All too often, the prolife movement is accused of caring only for the life of the child, but a hard-fought battle now rages to protect the life and safety of women in crisis pregnancies—even those seeking abortions. A case currently moving though the Michigan Justice system exposes just how much is at stake.
In June 2024, Judge Sima Patel of the Michigan Court of Claims ordered a preliminary injunction to end enforcement of Michigan’s 24-hour waiting period for women seeking an abortion, halt Mandatory Uniform Informed Consent, and lift the ban on advanced practice clinicians performing abortions. The only standard of protection she left in place was Michigan’s law requiring coercion screening, where women seeking abortion are asked a series of questions to ensure they are not being forced to have an abortion against their will and to provide help to victims of domestic violence. (Read the court order here).
What does the practical impact of this preliminary injunction look like? In short, until the court case is heard and finally decided, the State of Michigan will not enforce these laws designed to protect women seeking abortions. Abortion providers need not inform women about the abortion procedure they are about to undergo or possible risks or complications they may experience. Women will not be required to wait 24-hours before deciding to end their child’s life, nor should they expect to be served only by licensed surgeons, doctors, and registered nurses. Now, advanced practice clinicians, including nurse practitioners, physician assistants, clinical nurse specialists, certified registered nurse anesthetists, nurse-midwives, and others will be allowed to perform abortions—even surgical abortions. It should be noted that while these requirements are temporarily on hold, many other laws protecting women, including the requirements for safe storage of medical equipment and hand washing stations in patient care rooms, have already been fully repealed by the legislature as part of the “Reproductive Health Act” (see chart here). It should be noted that abortion is not without risk, as evidenced by the Michigan Department of Health & Human Services Vital Statistics:
- 16 cases of immediate medical complications from an abortion procedure were reported in 2023.[1]
- 247 cases of subsequent medical complications from an abortion procedure were reported by physicians to the state in 2023.[2]
- 122 cases of failed abortions were reported (where a female underwent an abortion procedure and remained pregnant) in 2023.[3]
These 385 incidents of unintended complications arose in 2023, when many more laws protecting women and providing safe medical environments were on the books. If something goes horribly wrong during an abortion procedure, does a nurse practitioner or midwife really have the skills to save the woman’s life? Apparently, the justice system deems this an acceptable risk for the women of Michigan.
The abject hypocrisy of these policies purported to advance “women’s rights” is that a man seeking to have a broken arm surgically set would be given complete information about the procedure and possible risks and side effects of drugs like anesthesia and pain medication. He would have to provide informed consent for those medications to be administered, and he is guaranteed to be treated in a licensed medical facility by only licensed medical professionals, like real doctors and surgeons. Yet women seeking abortions are not entitled to the same standard of care. How many patients seeking hundreds of other procedures are required to give informed consent or wait a day, or even months, before receiving care? These best practices help ensure that the patient won’t react poorly to anesthesia or other drugs and allow for additional tests to ensure the patient meets the criteria for a safe procedure and positive outcome. Michiganders have already seen the horrific conditions that develop in abortion clinics when medical best practices and regulations are absent. Less than a decade ago, local government shut down an abortion clinic in Muskegon when it was found to have unsanitary conditions, buckets of unknown fluids, mold, and other health hazards (see photos here). It was in response to these abysmal conditions that many of the laws now being repealed were initially passed. No one would ever want their wife or daughter treated in such a facility. Nevertheless, the State of Michigan continues to remove regulations for procedures that only affect females while advancing the practice that women don’t deserve the same standard of care as men—all in the name of “women’s rights” and “reproductive freedom.”
However, the actions of this judge affect more than just women and the unborn. The voice of all citizens and their right to representative government that passes laws and sets regulatory standards is seemingly on trial before an unelected judge. Even though the legislature has the authority to pass and maintain laws—even laws that “may regulate the provision of abortion care”[4]—and even though bipartisan legislators voted just months ago to keep informed consent, the 24 hour waiting period, and certain provider credentialing standards in place, an appointed judge may make a final ruling that could permanently overturn these laws intended to protect women. Should this transpire, one cannot help but wonder what possible regulations the legislature could pass to ensure equal standards of care for women in crisis. Will the people even have a voice representing their interests if their legislators are not allowed to maintain regulatory authority?
