Connect with us

Michigan

Michigan Court of Appeals overturns decision regarding abortion law

The appeals court ruling paves the way for county prosecutors to file criminal charges against abortion providers under the 1931 state law

Published

on

Michigan Supreme Court & Courts of Appeals building (Photo Credit: State of Michigan/Michigan Courts)

LANSING – In a ruling issued Monday, the Michigan Court of Appeals overturned a lower court decision regarding the state’s dormant 1931 state law that criminalizes medical providers performing abortion procedures.

According to Michigan Public Radio, the appeals court ruling paves the way for county prosecutors to file criminal charges against abortion providers under the 1931 state law. That law would ban all abortions in Michigan except to save the life of a pregnant person. But the decision does not take effect for 21 days, to allow time for parties to file an appeal.

Planned Parenthood of Michigan responded to today’s ruling in a statement:

“The injunction barring enforcement of Michigan’s 1931 criminal abortion ban remains in effect and applies to all Michigan county prosecutors. Under Michigan court rule MCR 7.215(F)(1)(a), “the Court of Appeals judgment is effective after the expiration of the time for filing an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, or, if such an application is filed, after the disposition of the case by the Supreme Court.”  This means that the Michigan Court of Appeals ruling cannot take effect during the 21 day appeal window. Planned Parenthood of Michigan will continue to evaluate our legal options and remains committed to protecting abortion access in Michigan. Planned Parenthood of Michigan will continue to provide abortion services in accordance with the law. PPMI patients can keep their appointments and our doors remain open.”

The Detroit Free-Press reported that the ruling means the 1931 law banning all abortions except those done to protect the life of a pregnant person essentially takes effect immediately, said David Kallman, an attorney for Great Lakes Justice Center, a conservative organization representing several Michigan prosecutors who challenged the injunction.

“We’re ecstatic. It’s wonderful. That’s exactly what we’ve been saying all along,” Kallman said Monday morning in a phone interview.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Michigan

Michigan library defunded after refusing to censor LGBTQ books

A community voted to close its library rather than have it remain open with books some consider to be “indoctrinating” children

Published

on

The Patmos Library, built in 1999, faces the prospect of closure after residents rejected an operating millage Tuesday that provides the lion’s share of funding for the institution. (Bridge photo by Ron French)

By Ron French | JAMESTOWN TOWNSHIP, Mi. – What started as a fight over an LGBTQ-themed graphic novel may end with the closure of a west Michigan public library.

Voters in Jamestown Township, a politically conservative community in Ottawa County, rejected renewal Tuesday of a millage that would support the Patmos Library. That vote guts the library’s operating budget in 2023 — 84 percent of the library’s $245,000 budget comes from property taxes collected through a millage.

Without a millage, the library is likely to run out of money sometime late next year, said Larry Walton, library board president.

“I wasn’t expecting anything like this,” Walton told Bridge Michigan Tuesday. “The library is the center of the community. For individuals to be short sighted to close that down over opposing LGBTQ is very disappointing.”

There have been protests at other Michigan public libraries and at school board meetings about books with LGBTQ themes. But Tuesday may be the first time a community voted, in effect, to close its library rather than have it remain open with books some consider to be “indoctrinating” children.

Continue reading at Bridge Michigan: (LINK)

*********************

Ryan Wieber, President of the Michigan Library Association, released a statement Friday regarding the situation at Patmos Library:

The Michigan Library Association stands in solidarity with the Patmos Library Board of Trustees on the decision to retain a small collection of LGBTQIA+ materials on their library shelves. We are equally disheartened to learn that continued funding for the library was defeated on the August primary ballot because the library would not remove these materials. 

We recognize that individuals have the right and responsibility to make decisions about what materials are suitable for themselves and their own families. We also stand united with the majority of the Patmos Library Board, and with librarians across the nation in upholding our Constitutional protections. The freedom to read is guaranteed by the Constitution. No one has the right to make rules restricting what other people read or to make decisions for other families. Freedom only exists when individuals can make their own choices. When a book is banned by those who want to censor voices they don’t agree with, our democracy itself is threatened.

