A state of uncertainty

Jordan Sweezer can almost always tell when abortionist Thomas Gordon arrives at the Heritage Clinic. Sweezer preaches outside of the facility on abortion-procedure days, Wednesday through Friday, and offers help to the pregnant women. He recognizes the abortionist’s cars: one gray and one black BMW. Sweezer said Gordon is also easy to identify when he arrives at the Grand Rapids facility because he slows down in front of Sweezer and “gives me a one-finger salute every morning that he shows up.”

Sweezer was there on Wednesday morning, June 29, with a small group of pro-lifers. It appeared to be business as usual—until Sweezer and the others noticed the women arriving for their appointments could not get into the building. After the women waited for some time, a facility worker let them enter. But within three minutes, according to a video of the incident WORLD reviewed, the visitors came back out, got in their vehicles, and left. Within an hour, the staff started to leave, and eventually even Gordon left. It appeared that no abortions would happen that day.

“It was just so amazing,” said Sweezer. “They just all came out at the same time with their babies alive and knowing where they can go for help.”

The cause for the disruption? Apparently, Michigan law: Earlier in the week, Kent County’s prosecuting attorney, Chris Becker, stated his intentions to enforce a 1931 state law protecting all babies from abortion except to save the life of the mother. The 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade was the only thing preventing the law’s enforcement. But now that the high court has overturned Roe in the Dobbs v. Jackson decision, officials disagree about whether that 1931 law is in effect. That disagreement is playing out on the ground in Michigan, one state among many where potentially complicated legal realities have come into effect after the fall of Roe.

The week after pro-lifers saw the Heritage Clinic turn women away, the same facility appeared to have resumed abortions. On July 7 and 8, Sweezer said, he and other pro-lifers counted more than half a dozen women arrive and remain inside the facility for amounts of time consistent with abortion appointments. He said at least two customers confirmed they had come for abortions when he asked them. (In a GoPro video shared with WORLD, Sweezer calls out “Is your life in danger?” to a woman from across the facility driveway. She replies, “No it’s not. I just don’t want it.”)

Pro-life activists engage with pro-abortion supporters in front of the Supreme Court on June 25. Alex Wong/Getty Images

Since the Supreme Court issued its Dobbs ruling on June 24, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, a Democrat, has made repeated public statements claiming that abortion is still legal in the state. She points to a ruling from Michigan appellate Judge Elizabeth Gleicher, who is presiding over a lawsuit Planned Parenthood filed against Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel. Gleicher in May ruled to temporarily block the attorney general from enforcing the 1931 law. She purported to prevent county prosecutors from doing the same. But Becker in Kent County and another prosecutor in Jackson County, Jerard Jarzynka, said they can still enforce the law as separately elected officials who were not parties to the lawsuit against Nessel.

Still, enforcing a law that has been unenforced for nearly 50 years is easier said than done. Becker said that making a legal case against a facility like Heritage Clinic would be difficult: Just seeing women go inside isn’t enough to call for police to rush inside. “There’s the exception to save the life of the mother under Michigan law. So how are we going to prove that? That’s going to be very difficult in terms of investigation,” he said. And that investigation is up to the police department, not to him as the prosecuting attorney.

Sweezer said he called both the Grand Rapids Police Department and the Kent County Sheriff’s Department to report the abortions happening at Heritage. He said the Kent County Sheriff’s Department told him that abortion is legal, while the Grand Rapids Police Department encouraged him to file a report but stated it would not send officers to the facility. (Both police departments, like the three Michigan abortion facilities WORLD contacted for this story, either did not respond to inquiries or declined to comment.)

Meanwhile, hospitals in the state have shown conflicting responses to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling. The day the Dobbs decision came down, the Beaumont-Spectrum hospital system issued a statement saying it would comply with the 1931 law, only performing abortions when the life of the mother was in danger. In another statement the next day, the system reversed course and said it would continue providing “medically necessary” abortions as it had historically done, noting that practitioners “have not and will not” perform elective abortions. A spokesperson told The Detroit News that “medically necessary” includes serious risks to the woman’s health and situations in which the baby is unlikely to survive.

Responding to the initial news that the Spectrum-Beaumont hospitals would comply with the 1931 law, social media users worried that women would not receive proper care after miscarriages. But Jarzynka and Becker said they would not prosecute doctors who treated miscarriages or ectopic pregnancies since such treatment is not considered a crime under the law. “If the baby is dead, obviously, the health of the mother, probably the life of the mother, is at risk because you’re carrying a dead infant,” said Jarzynka. “Or if it’s an ectopic pregnancy, then yeah, I think the life of the mother is in danger from bleeding to death, for example.”