Amid these concerns, state officials are harshly criticizing and mischaracterizing the compassionate work of pregnancy centers across the state, who seek to serve women in crisis with dignity, healing, and selfless love. During the proceedings before the Court of Claims, Dr. Bagdasarian, who is the Chief Medical Executive for the State of Michigan (DHHS) was quoted in the comments by Judge Patel, protesting the requirement that her department publish a list of locations offering free ultrasounds and disparaging the work of pregnancy centers:
“Dr. Bagdasarian… notes that through its obligation to refer patients to entities other than licensed “health care providers,” the DHHS could, unfortunately, be funneling patients to so-called “crisis pregnancy centers”—profoundly coercive environments, often staffed by non-medically trained staff, whose mission might include convincing a person seeking an abortion to instead carry a pregnancy to term in an affront to that person’s right to make and effectuate their own decisions. The DHHS has no regulatory authority over such entities, yet it is being required to advertise these entities and expose patients to their potentially coercive objectives, which are nonmedical in nature. In addition to being coercive, it is possible that these entities—which need not and do not have medical licensure—perform ultrasounds without anyone on staff with the training required to interpret the results. This has real consequences for a patient’s informed consent. For example, the unlicensed person performing the ultrasound may fail to [16 Citing The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Issue Brief: Crisis Pregnancy Centers (Oct 2022), p 1, available at (accessed June 25, 2024)] identify and communicate a fetal abnormality or a nonviable pregnancy to the patient. A misinformed patient may make critical decisions about the future of their pregnancy, including choosing to carry a pregnancy to term, based on incomplete or outright misleading information. Dr. Bagdasarian concludes that, by being required under the challenged laws to direct patients to unlicensed entities with a bias against a patient’s preferred reproductive health care choices, the DHHS is complicit in a deeply flawed informational process masquerading as informed consent. This is antithetical to a patient’s right to autonomous decision making.”
Dr. Bagdasarian speaks as though pregnancy resource centers that help women free of charge somehow offer women more biased information than abortion clinics, which posted record revenue nationwide last year[5]. She suggests that giving women information on all their choices amounts to coercion, as though women are incapable of making up their own minds once they gather all the information. She even seems to suggest that your tax dollars would be better spent if the health department didn’t have to make information available about locations where women can obtain free ultrasounds and other services. In a world where the most common form of abortion is now chemical abortion by pill, which is only is only designed to be taken during the early weeks of pregnancy, services like an ultrasound that help diagnose the gestational age the child can be critical for the woman’s life and health. Making those services freely available may well save the life of the mother.
The irony of Dr. Bagdasarian comments continues when one considers her criticism and assumptions regarding non-medical personnel at pregnancy centers, while suggesting increased authority for non-medical personnel at abortion clinics. She also mischaracterizes pregnancy centers and many medical professionals who are pro-life. Many licensed medical professionals volunteer their time or work in a paid capacity at free pregnancy centers that are funded by charitable donations, where they provide services that they are well qualified to perform. A vast number of Michigan doctors and doctors across the nation comprise the membership of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG), who strongly support the work of the pregnancy centers as well good laws that protect women and children from the dangers of the abortion industry.
Unfortunately, real equal care for women, representative legislation, and the human rights of the unborn are only suffering the first harmful fruits of ballot initiatives passed in 2022. Michigan’s Proposal 3 of 2022 has become something of a template for other states. Since its passage, California, Kansas, Kentucky, Montana, Ohio, and Vermont have adopted similar reproductive referendums at the ballot box. This November, Missouri, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Maryland, Nevada, South Dakota, New York, Montana, and Nebraska are all expected to have policies expanding access to abortion on the ballot.[6]
Now, more than ever, the people of God must be beacons of light, proclaiming and protecting the inherent value and worth of all human life. Both the unborn child and the woman seeking abortion are created in the image of God. Both are worthy of government protection. Both deserve our love and compassion.
[1] Michigan Department of Health & Human Services Vital Stats, “Characteristics of Induced Abortions Reported in Michigan”. https://vitalstats.michigan.gov/osr/abortion/summary.asp
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Proposal 3 of 2022, now enshrined in the Michigan Constitution as § 28 Right to Reproductive Freedom (1) includes this provision for legislative regulation: “Notwithstanding the above, the state may regulate the provision of abortion care after fetal viability, provided that in no circumstance shall the state prohibit an abortion that, in the professional judgment of an attending health care professional, is medically indicated to protect the life or physical or mental health of the pregnant individual.”
[5] During 2023, Planned Parenthood alone boasts revenue of more the 2 billion dollars in annual revenue. They are the largest abortion provider nationally, and abortion is their largest money marker. Further details can be found in their annual report: https://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/facts-figures/annual-report
[6] As reported by the Associated Press on August 14, 2024, “Arizona and Missouri join states with abortion amendments o the ballot. What would the measures do?” https://apnews.com/article/abortion-election-2024-roe-ballot-4403190b898e501b0834053c3417d072
About the Author