Of utmost importance to any public library is curating collections that allow every citizen, young and old alike, to see themselves in the books and resources their library provides, and choosing a broad range of subject matter that reflects diverse experiences. It is important to emphasize that the presence of any reading materials in a library collection does not imply endorsement of the ideas expressed in those materials. The library is simply doing its job to provide a wide variety of views and expressions—if the library “endorses” anything, it is citizens’ right to access a broad selection of age-appropriate materials. This is a core tenant of librarianship – to provide for the interests of all, and to do so without bias.

Of the 50 library millages across Michigan that were on the August primary ballot, five were voted down, but only one was voted down due to extremist rhetoric and opposition concerning the small collection of materials with LGBTQIA+ themes on the shelves of the Patmos Library

And we all know that there are extreme consequences to be addressed for those that voted “NO”.

How will the community fare, when and if, the library closes its doors because its funding was not approved? Economically? Socially? Educationally? The Patmos Library serves many purposes – simultaneously a community center, voting precinct, history center, a place to read, gather, socialize, study and learn – a beautiful cultural institution in the heart of Hudsonville. The day will come when there is no access to WiFi. No access to employment assistance. No access to books, materials and eContent. No access to veteran’s benefits. No access to storytime. No access to afterschool, weekend and evening programs. No access to lifelong learning opportunities. NO ACCESS at all because the Patmos Library will shut and lock their doors and will no longer serve the needs of anyone, including those that voted no.

It is the responsibility of libraries throughout Michigan and our Nation to guarantee and facilitate access to all expressions of knowledge and intellectual activity, including those that some individuals in our society may consider to be unconventional, unpopular, or unacceptable. We stand with you as you uphold the first amendment rights that are enshrined in the Constitution by serving the entire population, including those who see value in material that others may find objectionable.

The Michigan Library Association will help Patmos Library in any way they deem needed to address this challenge.

There is a GoFundMe campaign established by local Jamestown resident, Jesse Dillman, who is raising funds to sustain library operations. As of Friday, August 5, 2022 the campaign had raised $12,571 of its $245,000 goal.

The link to the GoFundMe is here: (LINK)

**********************

The preceding excerpt was previously published by Bridge Michigan and is republished by permission. Photograph of Patmos Library sign by Ron French for Bridge Michigan republished by permission.

Bridge Michigan is a non-profit supported by readers like you. Membership at Bridge isn’t like a traditional newspaper subscription. It’s a community.

Every gift makes a difference, but monthly or annual recurring donations build long-term sustainability, helping us grow and prepare for the future. Join Bridge today with a credit card or, if you prefer, through PayPal. Thank you!

Continue Reading

Michigan

Michigan’s high court rules existing law bans anti-LGBTQ discrimination

The lawsuit came in the wake of the companies’ refusal to serve transgender customers and those in same-sex relationships

Published

on

Michigan Supreme Court (Photo Credit: State of Michigan/Michigan Courts)

LANSING – In a 5-2 decision on Thursday, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled in Rouch World, LLC v Department of Civil Rights that the state’s 1976 Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

The case, brought by the Michigan companies Rouch World and Uprooted Electrolysis, sought to challenge the state’s Civil Rights Commission for its interpretation of the law that classified sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes. The lawsuit came in the wake of the companies’ refusal to serve transgender customers and those in same-sex relationships, prompting customer complaints that resulted in Civil Rights Commission investigations.

Given the arguments of the case, the Court was asked to determine whether the law’s inclusion of the word “sex” as a protected category applied to instances of discrimination against members of the LGBTQ community.

Republican Justice Elizabeth Clement joined Democratic justices Richard Bernstein, Megan Cavanagh and Elizabeth Welch – as well as Democratic Chief Justice Bridget McCormack – in the majority opinion.

“Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation necessarily constitutes discrimination because of sex,” Clement wrote in the Court’s majority opinion. “Accordingly, the denial of ‘the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation or public service’ on the basis of sexual orientation constitutes discrimination ‘because of…sex’ and, therefore, constitutes a violation of the [Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act] under MCL 37.2302(a).”

