity because of § 28.
101. Section 28 incentivizes individuals who support abortion, sterilization practices,
and “gender reassignment” medication and procedures, among others, to force physicians and
other medical professionals, such as Plaintiff medical professionals, to provide such
objectionable services under threat of complaints to the Michigan Department of Civil Rights
- 27 -
(MDCR) and the Michigan Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA), which could result in the
loss of licensure and other harms for the objecting professionals.
102. Similarly, § 28 provides a basis for MDCR and LARA to revoke the licenses of
medical professionals and/or to punish these professionals, such as Plaintiff medical
professionals, for objecting to providing abortion, sterilization, or “gender reassignment”
medication or procedures, among other procedures involving “reproductive freedom.”
103. Section 28 is being used by Defendant Whitmer to advance her pro-abortion
policies, which include, inter alia, the repeal of longstanding health regulations and safety
standards for abortion clinics and the repeal of laws that require licensing and inspection.
104. Accordingly, § 28 is being used to remove common-sense provisions meant to
protect women, including minors, who are seeking or undergoing an abortion, as well as basic
parental rights. This blatant affront to women’s health and safety has the primary goal of
expanding the abortion industry’s bottom line. Efforts to stop these harmful policies through
legislation run headlong into the super-right to “reproductive freedom” created by § 28.
105. In a pure democracy, laws are made by the voting majority leaving the rights of
the minority largely unprotected.
106. In a republican form of government, laws are made by representatives chosen by
the people, and these laws must comply with a constitution that specifically protects the rights of
the minority from the will of the majority.
107. Pursuant to Article XII, § 2 of the Michigan Constitution, “Amendments may be
proposed to this constitution by petition of the registered electors of this state.” Accordingly,
these amendments are permitted by a simple majority vote.
- 28 -
108. Pursuant to Article XII, § 2, a simple majority could approve amending the
Michigan Constitution to eliminate the Legislative Branch.
109. In discussing the Guarantee Clause, James Madison emphasized the federal
government’s obligation to ensure that states maintain a republican form of government: “In a
confederacy founded on republican principles, and composed of republican members, the
superintending government ought clearly to possess authority to defend the system against
aristocratic or monarchial innovations. . . . But a right implies a remedy; and where else could
the remedy be deposited, than where it is deposited by the Constitution?” The Federalist No. 43
(James Madison) (emphasis added).
110. The United States Constitution guarantees a republican form of government
because our Founding Fathers knew well that a pure democracy where a simple majority rules
inevitably leads to a tyranny of the majority.
111. While the Guarantee Clause does not generally provide the basis for a justiciable
claim, Professor Erwin Chemerinsky observed that
the time is clearly approaching in which the [Supreme] Court may be quite
willing to reject the view that cases under the Guarantee Clause should always be
dismissed on political questions grounds. . . . [T]he Guarantee Clause should be
regarded as a protector of basic individual rights and should not be treated as
being solely about the structure of government. Accordingly, judicial
interpretation and enforcement is in accord with the preeminent federal judicial
mission of protecting individual rights and liberties.
Erwin Chemerinsky, Cases under the Guarantee Clause Should Be Justiciable, 65 U. Colo. L.
Rev. 849, 851 (1994). In other words, a threat to individual liberty exists when the checks and
balances of a republican form of government are thwarted by a process that lacks such
protections or when the process creates for itself immunity from such protections, as is the case
with Proposal 3 and thus § 28.
- 29 -
112. A challenge to a provision passed pursuant to the process of amending the
Michigan Constitution that nullifies the legitimate authority of a coordinate branch of
government, such as the removal of the legislative branch altogether or, in the case of Proposal 3
(§ 28), prohibiting it from regulating or governing in a broad area of the law (“reproduction”)
that has historically been within its legitimate domain is justiciable under the Guarantee Clause.
When a state adopts one non-republican feature, this feature alone may be invalid under the
Guarantee Clause, as in this case.
