(LifeSiteNews) — A U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals panel has dismissed Right to Life of Michigan’s (RLM’s) lawsuit challenging the state’s radical pro-abortion amendment to the Michigan Constitution, dismissing arguments that it imperils parental rights.

Proposal 3, Michigan’s so-called Right to Reproductive Freedom Initiative, established a state-level constitutional “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.” Over 56 percent of Michiganders voted to approve it in November 2022.

The practical fallout extended beyond direct abortion bans; in May 2025, State Court of Claims Judge Sima Patel ruled that Proposal 3 also invalidated state laws requiring informed consent and 24-hour waiting periods for abortion, as well as that only licensed physicians perform them.

The following October, RLM along with “concerned parents” filed an appeal to “challenge the overreach of Proposal 3 on the grounds that the state constitutional amendment threatens parental rights related to a minor child’s decision to seek an abortion,” arguing parental rights are covered by the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which trumps state constitutional provisions.

Writing for the majority on May 27, however, Circuit Judge John Bush agreed with a lower-court ruling that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue, in part because they could not show specific injuries that would be redressed by enjoining the named defendants – Democrat Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, Attorney General Dana Nessel, and Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson.

“From the start, this lawsuit was a procedurally flawed, meritless, and politically motivated attack on reproductive rights that Michigan voters overwhelmingly supported,” responded Nessel. “I am relieved that the Court has once again rightly rejected this unfounded challenge. Although a loud faction remains determined to undermine bodily autonomy, the Michigan Constitution guarantees that decisions about your health belong to you. My office will continue to defend the reproductive freedom of Michiganders.”

RLM President Amber Roseboom responded to the news by lamenting the ruling, but noting how little it said about the law itself.

“While the decision from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals is disappointing, it is based entirely on what is known as ‘standing,’ without addressing the merits or specifics of the actual challenge,” she said. “Our narrow appeal sought to challenge the overreach of Proposal 3 and the threat it poses to parental rights related to a minor child’s decision to seek an abortion. Parental consent for abortion remains in Michigan law and is supported by the large majority of Michigan voters. The radical left is hell-bent on creating a wedge between parents and their children when it comes to abortion, gender identity and sex education, and will use anything, including Proposal 3, to do so.”

Thirteen states ban most abortions starting at conception; another five ban it once a fetal heartbeat can be detected (around six weeks), with additional states imposing a range of later restrictions. 

But the abortion lobby works feverishly to preserve abortion “access” via deregulated interstate distribution of abortion pills, legal protection and financial support of interstate abortion travel, constructing new abortion facilities near borders shared by pro-life and pro-abortion states, making liberal states sanctuaries for those who want to evade or violate the laws of more pro-life neighbors, and enshrining abortion “rights” in state constitutions, whether via activist lawsuits or state constitutional amendments.

Amendments have been one of the abortion lobby’s most potent tactics to preserve abortion “access” without Roe v. Wade. Up until 2024, it had consistent success since the overturn of Roe using false claims that pro-life laws are dangerous to stoke fear about the issue among the general public. 

After 2020, pro-lifers either failed to enact pro-life amendments or stop pro-abortion ones in California, Kentucky, Michigan, Vermont, Kansas, and Ohio, prompting much conversation among pro-lifers about the need to develop new strategies to protect life at the ballot box as well as consternation within the Republican Party over the political ramifications of continuing to take a clear pro-life position.

Ten states had such amendments on the ballot in November 2024. Pro-lifers defeated pro-abortion ballot initiatives in Florida, Nebraska, and South Dakota, breaking the abortion lobby’s two-year winning streak, but amendments to embed abortion “rights” in state constitutions prevailed in the remaining states.

(LifeSiteNews) — A U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals panel has dismissed Right to Life of Michigan’s (RLM’s) lawsuit challenging the state’s radical pro-abortion amendment to the Michigan Constitution, dismissing arguments that it imperils parental rights.

Proposal 3, Michigan’s so-called Right to Reproductive Freedom Initiative, established a state-level constitutional “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.” Over 56 percent of Michiganders voted to approve it in November 2022.

The practical fallout extended beyond direct abortion bans; in May 2025, State Court of Claims Judge Sima Patel ruled that Proposal 3 also invalidated state laws requiring informed consent and 24-hour waiting periods for abortion, as well as that only licensed physicians perform them.

The following October, RLM along with “concerned parents” filed an appeal to “challenge the overreach of Proposal 3 on the grounds that the state constitutional amendment threatens parental rights related to a minor child’s decision to seek an abortion,” arguing parental rights are covered by the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which trumps state constitutional provisions.

Writing for the majority on May 27, however, Circuit Judge John Bush agreed with a lower-court ruling that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue, in part because they could not show specific injuries that would be redressed by enjoining the named defendants – Democrat Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, Attorney General Dana Nessel, and Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson.

“From the start, this lawsuit was a procedurally flawed, meritless, and politically motivated attack on reproductive rights that Michigan voters overwhelmingly supported,” responded Nessel. “I am relieved that the Court has once again rightly rejected this unfounded challenge. Although a loud faction remains determined to undermine bodily autonomy, the Michigan Constitution guarantees that decisions about your health belong to you. My office will continue to defend the reproductive freedom of Michiganders.”

RLM President Amber Roseboom responded to the news by lamenting the ruling, but noting how little it said about the law itself.

“While the decision from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals is disappointing, it is based entirely on what is known as ‘standing,’ without addressing the merits or specifics of the actual challenge,” she said. “Our narrow appeal sought to challenge the overreach of Proposal 3 and the threat it poses to parental rights related to a minor child’s decision to seek an abortion. Parental consent for abortion remains in Michigan law and is supported by the large majority of Michigan voters. The radical left is hell-bent on creating a wedge between parents and their children when it comes to abortion, gender identity and sex education, and will use anything, including Proposal 3, to do so.”

Thirteen states ban most abortions starting at conception; another five ban it once a fetal heartbeat can be detected (around six weeks), with additional states imposing a range of later restrictions. 

But the abortion lobby works feverishly to preserve abortion “access” via deregulated interstate distribution of abortion pills, legal protection and financial support of interstate abortion travel, constructing new abortion facilities near borders shared by pro-life and pro-abortion states, making liberal states sanctuaries for those who want to evade or violate the laws of more pro-life neighbors, and enshrining abortion “rights” in state constitutions, whether via activist lawsuits or state constitutional amendments.

Amendments have been one of the abortion lobby’s most potent tactics to preserve abortion “access” without Roe v. Wade. Up until 2024, it had consistent success since the overturn of Roe using false claims that pro-life laws are dangerous to stoke fear about the issue among the general public. 

After 2020, pro-lifers either failed to enact pro-life amendments or stop pro-abortion ones in California, Kentucky, Michigan, Vermont, Kansas, and Ohio, prompting much conversation among pro-lifers about the need to develop new strategies to protect life at the ballot box as well as consternation within the Republican Party over the political ramifications of continuing to take a clear pro-life position.

Ten states had such amendments on the ballot in November 2024. Pro-lifers defeated pro-abortion ballot initiatives in Florida, Nebraska, and South Dakota, breaking the abortion lobby’s two-year winning streak, but amendments to embed abortion “rights” in state constitutions prevailed in the remaining states.