A Michigan federal judge recently dismissed a lawsuit that several pro-life groups and three Republican lawmakers had filed in hopes of overturning a 2022 amendment that added a right to abortion to the state constitution.
The Detroit Free Press reported that U.S. District Judge Paul Maloney ruled Sept. 30 that the pro-life plaintiffs lacked standing to bring a case against the amendment, known as Proposal 3. Right to Life of Michigan and four other pro-life organizations — the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Christian Medical and Dental Associations, Crossroads Care Center, and Save the 1 — brought the lawsuit against Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and other state politicians in 2023. Sen. Joseph Bellino, Reps. Gina Johnsen and Luke Meerman, and six private individuals also joined the suit.
As CatholicVote previously reported, their original complaint argued that Proposal 3 unconstitutionally created a “super-right” to accessing abortion. The pro-life groups claimed that the amendment protects abortion from legislative action, which violates the U.S. Constitution’s stipulation that branches of government can overturn and check laws.
Among other claims, the original complaint also argued that Proposal 3 violates the 14th Amendment’s promise not to deprive anyone of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
However, Maloney said that the plaintiffs did not show that Proposal 3 would cause them direct injury. He therefore dismissed their case.
“The allegations in the complaint fail to establish standing for any individual plaintiff. The allegations also fail to show a direct injury to any organization,” Maloney ruled. “Because none of the induvial plaintiffs have standing, the organizations cannot show standing based on standing of their members.”
The case has been in and out of the state legal system since its filing two years ago. Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, a Democrat, asked a court to dismiss the lawsuit last year. The pro-life groups promptly amended their complaint to continue the case, but Nessel once again asked for a dismissal.