In his dissent alongside fellow Republican Justice David Viviano, Brian Zahra asserted his belief that the Court had overreached in its ruling.

“This Court’s function is to interpret and apply the laws that the Legislature writes,” Justice Zahra wrote. “That is not what the majority opinion has done.”

While the ruling was not at odds with his own views on the matter, Zahra wrote, the Court’s mandate was not observed by its majority in the case.

“Though I take no issue with today’s outcome, because I do not recognize the manner in which it has been achieved by the majority opinion to be faithful to the judicial role, I dissent,” Zahra wrote.

Similar arguments of overreach were made by the plaintiffs in the case who argued that the state legislature, not the Civil Rights Commission, held sole power to expand the law.

“The Legislature has declined to add ‘sexual orientation’ numerous times over the nearly 50 years since the [Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act] was enacted by the Legislature,” the plaintiff companies wrote in their case brief last November. “Further, the Legislature explicitly rejected adding ‘sexual orientation’ to the [Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act]. The unelected [Michigan Civil Rights Commission] is not the Legislature and is not politically accountable to the people.”

Previous, bipartisan efforts have been made by state lawmakers to codify sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes under the law. Such efforts, however, have failed to gain requisite traction in the state’s Republican-controlled legislature.

In writing the majority opinion, Justice Cavanagh rejected such narratives as pertinent to the duty of the Court.

“Should the Legislature disapprove of an application of a statute’s enacted language, the Legislature remains free to amend the statute,” Cavanagh wrote. “This Court, however, is bound by the language that the Legislature has enacted, not what the parties or amici believe the Legislature should have enacted or what any individual representative believed was enacted.”

Following its announcement Thursday afternoon, LGBTQ advocates in the state heralded the decision as a victory for equality in the state.

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, who had argued the case before the Court in conjunction with entities including the American Civil Liberties Union, released a statement following the ruling.

“Now, more than ever, it is critical that those of us elected to public office work to preserve and protect the rights of all residents,” Nessel said. “Today’s ruling confirms what we have long known – that the protections afforded by the [Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act] cover all Michiganders.”

The decision garnered similar praise from other top state officials, including Governor Gretchen Whitmer and Lieutenant Governor Garlin Gilchrist.

“As a mom, a governor, and proud ally of the community, I am so grateful for this ruling,” Whitmer said in a statement. “It will save lives, protect families, and help ensure that every Michigander is treated with dignity and respect by law.”

With the Court’s expansion of the law’s protections, members of Michigan’s LGBTQ community are now shielded from discrimination in all areas outlined in the law’s language.

Such includes protection in sectors including employment, housing, education and public accommodations.

“For too long, LGBTQ+ Michiganders had been left out of our state’s civil rights protections,” Whitmer said. “No longer. Because of this ruling, nobody can legally be fired from their job or evicted from their home because of who they love.”

Continue Reading

Michigan

Michigan’s first LGBTQ statewide official seeks re-election

“I expect my office to be very active in protecting LGBTQ rights which is what we’ve done since literally the minute I took office”

Published

on

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel speaking at the Michigan capitol building for Pride June 26, 2022 Lansing, MI (Photo Credit: Office of the Michigan Attorney General)

LANSING – In such a political swing state as Michigan has emerged to be in recent elections, the presence of an out LGBTQ statewide official for the last four years – a first in the state’s history – has been as much of a political anomaly for the region as it’s been a cultural one.

Running for re-election in November after becoming the state’s first LGBTQ candidate to be elected to statewide office, Democratic Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel has sought to use her office and identity as an out, married lesbian to advocate for LGBTQ equality.

Prior to her run for office, she had been involved in LGBTQ legal advocacy efforts in the state, having served as co-counsel in the 2014 DeBoer v. Snyder case that briefly ruled Michigan’s ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional in the leadup to the U.S. Supreme Court’s legalization of same-sex marriage nationwide in 2015.

For Nessel, an importance surrounding the representation she has provided to other members of Michigan’s LGBTQ community has remained throughout her first term in office.

