CANNON TOWNSHIP, Mich. — Cannon Township trustees passed a resolution on Monday that expresses “official disagreement” with parts of Proposal 3.
The vote, which took place at a regular board meeting, passed unanimously.
On Election Day, voters in Michigan approved a constitutional amendment which enshrines a person’s right to reproductive services, including abortion.
Steve Grimm, the supervisor for Cannon Township, says while the township is dedicated to and required to follow the law, trustees want to “call attention” to a section of the amendment, which they say puts the health, safety, and welfare of children in the area at risk.
According to a copy of the resolution, Proposal 3 makes it “virtually impossible” to enforce or enact laws that prohibit certain sexual activity, including pedophilia, as long as a kid says they consented to it.
The resolution cites a statement issued by 11 county prosecutors across the state, including Kent County Prosecutor Chris Becker, expressing similar concerns prior to the election.
Grimm says trustees hope other municipalities follow suit, bringing clarity to what they see as the broad language of the proposal.
“Our goal is to not only voice support for law enforcement, but it’s also to get the information out there beyond Cannon Township, so that all other communities, if they want to follow this lead, can get the information out that this is a very serious potential confusion in this law that it seems to me needs to be addressed sooner rather than later,” said Grimm.
In the lead-up to the election, anti-abortion groups claimed Proposal 3 would invalidate numerous laws if passed.
Proponents of the constitutional amendment disputed those claims, arguing it would only invalidate an abortion ban passed in 1931.
John Clark, a professor of political science at Western Michigan University, says Proposal 3’s ultimate impact on state laws will need to be determined by the court or state lawmakers.
He notes if the township’s resolution passes, it’s purely a symbolic move and does not change the constitutional amendment.
“Proposal three does allow for some some clarifying language,” said Clark. “In fact, there are certain parts of it that were purposefully written to give the legislature the opportunity to just sort of tinker with the margins, while at the same time protecting the fundamental right of a women's reproductive health. So, there's going to be further conversation and it's entirely possible that resolutions like this would be part of that. But again, in terms of real impact, this is [the resolution] not something that that I would pay a lot of attention to.”
RELATED: Prop 3 passes; now what? A Constitutional Law professor explains
