Abortion Ballot Measures Open Floodgates to Transgender Agenda, Critics Say

Two states have voted for the transgender agenda, but it is not clear if voters are aware. Two state constitutional amendments propose a “right to transgender medical intervention that would compromise parental rights and leave children vulnerable to “treatments” which would leave them scarred and stunted and infertile, critics claim.

Michigan’s Proposal 3 would create a “fundamental rights to reproductive freedom” in its state constitution. This proposal’s text states that it “entails the ability to make and effectuate decisions regarding all matters relating to pregnancy” (emphasis on added).

The Planned Parenthood section of the state has refuted the claim that the Michigan Constitution amendment would have any effect on “gender-affirming minor care.”

Vermont’s Proposal 5 would add a new Article 22, Article 22 to its Vermont Constitution. It states that “an individual’s right of personal reproductive autonomy is central for the liberty and dignity it affords to determine one’s life course and shall never be denied or infringed except when justified by a compelling state interest achieved using the least restrictive means.”

Neither measure says that the reproductive “right” in question applies only to those over 18 years old, nor does it apply to women or abortion. Critics claim that sterilization was included in the Michigan list deliberately. They also argue that both constitutional amendments would allow courts to declare controversial transgender medical interventions a fundamental right for minors, exclusioning their parents.

Michigan

Michigan’s Proposal3 specifically mentions sterilization and states that “everyone has a fundamental rights to reproductive freedom.” While supporters have praised the measure’s ability to eliminate laws that require parental notification of minors’ abortion decisions, opponents claim that it would also remove parental rights. The Daily Signal was told by one of the organizations that the measure would not have any impact on transgender issues.

The ACLU of Michigan and Planned Parenthood Advocates of Michigan support the amendment. They explicitly state online and in a “Frequently Asked Question” document that the constitutional amend would “repeal parental notifications of abortion for minors.”

“Proposal 3″ is a constitutional amendment that would abolish Michigan’s parental consent laws. It would allow children to have abortions or undergo gender hormone treatment without parental consent or knowledge,” Christen pollo, a spokeswoman of Citizens to Support MI Women & Children, told The Daily Signal . She also referred to Planned Parenthood and the ACLU documents.

“A constitutional right for’sterilization” presumably includes a right of sterilization to align one’s sex with gender identity,” John Bursch (Vice President of appellate advocacy, senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, and a former solicitor general in Michigan) wrote in the Detroit Free Press. It’s not clear whether Michiganders support cross-sex sterilization. It is certain that a majority of Michiganders would not support a 12-year old girl’s right for sterilization without her parents’ consent and notice.

Pollo stated to The Daily Signal that regardless of your views on gender reassignment the idea that children could undergo gender change surgery or hormones without parental consent is extreme. “But that is precisely what Proposal 3 would allow. It should come as no surprise that Planned Parenthood supports this: they are the second-largest provider for gender hormone therapy and have run ads targeting children who are puberty blocked.

She added that Proposal 3 will not only be where they are heading, but it will also be a constitutional right.

However, a spokesperson for Planned Parenthood Advocates of Michigan refuted these arguments.

The spokesperson for The Daily Signal stated that Proposal 3 would affirm the fundamental rights to make and execute decisions without interference from the political system in matters relating to the pregnancy. This includes decisions regarding childbirth, abortion, birth control, and prenatal care. Proposal 3 would not have any impact on gender-affirming treatment for minors.

The spokesperson said that it was telling that Proposal 3 opponents want to make the ballot campaign about something other than the original purpose of the proposal. They know that Michiganders want abortion to remain legal. They also want women to be able make their own decisions regarding birth control, pregnancy, and childbirth. They know they cannot win on the facts so they spread disinformation. Proposal 3 would restore Michiganders’ rights under Roe v. Wade . That’s it.

The proposal would restore Michigan’s abortion rights, but it would arguably go beyond Roe which allowed states to restrict abortion after fetal viability and impose restrictions such as parental consent.

“The bill could easily be written to refer specifically and exclusively to abortion,” Jay Richards told The Daily Signal as a senior research fellow in religious freedom and civil society at The Heritage Foundation in response to the Planned Parenthood spokesperson. Heritage’s multimedia news agency, The Daily Signal.