113. Proposal 3, which creates an unprecedented, super-right to “reproductive
freedom” that remains immune from legislative action, deprives private citizens, including
Plaintiffs, of a republican form of government guaranteed by the United States Constitution.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Fourteenth Amendment—Equal Protection)
114. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate all stated paragraphs.
115. By reason of Article I, § 28 of the Michigan Constitution, which was created,
adopted, and enforced under the color of state law and authority, Defendants have deprived
Plaintiffs, specifically including women, and in particular pregnant women; preborn human
beings, including Jane Roe and similarly situated individuals; preborn human beings with
disabilities; partially born human beings; and human beings born following a failed abortion of
the equal protection of the law guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
116. Article I, § 28 deprives women of the equal protection of the law by denying them
specific legal protections from harm and injuries caused by abortion and other “reproductive”
matters.
- 30 -
117. Article I, § 28 deprives preborn human beings, including Jane Roe and similarly
situated individuals, preborn human beings with disabilities, and partially born human beings of
the right to life and liberty and thus deprives them of the equal protection of the law.
118. Proportionally, abortion harms preborn human beings with disabilities at a far
greater rate than those without disabilities. Accordingly, Article I, § 28 discriminates against
individuals with disabilities in violation of the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth
Amendment.
119. Article I, § 28 changes the standard of reproductive medical care from “informed
consent” to simply “voluntary consent” without any rational basis for doing so in violation of the
equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment. Moreover, this change specifically
harms women without any legitimate state interest, in violation of the equal protection guarantee
of the Fourteenth Amendment.
120. Article I, § 28 deprives a human baby born alive following a failed abortion the
equal protection of the law by denying him or her the specific legal protections from harm and
injuries (caused by abortion and other “reproductive” matters) available to similarly situated
human babies born alive, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
121. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ violation of the equal protection
guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment, Plaintiffs have suffered irreparable harm, including the
loss of their constitutional rights, entitling Plaintiffs to declaratory and injunctive relief.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Fourteenth Amendment—Parental Rights)
- 31 -
123. Article I, § 28 of the Michigan Constitution, which was created, adopted, and
enforced under the color of state law and authority, interferes with the liberty interests of parents
and guardians, specifically including Plaintiff Parents, to direct the upbringing and education of
their children in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
124. Article I, § 28 permits individuals, including public school officials, medical
professionals, and others, to aid or assist a minor child with procuring an abortion, obtaining
contraception, obtaining “gender reassignment” medication or procedures, and becoming
sterilized without parental knowledge or consent and with impunity in violation of Plaintiffs’
parental rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
125. Article I, § 28 permits adults to engage in sexual acts with minors so long as the
minor consents, thereby undermining the right of parents to direct the upbringing of their
children in violation of Plaintiffs’ parental rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
126. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ violation of Plaintiffs’ parental
rights, Plaintiffs have suffered undue hardship and irreparable harm, including the loss of their
fundamental constitutional rights, entitling them to declaratory and injunctive relief.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(First Amendment—Free Exercise)
Plaintiffs of their rights of conscience and to the free exercise of religion protected by the First
Amendment as applied to the states and their political subdivisions under the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- 32 -
129. Article I, § 28 nullifies all statutory protection provided to physicians and other
medical professionals, including those who work for and with Crossroads, who object to
