TL;DR: My interpretation is based more on 'the law of unintended consequences', than an absolute defect in the proposed amendment.
I got the lead from an article quoting Stacey Abrams-- saying that abortions are the solution to the high price of gas & food: "“Having children is why you’re worried about your price for gas. It’s why you’re concerned about how much food costs."https://twitter.com/DanODonnellShow/sta ... 3420120066
The article was by Patty McMurray at Gateway Pundit (admittedly a VERY slanted source.) The relevant bit said:
I thought "essentially" might-be a weasel word, doing too-much work."In Michigan, Proposal 2 would actually change the state’s constitution and allow women to abort their babies up until the moment of birth. It would also essentially give anyone the right to abort a baby and allow children to abort their babies without the consent of their parent or parents."
So I checked Ballotopedia: https://ballotpedia.org/Michigan_Propos ... ive_(2022)
The text of Prop 2 says it would invalidate all existing state laws which contradict the amendment. It would expand the cause for 'post-viability' abortion-- from 'physical health' of the mother to include 'mental health'. And it would ban prosecution for abortion-- for a somewhat open-ended list of people: "prohibit prosecution of an individual, or a person helping a pregnant individual, for exercising rights established by this amendment"
The ONLY thing I'm contending-- is that this wording is written in a vague-enough way... that it creates ambiguity over Who may decide to conduct an abortion. I'm not saying the amendment would for-sure be interpreted in the worst way possible.
For reference... the "mental health" clause brought to my mind a specific case:
A mentally ill career-criminal in a mental health program-- had sex with a retarded woman in the same program, who consented (to whatever extent she was capable of consenting.)
The retarded woman's parents and caretaker-sibling advised her to get an abortion. Her doctors were concerned that she was incapable of understanding the situation, raising a child, or getting-thru pregnancy without physical harm to herself.
But the retard insisted "He [the criminal] loves me. I want a baby."
Despite professing his love & desire for her; & intention to marry & take-care of her... the criminal's actual immediate concern was to avoid being charged with rape. He insisted that everyone was racist-- because he was black & the baby would be bi-racial. Despite the protestations of her medical experts and her legal custodians-- the retard insisted on having the baby.
The criminal fled-- and no one was eager to bring-him-back into the child's life. The retard kept the baby daughter & tried to raise her until at-least age 5 (maybe 7?)... when The State determined the child had severe emotional and developmental problems from being raised in an unsuitable environment. The child was taken-away & placed in foster care.
Personally-- I am not of one-mind about this case. Is it better to err on this side of her-body-her-[impaired]-choice? Or to prevent a tragedy by allowing her family & medical staff to over-ride her autonomy?
But I do know for-sure that this is not an isolated case... I recall a famous case of a black woman who was ordered by the court to be sterilized-- declared incompetent-- because she kept having an enormous number of kids... which she demonstrably couldn't care-for. And that case is widely seen as a legal abomination today.
For me-- the big red flag is that this is Michigan we're talking-about-- the Whitmer state-- the Covid lockdown dystopia. It's also the land of some hideous court decisions about child support (men forced to pay for children which weren't theirs.) That state is not to be trusted in these matters.