In the summer of 2006, my husband and I were newlyweds, expecting twins. Things seemed to be going well – until Aug. 16, when I suffered a pre-term, premature rupture of membranes (pPROM) with Twin A. The next day, I was admitted to the hospital, and had an ultrasound. We learned that Twin A would likely not survive, but Twin B had a chance of making it to viability, if no further complications arose.
Unfortunately, Twin A was delivered stillborn on Aug. 20 (our Angelina Nicole). My providers did everything to keep me and Twin B healthy, but infection set in fast and I became septic.
The next day, my husband and I had an impossible decision to make. Knowing she was unlikely to survive, we induced the delivery of Twin B (our Gabriella Marie), knowing that her death would save my life. Days earlier, we had created their baby registry; now, we were planning their funeral.
Losing our twins reshaped my life and put me on a new path. Whether it’s advocating for women during their pregnancies, or talking to voters about my story — and how Michigan’s 1931 law might have prevented me from surviving, and going on to have our four living children.
With the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn nearly 50 years of precedent with the Dobbs ruling, we in Michigan are looking at a possible return to pre-World War II legislation that outlaws abortion, except for one exception: when the woman’s life is at risk. Who decides the severity of risk? A panel of doctors must convene — to decide how much mortal danger justifies termination — or the providers risk being prosecuted.
Under this law, there are no exceptions for rape or incest, giving violators more rights than their victims. It will be more difficult for women who’ve had an ectopic pregnancy, cancer, or miscarriage to get the expert medical care they need. We cannot let that happen.
What is even more concerning is the amount of misinformation being spread about the proposal from political leaders and religious organizations. In the October edition of the Catholic Diocese of Lansing’s Faith Magazine, Bishop Earl Boyea wrote, “… the scope of Proposal 3 is not limited to the issue of abortion. It will also likely prohibit parental consent rights if your child wishes to pursue — or is being pressured into pursuing — medical procedures or chemical treatments intended to change the outward appearance of his or her biological sex … can inflict irreversible physiological damage coupled with long-term psychological, emotional and spiritual damage upon an already vulnerable young person.”
This is simply FALSE. The amendment states, “Every individual has a fundamental right to reproductive freedom, which entails the right to make and effectuate decisions about all matters relating to pregnancy, including but not limited to prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, contraception, sterilization, abortion care, miscarriage management, and infertility care.”
Doctors and healthcare providers overwhelmingly support Prop 3. More than 1,500 Michigan healthcare professionals from the American Society for Reproductive Medicine submitted an open letter to voters asking them to vote YES on Prop 3. You can read it: https://mireproductivefreedom.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Open-Letter-from-MI-healthcare-providers_FIN.pdf
It’s easy for people to say that they wouldn’t do something if they haven’t had to make that decision themselves. Hindsight is always 20/20. I urge you to vote to keep access to abortion legal in Michigan — vote Yes on Prop 3. Someone you love may need it, like I did.
LCD Executive Committee
Brighton Township Resident