abortion, contraception, “gender reassignment” medication/procedures, sterilization, puberty
blockers, and other harmful medical procedures related to “reproduction” on moral and religious
grounds in violation of their sincerely held religious beliefs.
130. Accordingly, Article I, § 28 mandates Plaintiffs involved in the healthcare
industry to support, endorse, and/or provide abortion, contraception, “gender reassignment”
medication/procedures, sterilization, puberty blockers, and other harmful medical procedures in
violation of their sincerely held religious beliefs.
131. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ violation of the rights of
conscience and to the free exercise of religion protected by the First Amendment, Plaintiffs have
suffered irreparable harm, including the loss of their fundamental constitutional rights, entitling
them to declaratory and injunctive relief.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Fourteenth Amendment—Due Process)
Plaintiffs, including medical professionals; women, and in particular pregnant women; preborn
human beings, including Jane Roe and similarly situated individuals; preborn human beings with
disabilities; partially born human beings; and human beings born following a failed abortion of
their right to due process protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- 33 -
134. Article I, § 28 creates several untenable dilemmas, forcing medical personnel and
others, including Plaintiffs, to choose among opposing and impossibly inconsistent courses of
action. Because § 28 is internally inconsistent, it violates the right to due process protected by
the Fourteenth Amendment.
135. Under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, no one may be
required at peril of life, liberty or property to speculate as to the meaning of a law. All are
entitled to be informed as to what the law commands or forbids. Article I, § 28 violates this
fundamental principle of due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
136. Under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, no one may be
deprived of “life” or “liberty” without due process of law. Article I, § 28 deprives preborn
human beings, including Jane Roe and similarly situated individuals, preborn human beings with
disabilities, partially born human beings, and human beings born following a failed abortion of
the right to life and liberty without due process of law.
137. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ violation of the right to due
process protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, Plaintiffs have suffered irreparable harm,
including the loss of their fundamental constitutional rights, entitling them to declaratory and
injunctive relief.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Guarantee Clause—Article IV, Section 4)
139. By reason of the aforementioned ballot initiative process (Proposal 3) and the
outcome of this process (Article I, § 28 of the Michigan Constitution), Defendants have deprived
- 34 -
Plaintiffs, specifically including Plaintiff Legislators, of their rights secured by Article IV,
Section 4 of the United States Constitution (“Guarantee Clause”) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
140. The Guarantee Clause is a protector of basic individual rights. It protects the
citizens of a state, such as Plaintiffs, from the tyranny of the majority.
141. Article I, § 28, which was passed pursuant to the process of amending the
Michigan Constitution, nullifies the legitimate authority of a coordinate branch of government,
the Legislative Branch, by prohibiting it from regulating or governing in a broad area of the law
(“reproduction”) that has historically been within its legitimate domain in violation of the
Guarantee Clause of the United States Constitution.
142. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ violation of the Guarantee Clause,
Plaintiffs have suffered irreparable harm, including the loss of their fundamental constitutional
rights, entitling them to declaratory and injunctive relief.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs ask this Court:
A) to declare that Article I, § 28 of the Michigan Constitution violates the First and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution as set forth in this Complaint;
B) to declare that the passage of Proposal 3 and thus Article I, § 28 of the Michigan
Constitution violates the Guarantee Clause of the United States Constitution;
C) to permanently enjoin Article I, § 28 of the Michigan Constitution;
D) to award Plaintiffs their reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and other applicable law;
E) to grant such other and further relief as this Court should find just and proper.
- 35 -
Respectfully submitted,
AMERICAN FREEDOM LAW CENTER
/s/ Robert J. Muise