Richards stated that it was a reference to an ill-defined right of reproductive freedom. “The only reason to do this is to use the fight against abortion to expand into other areas of the social revolution. It is worth noting that many Planned Parenthood facilities dispense cross-sex hormones. This means they have a financial stake for gender-transition procedures.

Dana Nessel, Michigan’s Democratic attorney General, has supported the amendment.

Nessel stated, “We must vote yes on Proposal 3,” at an October rally where she spoke about her own experiences.

Nessel claimed that she finally conceived after trying for several years to get pregnant. Her doctor advised her to abort one of her babies in order to save the two others.

“I followed my doctor’s advice. She recalled that she had a procedure and now has two beautiful 19-year old boys.

Pro-life advocates might counter the notion that Nessel’s procedure is the same type of abortion they would like to outlaw, but Nessel used her experience as an argument. The Daily Signal asked Nessel and the ACLU of Michigan for comments on the transgender implications of a proposed constitutional amendment.

Vermont

Although Proposal 5 in Vermont is not technically a ballot initiative, it is the final step to amend the Vermont Constitution with the addition Article 22. Despite not containing language about sterilization, opponents argue that the broad terms of the amendment open the floodgates to transgender applications.

“I believe that the course is clear. “I believe the course is clear. Article 22 is intended to deliberately open Pandora’s Box and then bar future lawmakers from doing anything about,” Matthew Strong, executive Director of Vermonters for Good Government, stated to The Daily Signal in an email. Strong was an opponent of the amendment. ” Minor/children’s transgender issues” is only one of the many goals. Extremist agendas in schools are already working on this.

Strong argued that the Legislature’s word choice makes it very clear what its long-term goal is. It removes age and gender restrictions by using the term ‘individual’ instead. We claim that this constitutional amendment was written BY Planned Parenthood FOR Planned Parenthood (emphasis mine).

Strong pointed out that the Vermont House speaker, Jill Krowinski is a former vice-president of Planned Parenthood of Northern New England. The Daily Signal reached out to neither Krowinski nor the Planned Parenthood affiliate for comment.

Strong pointed out that Article 22 received two votes in each state’s legislative chambers. Its appearance on the ballot is the final step.

Strong stated that the plan was “rushed through during the pandemic, and very few Vermonters were aware of it.”

Anne Donahue (R-Washington County), a spokeswoman for Vermonters for Good Government, and a critic, highlighted an exchange that occurred as the Legislature considered the amendment.

Donahue stated to The Daily Signal that even the proponents have stated, “Anything in terms of future interpretation will remain ‘up the courts’ –in the case, the Vermont Supreme Court.”

She stated that “Reproductive autonomy” is an ever-evolving concept, not fixed in time and certainly not limited by what it might be understood today. Anything that is related to reproduction is open to inclusion. Anything that is interpreted as a barrier would be unconstitutional.

Donahue said that courts look for evidence of legislative intention when language is open for interpretation. There was also discussion about keeping it available for future health care interpretation and a specific decision to not place limiting language to define direct enumerated right. “There is clear intent about access for minors, even without parental consent or notice.” Minors are currently protected in accessing abortion (without parental consent)–with limitations rejected in 2019 by the Legislature–that would be used to equivalence with any other reproductive rights, even surgical ones.

Donahue recalled an exchange in January in which Carl Rosenquist (R-Franklin County) raised concerns about religious freedom and worried that the proposed constitutional amendment would “compel private healthcare providers to provide care that violates their religious or moral beliefs.”

Ann Pugh, D-Chittenden County State Rep, was the lead sponsor of the amendment. She said: “My understanding [is] that] when rights are in dispute, we go to court. That is the role of the courts or a judge to decide.

Pugh stated that Rosenquist was “a conflict of right.”

A representative of the ACLU agreed and stated, “Yes, that’s the correct response.”

Proposal 5 is more than just about abortion. It protects both men and women,” Eleanor Spottswood, Vermont Solicitor General, stated. “Proposal 5’s language is based on a long history of case law that protects the rights to choose or deny contraception, to choose sterilization, to become pregnant, and to choose abortion.

Spottswood stated that courts are able to decide difficult cases in which fundamental rights of different parties are fought against one another.

Pugh defended the constitutional change as necessary to clarify.

