JOHN,

As a former elected county prosecuting attorney, I respectfully urge the
prosecuting attorneys of this state to not enforce Michigan’s 1931 statute
criminalizing abortion.

A preeminent power invested in the office of prosecuting attorney is the
discretion to determine whether and to what extent the laws of this state
should be enforced. The prosecutor is expected to act as the “conscience of the
community.” In the case of the 1931 felony stature criminalizing abortions,
with no exceptions other than to save the life of the mother, there is wisdom
and compassion in not enforcing that law.

The people of the State of Michigan will decide on November 8, 2022, whether
the protections of Roe v Wade will be adopted as part of the Michigan
Constitution. If that measure passes, the prosecution of physicians and women
in the next three months will serve no purpose other than public humiliation.
The convictions, if any were to be obtained, would have to be reversed. Common
sense dictates that there be a moratorium on prosecutions until the people have
spoken.

Beyond that consideration, the 1931 law is fundamentally flawed. The law makes
no exception for victims of rape or incest. Surely nobody would require a
12-year-old child victim of rape or incest to carry a pregnancy to term. If
permitting an abortion for a victim of that age would be the right thing to do,
why would it not also be the right thing to do for a 13-year-old, or a
14-year-old, or an 18-year-old, or a victim of any age?

Even the exception for the life of the mother is problematic. What does that
exception mean? If a woman is told that she has a thirty percent chance of
dying if she continues her pregnancy, does that make her eligible for a
life-saving abortion? What percentage risk of death is sufficient to qualify?
It goes without saying that prosecutors are woefully ill equipped to make the
call. Yet under the 1931 law, the determination as to whether a life is
sufficiently in peril will have to be made by the mother, her physician, and
her county prosecutor. This invasion into a private medical consultation is
totally unacceptable. The discrimination based on sex is also palpable. Imagine
if a man were told that he had a medical condition that might result in his
death but was then told that he could not receive treatment because the
likelihood of death was not high enough.

The law intrudes on the privacy rights of every expectant mother. To cite one
horrifying example, if a woman suffers the heartbreak of a miscarriage, she
will inevitably become the target of a of criminal investigation. Her medical
records will be reviewed, as the investigation tries to sort out whether the
miscarriage occurred naturally or whether it was induced. No person should have
to face the threat of criminal prosecution after having suffered such a loss.

The danger of unequal enforcement and the absence of clear standards are at
the core of what it means to deny equal protection and due process of law under
the Michigan Constitution. Prosecutors are constitutionally and legally free to
apply their understanding of what these terms mean – even without waiting for a
court decision. Indeed, they are required to do so.

I applaud those prosecutors who have already announced their intentions to not
prosecute. I urge all others to adopt the same view. Let women have the freedom
to make their own decisions on their health care, and let doctors be allowed to
practice medicine without threat of criminal penalties

Carl J. Marlinga



PAID FOR BY MARLINGA FOR CONGRESS

Marlinga for Congress
155 S. Main #46232
Mt. Clemens, MI 48046

This email was sent to [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>. Don't want to receive these emails anymore?
Unsubscribe
<[link removed]>
Carl Marlinga,