LANSING, Mich. — In November, over half of Michiganders voted to validate a woman’s right to reproductive care, enshrining Proposal 3 in the state constitution with nearly 57% of the vote. In April, Governor Whitmer officially quashed Michigan’s abortion ban, which had been on the books since 1931.
However, just last week, some GOP lawmakers signaled they haven’t lost hope.
“For me, the fact that abortion is going on is, is kind of one of the most painful things I deal with everyday,” says state representative Luke Meerman, a Republican lawmaker from Coopersville.
He acknowledged that challenging abortion is an uphill battle for Michigan Republicans, who are now in the legislative minority. “You know, most would say, well, there’s no chance of it happening.”
But he, and his fellow Republicans, are not afraid to push forward. On May 26, Charlevoix state representative Neil Friske introduced new bills, including one amending the Michigan constitution to remove Proposal 3, which legalized abortion.
Another of Friske’s proposed bills reinstates the 1931 abortion ban, though with a new exception: allowing an abortion to protect the life of the mother.
Additionally, the sale of prescription abortion pills and advertisement of abortion services would be banned in Michigan, and criminal sentencing guidelines would be established for violators.
Rep. Friske also calls for a simple resolution “declaring the evidence for life prior to birth and the condemnation of deliberate abortion as murderous.”
"While unlikely to pass, this package should serve as a guideline for Republican pro-life legislators. This pro-life model should be the official Republican platform for life,” said Friske in a statement, in part.
FOX 17 asked for a comment from Democratic Speaker of the House, Rep. Joseph Tate of Detroit. His spokesperson provided this statement:
“Michigan voters enshrined access to reproductive healthcare in that constitution. These bills fly in the face of the will of the people and make clear that Republicans are focused more on their own agenda than on representing the interests of their constituents.”
The bills will be reviewed at a later date by the House Government Operations Committee.
RELATED: Constitutional Law professor explains impact of Proposal 3
