LANSING, Mich. — Michigan House and Senate panels advanced bills Wednesday that would repeal a 1931 statute that bans abortion in Michigan, roughly four months after residents voted to enshrine the right to abortion in the state constitution.
The repeal of the law would bring the state "one step closer to getting this archaic, criminal ban off our books," said Rep. Laurie Pohutsky, a Livonia Democrat who was a sponsor of the bills.
"Michigan voters sent a clear message in 2022 — they want the freedom to make the reproductive health care decisions that work best for them, and they want elected officials who will work toward that end," Pohutsky said.
The 8-5 vote along party lines in the House Judiciary Committee came shortly before a Senate Health Policy Committee also voted Wednesday to repeal longstanding Michigan abortion policies.
The Senate proposals included undoing the 1931 abortion ban and removing another law that prohibited the publication of recipes aimed at producing an abortion or miscarriage of a pregnancy. The House proposals focused on repealing the ban and eliminating penalties for violating the abortion ban.
The five Senate bills passed out of committee in 6-4 votes with Democrats in support and Republicans in opposition.
Michigan voters in November voted 57% to 43% in favor of a constitutional amendment that enshrined the right to abortion and reproductive rights in Michigan's constitution.
The ballot initiative supersedes an abortion ban that's been on the state's books since the 1840s and was last updated in 1931. The law had largely been dormant for the nearly 50 years Roe v. Wade cemented abortion rights across the country through the U.S. Constitution, but was poised to take effect with the U.S. Supreme Court's overturning of Roe in June.
Two separate lawsuits — one brought by Planned Parenthood of Michigan and another brought by Gov. Gretchen Whitmer — secured court injunctions last year that kept the 1931 law from going into effect after the high court's June decision and through voters approval of the Reproductive Freedom for All ballot initiative in November.
"As we know all too well, there is a danger in allowing unconstitutional laws, especially laws that threaten the health and safety of Michiganders, to remain on our books," said Merissa Kovach, legislative director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan.
Republicans unsuccessfully offered 15 amendments for the bills that sought to enshrine in statute several items that were debated last year regarding the reach of Proposal 3, such as parental consent or selective abortion bans. The amendments failed along party lines.
Opponents also argued that the 1931 law, in some way, could still be used to regulate abortions post-viability under language in the voter-approved constitutional amendment that allows some regulation after fetal viability.
"This provision charges our existing laws and the Legislature to provide regulations after fetal viability when babies are able to survive outside the womb," said Rebecca Mastee of the Michigan Catholic Conference, which opposed Proposal 3. "Remaining in statute, the 1931 law may serve to stand in this gap."
Rep. Andrew Fink, R-Hillsdale, offered a similar argument in favor of keeping the 1931 law, noting that, even under Roe, the law was used sparingly to prosecute issues outside of the reach of Roe — such as a case in which an unlicensed physician provided an abortion.
"If it's enforceable under Roe but is not enforceable today, then it (Prop 3) must be larger than Roe," Fink said.
Rep. Kelly Breen, the Novi Democrat who chairs the House Judiciary Committee, said she didn't believe there was any credence to that argument.
"This was simply a mechanism to go back to when Roe was in the effect," Breen said of November's proposal. "All the other safeguards are in place."
After the hearing, Pohutksy said there are other abortion-related laws the Democratic-led Legislature could alter or repeal in the future that encumber the new constitutional right, such as a 24-hour waiting period for abortions or some restrictions on facilities used for an abortion.
"There's no need for that law to be on the books, except to prohibit people from being able to access that care," Pohutsky said, noting the facility requirements sometimes inhibit abortion access in rural areas.