Robert J. Muise, Esq. (P62849)
PO Box 131098
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48113
Tel: (734) 635-3756; Fax: (801) 760-3901
rmuise@americanfreedomlawcenter.org
/s/ David Yerushalmi

David Yerushalmi, Esq.* (Ariz. Bar No. 009616;
DC Bar No. 978179; Cal. Bar No. 132011;
NY Bar No. 4632568)
1901 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 201
Washington, D.C. 20006
Tel: (646) 262-0500; Fax: (801) 760-3901
dyerushalmi@americanfreedomlawcenter.org
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
GREAT LAKES JUSTICE CENTER
/s/ William Wagner

William Wagner, Esq. (P79021)
5600 W. Mount Hope Highway
Suite 2
Lansing, Michigan 48917
Tel: (517) 993-9123
prof.wwjd@gmail.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
THOMAS MORE LAW CENTER
/s/ Erin Mersino

Erin Mersino, Esq. (P70886)
24 Frank Lloyd Wright Dr.
Suite J3200
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106
Tel: (734) 827-2001
emersino@thomasmore.org
Attorneys for Celina Asberg and Jane Roe
- 36 -

Right To Life Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Right To Life Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Right To Life Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:23-cv-01189 ECF No. 1, PageID.

1 Filed 11/08/23 Page 1 of 36

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

RIGHT TO LIFE OF MICHIGAN;

GRETCHEN WHITMER, in her official

Plaintiffs Right to Life of Michigan, American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and

Gynecologists, Representative Gina Johnsen, Representative Luke Meerman, Senator Joseph

support thereof allege the following upon information and belief:

1. This case seeks to protect and vindicate fundamental constitutional rights. It is a

abridged by government, including state governments, whether through legislation, ballot

initiatives, or other official acts.

Government” (Guarantee Clause).

was passed by a simple majority of the Michigan electorate on November 8, 2022.

5. The passage of Proposal 3 resulted in an amendment to the Michigan Constitution

(Article I, § 28), which created a super-right to “reproductive freedom.” At no time in our

6. Proposal 3 added Article I, § 28 to the Michigan Constitution, which, inter alia,

decisions regarding abortion, contraception, “gender reassignment” medication/procedures,

puberty blocking medications, sterilization (which includes “gender reassignment”), sexual

any objections to endorsing, providing, or supporting procedures involving “reproduction,” such

as abortion, contraception, “gender reassignment,” puberty blocking, and sterilization, on

nullifying the legitimate authority of a co-equal branch of government.

7. Federal courts have recognized the propriety of a federal constitutional challenge

to a statewide referendum passed by voters resulting in an amendment to a state constitution. In

8. Plaintiffs seek a declaration that the creation, adoption, implementation, and

enforcement of Proposal 3, specifically including Article I, § 28 of the Michigan Constitution,

injunction enjoining the implementation and enforcement of Article I, § 28 of the Michigan

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343.

general legal and equitable powers of this Court.

13. Plaintiff Right to Life of Michigan is a nonpartisan, nonsectarian, nonprofit

and supports legislation that protects the gift of human life.

14. Right to Life of Michigan works on behalf of defenseless or vulnerable human

16. Article I, § 28 (also referred to herein as “§ 28” or “Section 28”) undermines

decades of work and accomplishments of Right to Life of Michigan—work to ensure that

undermining the efforts of Right to Life of Michigan.

17. Plaintiff American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists

(AAPLOG) is a nonprofit organization comprised of board certified, professional medical

18. AAPLOG’s mission is to encourage and equip medical practitioners to provide an

child. AAPLOG and its members oppose abortion.

provide a realistic appreciation of abortion-related health risks.

or potential patients in challenges to abortion-related regulations.” June Med. Servs. L.L.C. v.

23. Plaintiff Gina Johnsen is a member of the Michigan House of Representatives.

from doing so.

24. Plaintiff Melissa Halvorson, M.D., is a pro-life physician and member of

reassignment,” puberty blocking, and sterilization on religious grounds and as a matter of

regulatory harms due to § 28.

25. Plaintiff Halvorson opposes § 28 because it forces her to accept abortion as

thus causes unnecessary harm to her potential patients.

27. Plaintiff Crossroads Care Center (Crossroads) is a pro-life, faith-based, non-profit

of AAPLOG, and it is located in Michigan.

28. Crossroads offers a variety of medical services including pregnancy testing,

are under the direction of a board-certified OBGYN.

Crossroads is trying to help and protect from such harm.

care contrary to their professional judgment, moral values, and consciences.

receive services from Crossroads.

objectionable services in violation of their sincerely held religious beliefs.

regulatory harms due to § 28.

35. Plaintiff Christian Medical and Dental Associations (CMDA) is a nonprofit

organization comprised of healthcare students as well as board-eligible and board-certified