The 91-year-old abortion ban, which was blocked in May from going into effect immediately, makes it a crime for doctors to perform abortions unless the mother’s life is in danger. The new ruling will have the biggest impact on the 13 state attorneys general who have abortion clinics in their county. Seven of those prosecutors — all Democrats — previously said they would not enforce the 1931 law. Republican prosecutors in Kent and Jackson counties, however, plan to enforce the 1931 abortion ban, meaning abortion providers could be charged with a felony. “If a report is presented to this office, we will review it as we would any other report of possible criminal conduct,” Kent County District Attorney Christopher Becker said in a statement Monday. “We will make the decision to charge or not to charge, based on the facts presented in the report and applicable Michigan law.” Becker, who previously said in June that he would ignore the order and enforce the 1931 law, said no petitions have been submitted to his office so far. Kent County includes Grand Rapids, the state’s second largest city. Jackson County Prosecutor Jerard Jarzynka did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The three-judge panel’s ruling came Monday after Becker, Jarzynka and several anti-abortion groups asked the Court of Appeals to overturn a lower court ruling on the 1931 ban. The court’s decision Monday said Becker and Jarzynkas are ineligible because the order “does not apply to county prosecutors.” Full or near-total abortion bans are already in place in the neighboring states of Indiana, Ohio and Wisconsin, with bans expected in about half of the states.
Decision not ‘final word,’ Michigan AG says
Democratic Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, who previously said she would not defend the 1931 law, said in a statement Monday that “the legal battle continues on multiple fronts” and the decision is not “the final word on this the matter in Michigan.’ Earlier this month, abortion rights activists submitted signatures to bring a constitutional amendment before Michigan voters in November that would affirm the right to make decisions about pregnancy without intervention, including abortion and reproductive services such as birth control. If the amendment passes, it will replace the 1931 law. In his ruling, Judge Stephen L. Borrello said the court concluded “that on the facts before this court, plaintiffs Jarzynka and Becker are not and could not be bound by the Court of Claims’ May 17 preliminary injunction 2022, because the preliminary injunction does not apply to county prosecutors.” David A. Kalman, senior legal counsel for the Great Lakes Justice Center, called Monday’s ruling a “defeat” because while the case was thrown out of court, his ruling showed that the order did not apply to county prosecutors. “So not only are they not bound right now, they could never be bound by it,” he said. “They were never bound by it. And that has been our position from day one. “There were a lot of other lawyers and the ACLU [American Civil Liberties Union]and the governor and attorney general all assert to the contrary, that our clients were prohibited and bound by that order. “And that’s just not true, and the Court of Appeals vindicated our position today. So we’re very pleased with that.”
Only the abortion provider can face charges
However, Kallman said, a pregnant woman cannot be charged if she has an abortion in Michigan. “It’s just the doctor or the abortion provider,” she said. “Well, if I were a doctor or a hospital that provides abortion services, if I were in their shoes, I would not perform abortions today, unless it’s to save the life of the mother, because otherwise they would be criminalizing a potential criminal. charges, and it’s a felony. “They have to decide whether to take that risk or not.” Anyone convicted under the law, Kallman said, could go to jail, be fined or lose their medical license. Kallman also noted that while the previous order remains in effect, it only applies to Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel. “Dana Nessel had already stated publicly on numerous occasions that she was never going to enforce the abortion law,” Kalman said. “So it’s a meaningless command. “Technically, the order still exists, and it still prohibits the attorney general from prosecuting, but she won’t do it anyway.” In the ruling, Borrello wrote that Michigan law does not give the attorney general “control” over county prosecutors, who still have discretion in carrying out their statutory duties. Kalman said Jarzynka and Becker, who were represented by the center, are “very pleased” with Monday’s decision. In a statement to CBC News on Monday, Planned Parenthood of Michigan (PPMI) said it will continue to provide abortion services in accordance with the law. “Planned Parenthood of Michigan will continue to evaluate our legal options and remains committed to protecting abortion access in Michigan,” the statement said. “PPMI patients can keep their appointments and our doors remain open.”
Canadian reaction to the Michigan decision
It’s too early to tell what impact the decision in Windsor, Ont., will have across the border in Detroit. But Joyce Arthur, executive director of the Canadian Abortion Rights Coalition, said Monday that it may be difficult for places in Canada like Windsor to provide abortion access to people from the US. “Access can be pretty good in some of the big cities like Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, but really not so good in remote areas and rural areas up north,” Arthur said. “Windsor is probably a typical example of a mid-sized city where there’s only … one or two providers there.” “I think one of the clinics has already said they’re not going to help the Americans, so that probably just means the hospital,” he said. “I think the consensus is that if Americans are coming to Canada for an abortion, they should go to bigger cities like Toronto or especially Vancouver if they live on the West Coast.” There are other challenges, such as the cost of traveling to Canada and the need for a passport, Arthur said. “Just now I heard of… a handful of abortions taking place [in Canada] for Americans so far since Roe v. Wade came down.” he said. “Overall, we don’t expect a large number of Americans to come here.” “That could change. We’ll have to see how things go,” Arthur said. “There was also talk of, for example, maybe some business doctors [opening] border clinics in, say, Windsor or other places near the border in Canada to specifically serve Americans.” But concern about how admitting more Americans will affect Canadians’ access to abortion remains, Arthur said. “I don’t want to see doctors, abortion providers, move away from the public system to the private system, which could affect our access here for Canadians,” he said. “It could increase wait times. People can start to fall through the cracks, especially the most marginalized populations.” I think it’s going to be a years-long process before all of this is resolved.- Joyce Arthur, Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada More funding, which would allow Canadian clinics to increase their capacity, would help, Arthur said, as would reducing the stigma surrounding abortion. “If people aren’t willing to talk about it through this culture of shame or silence around abortion, then that affects access as well,” she said. “And it makes even provinces, for example, reluctant to engage with it, especially conservative provinces. “That’s how we have to deal with it, and it’s kind of long-term,” Arthur said. “And hopefully we can take some short-term steps to make sure we can improve our access at home and help Americans as well. “But I think it’s going to be a years-long process before that all becomes clear.”