“Especially for younger generations, it allows for people to see that you can be an openly gay person and be successful in public life,” Nessel told the Washington Blade. “I have never hid who I was, I made every effort to ensure that people sort of have a little insight into my background and also see my family – [I’m] as proud of my family as any person who’s in an opposite-sex marriage – and to see that you can succeed and you can win a statewide election even in a very purple state as long as you have the right policies and as long as you’re willing to put in the work.”

Defeating then-Speaker of the Michigan House of Representatives Tom Leonard, Nessel was elected in 2018 as part of a wave of Democratic ascensions to offices across the nation. She ran, in part, on her experience as a prosecutor and one of the state’s top civil rights lawyers on issues relating to LGBTQ equality.

Since then, she has worked with other top officeholders to advance causes involving statewide civil rights efforts and promises made during her initial campaign. Her partnership with officials including Governor Gretchen Whitmer and Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson has spanned issues ranging from abortion access to defending Michigan election systems in the wake of the 2020 presidential election and subsequent allegations of widespread voter fraud in the state.

Now entering the final months of her re-election campaign against Republican opponent and Kalamazoo attorney Matt DePerno, the attorney general has remained at the epicenter of efforts to establish additional protections for the state’s LGBTQ community. In a case currently pending in the Michigan Supreme Court, Nessel has argued for an interpretation of the language in the state’s Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act to expand its prohibition on discrimination to include an individual’s sexual orientation and gender identity.

Given the state’s history with regard to progress on LGBTQ rights, the importance of such litigation and the attorney general’s role, Nessel said, remains paramount.

“If you look at Michigan, every right that an LGBTQ person has in this state was won in a court battle because, legislatively, we’ve never passed anything that was helpful to the [LGBTQ] community, only laws that are harmful to the community,” Nessel said.

But following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization to overturn the nationwide right to abortion, Nessel says she is also prepared to stand against challenges to Michigan residents’ rights to privacy in other areas including sexual intimacy.

In the event of the Supreme Court ruling to overturn its 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas that established a nationwide right to same-sex intimacy and privacy regarding consensual sex acts, Nessel said that she would take multiple approaches to ensuring the right – which would affect both same- and opposite-sex couples’ ability to engage in certain private sex acts – remained.

“If Lawrence v. Texas were overturned, it’s not just that I would fight, whether testifying before the legislature or using the bully pulpit to talk about how egregious the thought is of being able to basically prosecute people for something that takes place in the privacy of their own bedroom with another consenting adult and how horrendous that is,” Nessel said. “But then, I myself would refuse to prosecute any sodomy cases.”

With the attorney general’s position as the state’s top law enforcement official, charged with bringing cases in the courts on behalf of the state, critics have characterized such moves as a neglect of duty.

Following the announcement in late June of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dobbs, DePerno released a statement criticizing Nessel’s messaging that she would not prosecute abortion-related cases should the practice once again become criminalized in the state.

“It is deeply troubling that Dana Nessel pledged to not enforce the opinion of the Supreme Court even before their announcement this morning,” DePerno said. “We cannot have an Attorney General who believes she is better than the Supreme Court and the law.”

Pointing to laws rarely tried by county or state prosecutors, such as Michigan’s ban on adultery, Nessel, however, argued that such is a matter of prioritizing her department’s resources to best serve and aid her constituents.

“There are so many laws on the books that it’s your prosecutorial discretion as to whether or not you want to bring those cases,” Nessel said. “To me, my priority is protecting the health, the safety and the welfare of my constituents and prosecuting abortion cases – that’s going to jeopardize the lives of women and not assist them. Prosecuting sodomy cases – I don’t know who I’m benefiting if I were to engage in that.”

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel (Screenshot/YouTube)

In the face of vast legal uncertainty that has now gripped the nation, coupled with a looming election day in November, she said that she intends to continue doing such.

“I expect my office to be very active in protecting LGBTQ rights which is what we’ve done since literally the minute I took office,” Nessel said.

The most recent WDIV/Detroit News polling conducted in early July currently places Nessel with a seven-point lead over DePerno, with almost 17 percent of voters undecided.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Follow Us @LosAngelesBlade

Sign Up for Blade eBlasts

Popular