LANSING, Mich. (Michigan News Source) – In response to a legal challenge initiated by Right to Life of Michigan seeking to invalidate Proposition 3, an abortion rights voter initiative that Michiganders passed in 2022, the Michigan Department of Attorney General has submitted a motion to dismiss, accompanied by a supporting brief in a court filing submitted Tuesday.

AG office claims plaintiffs have no standing.

The AG Department contends that the plaintiffs lack the legal standing to bring such a complaint, and even if they possessed standing, their claims are asserted to “fail as a matter of law.”

MORE NEWS: Detroit School’s Office of Inspector General Uncovered $3.5M in Fraud in 2023-24

One of the questions in the court document is whether, if the plaintiffs, who have “suffered no actual injuries and face no imminent harm or substantial risk of harm” have standing to maintain their claims.

In the defendants’ filed motion, Assistant Solicitor General Kyla Barranco wrote, “Plaintiffs cannot show any injuries-in-fact as none of their allegations support a finding of the actual, imminent, or substantial risk of imminent injury that caselaw requires.”

In the court document, it goes on to say that the plaintiffs are seeking to subvert the will of the people and strike down the “right” to “reproductive freedom” as a violation of the Constitution.

Who are the plaintiffs and their attorneys?

In addition to Right to Life of Michigan, the lawsuit also lists Republican lawmakers Sen. Joseph Bellino (R-Monroe) and Reps. Gina Johnsen (R-Lake Odessa) and Luke Meerman (R-Coopersville) as plaintiffs. In their lawsuit, attorneys contend that Proposal 3 is unconstitutional because it creates a “super-right” to abortion access.

They say, “At no time in our nation’s history has such a super-right, immune from all legislative action, ever been created by a popular vote outside of the checks and balances of a republican form of government.” They go on to say the proposal violates the equal protection clause in the U.S. Constitution.

Listed as attorneys for the plaintiffs in the complaint are The American Freedom Law Center, the Great Lakes Justice Center and the Thomas More Law Center.

MORE NEWS: Give a Pet a Home for the Holidays at Michigan’s Reduced-Fee Adoption Event

Nessel’s office says in the press release concerning their motion to dismiss, “To guard against the revival of an extreme, decades-old statute criminalizing all abortions except those performed to preserve the life of the pregnant individual and definitively resolve the issue within this State, Michigan voters passed Proposition 3 to amend the state Constitution and enshrine within it a right to reproductive freedom.”

Who is being sued?

The press release explains, “The lawsuit names Attorney General Dana Nessel, Governor Gretchen Whitmer, and Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson as defendants and seeks to overturn the will of the People of Michigan.”

AG Nessel says, “The plaintiffs in this case seek to undermine the will of Michigan voters, whose overwhelming support for Proposition 3 in the wake of Roe being overturned ensured that the people of our state are guaranteed agency over their own personal medical decisions.”

Attorney General Dana Nessel speaks out about case.

Nessel continues, “Our judicial system does not allow individuals to control the behavior of their fellow residents on the basis of conjecture and hypothetical scenarios. My department is steadfast in our support of the health, safety, and wellness of all Michigan residents, including on the issue of reproductive freedom.”

She goes on to say, “The people of Michigan have repeatedly shown their support for bodily autonomy under the law, and we will not allow a small contingent of outspoken dissidents to overpower popular consensus as we chart the course for the future of our state.”

Abortion medication case also in court.

AG Nessel also appeared on MSNBC recently to talk about another abortion case that she is involved with. She told the network, “We have the Mifepristone case, the abortion medication case that is now pending in the United States Supreme Court, which could upend 30 years of an FDA-approved, incredibly safe medication.”

Nessel charges, “So what we’re seeing with this United States Supreme Court is that the ends justify the means. And the ends here is ending all abortion rights as we know it and not just stopping there. What is next on the chopping block? Could be birth control. Could be, you know, fertility treatments. Could be a variety of different things.”

Nessel concludes, “And so, you know, we have to treat every election as though it matters, whether it is a state election, whether it is a federal election, whether you’re looking at who is going to be in the United States Senate and who is going to be the president of the United States selecting Supreme Court justices, or whether it is a state election and you’re deciding who your A.G., your governor and your secretary of state are going to be. Every election when it comes to reproductive rights matters, and this matter is never really over.”

The Supreme Court set March 26 as the date for oral arguments in the Mifepristone case.