In October, Pugh stated that “In this turbulent times, we must have certainty.” Vermont Business Magazine reported. “The absence of a definitive enumeration in Vermont of reproductive liberty, the threats to Roe V. Wade being weakened or overturned by a very conservative U.S. Supreme Court and the cloud of multistate attempts to erode reproductive autonomy all make [Proposal] 5 a strong case.”

The state lawmaker pointed out that Vermont has “intentionally chosen to not limit or restrict” abortion access. She stated that “we have long recognized that decisions regarding reproductive health care and abortions are deeply personal and private and should be left to a woman’s doctor.”

The Daily Signal reached out to Spottswood and Pugh for comment. The lead sponsors of the amendment, Sen. Becca Balint (D-Windham County) and Sen. Tim Ashe (D-Chittenden County), also didn’t respond.

Vermont for Reproductive Liberty, a campaign to support the constitutional amendment, didn’t respond to The Daily Signal’s request for comment regarding the transgender issue.

Governor of Vermont The amendment has been endorsed by Phil Scott, a Republican.

Scott stated in a prepared statements in July that Vermont has a long history of supporting women’s rights to choose. He also spoke out about the amendment’s progress to the November ballot. These decisions are personal and between a woman’s health care provider and herself. They are free from government interference.

Scott stated that Vermonters now have the chance to protect their right to choose through the constitution. “It is crucial that women in our state have the ability to make their own decisions about health, bodies, futures.”

Scott’s office didn’t respond to The Daily Signal’s request to comment on the transgender consequences of the amendment.

Analysis

Michigan and Vermont aren’t the only states that have abortion-related measures on Tuesday.

Kentuckians will vote for a constitutional amendment that expressly states that there is no rights to abortion . Montanans will vote for a measure declaring that all infants born alive at any stage in their development are legal persons.

Californians will vote on a constitutional amendment that states that the state cannot “deny or interfere” with an individual’s reproductive freedom in their most intimate decisions, including abortion and contraceptives.

Heritage’s Richards stated to The Daily Signal, that the Michigan and Vermont ballot questions allow expansive interpretations for transgender issues while the California one doesn’t.

Richards stated that he believes the Vermont bill presents exactly the same problems as the Michigan bill and almost certainly so intentionally. “Vermont only talks about “reproductive autonomy”, while Michigan talks about “reproductive freedom,” which, as we’ve observed, almost certainly covers everything from taxpayer-funded surrogacy and contraception to gender transition procedures.

He noted that California’s focus seems to be primarily on contraceptives and abortion. California can be more specific, however. California has passed a law that makes it a magnet for teens who want to use cross-sex hormones or gender-reassignment surgeries. The California Left doesn’t need to sneak it in with vague language in a bill presumably about abortion.

Controversial “Treatments”

Transgender medical intervention for children has become a divisive issue. Transgender activists claim that children are more likely than others to commit suicide if their parents and schools don’t encourage them. However, it remains unclear if affirmation and controversial medical interventions actually aid students with gender dysphoria.

Even medical interventions that don’t involve surgical removal of healthy sex organs can have serious lifelong consequences. According to Dr. Michael Laidlaw an endocrinologist from Rocklin, California, so-called puberty blocksers can actually cause a disease in a patient’s body. Hypogonadotropic hypogonadism is when the brain does not send the right signals to the gonads in order to make the hormones needed for development.

Laidlaw explained to PJ Media that an endocrinologist could treat a condition in which a female’s testosterone levels are outside the normal range. “We’ll treat it, and we’re conscious of metabolic problems. An endocrinologist might also give high levels of testosterone to a woman to ‘transition’ her.

Cross-sex hormones can also have long-term side effects that can lead to serious complications, such as osteoporosis or cardiovascular events.

It is rightly controversial to suggest that minors who are unable to drink, vote or serve in the military can consent to interventions that could leave them scarred, stunted, or infertile. Opponents argue that these proposed constitutional amendments could include broad rights that allow minors to access such “treatments”.

Do you have a comment about this article? To sound off, please email [email protected] and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Include the article’s URL or headline, along with your name and the address of your town and/or state.

The post Two Abortion ballot Measures Open Floodgates to Transgender Agenda, Erosion Parental Rights, Critics Say originally appeared on The Daily Signal.