Opponents of the 1931 law complain the legislation is outdated. Instead of using the term “abortion,” it refers to the criminal act as employing any means to “procure the miscarriage” of a pregnant woman. It does not clarify that pregnant women themselves cannot be prosecuted. But Genevieve Marnon, the legislative director for Michigan Right to Life, said any remaining confusion over what is and what is not allowed under the Michigan law can be clarified in other statutes and in case law.

Elsewhere, a Michigan statute clarifies that if a mother causes the miscarriage of her unborn baby, she is not liable for that act. Another state law says removing an ectopic pregnancy, removing a baby that has miscarried, or performing an abortion to save the mother’s life does not count as an elective abortion. That same act also clarifies that the use of “a drug or device intended as a contraceptive” does not count as an elective abortion.

In a 1973 Michigan Supreme Court decision regarding the state’s abortion statute, the court also clarified that “the central purpose” of the 1931 law was “clear enough to prohibit all abortions except those required to preserve the health of the mother.” In a separate case from 1963 also involving the 1931 abortion law, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner in the case—a woman who had an abortion—could not be prosecuted.

Under that jurisprudence, Michigan hospitals would still be allowed to perform abortions when the life of the mother is at risk, and women would not face the possibility of jail time for having an ectopic pregnancy removed. The only change that the Beaumont-Spectrum hospitals would have to make to abide by the 1931 law would involve halting abortions of babies with disabilities, what Marnon called “eugenic abortions.” She said Right to Life of Michigan recommends perinatal hospice—not abortion—for unborn babies suffering from severe abnormalities.

While Becker, the Kent County prosecutor, admitted enforcing the 1931 law would be “difficult,” it might be undercut by even newer legal realities: On July 11, a pro-abortion coalition turned in 753,759 signatures in favor of bringing a pro-abortion state constitutional amendment to Michigan ballots in November. Although the Bureau of Elections and the Board of State Canvassers must review the signatures before the measure can appear on the ballot, the number was almost double the 425,059 required.

Ramon Espinosa/AP

Misinformation in the wake of Dobbs

Rumors have been flying ever since the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision reversed Roe v. Wade and returned abortion law to the states. Social media in particular is spreading myths about how Dobbs will affect medical care for pregnant women.

What are some of the rumors, and what is the truth?

Is it now illegal in some states to treat miscarriages and ectopic pregnancies? No. The laws in the 21 states that have protections for unborn babies all make exceptions to allow for abortions when the life of the mother is at risk. That would include removing ectopic pregnancies, where the baby attaches inside the fallopian tube. In those cases, the baby won’t be able to grow properly. If allowed to remain, the fallopian tube will rupture, and the mother could bleed to death. Another life-threatening situation would be when a baby miscarries but does not fully evacuate the mother’s body. If the baby remains there, the woman could develop a dangerous infection. In those two cases there are good medical reasons to remove the baby.

Would that count as an abortion, though, if the baby has already died? Not under typical legal definitions. Even though one medical term for miscarriage is “spontaneous abortion,” many laws are specific about what legally counts and doesn’t count as an abortion. They clarify that miscarriage and ectopic pregnancy removals are not abortions in the legal sense. Arkansas is one state that makes such a clarification. That state has a conditional law that went into effect the day the Supreme Court overturned Roe. It prohibits abortion except to save the mother’s life. In the definition section, the legislation defines abortion and clarifies that the act is not an abortion if performed with the purpose to remove a dead unborn child caused by spontaneous abortion or to remove an ectopic pregnancy.

What about states with laws that don’t make that clarification? Michigan (see main story) is one of those states. The state has a law protecting babies from abortion in all cases, with exceptions for the life of the mother. But the law doesn’t make clarifications about ectopic pregnancies and miscarriages. However, Right to Life of Michigan notes that part of the public health code does define elective abortion and clearly states that it does not include treating a woman who has had a miscarriage or who has an ectopic pregnancy. But again, even if a state doesn’t make this clarification in another part of the law, doctors always have the life of the mother exception to fall back on.

Drugs that treat miscarriage and ectopic pregnancy can be used to abort a pregnancy. Will women in states with protections for the unborn have a problem getting meds they need for those conditions? A number of pharmacists told WORLD that doctors could write down the reason for the prescription and clarify, for instance, that the drug was specifically for removing an ectopic pregnancy, and that would solve the problem. And if the doctor doesn’t do that, the pharmacists can always call the doctor and ask for an explanation. If the doctor lies to them, and the drug is actually used for an abortion, then that’s on the doctor. The evidence would show that the pharmacist was not a party to the abortion.

Some abortion advocates are saying that women who get abortions now in certain states will wind up in jail. Do the laws actually say that? Short answer: no. No law says that the woman can be put in jail for getting an abortion. Many laws even explicitly state that the pregnant woman can’t be prosecuted for her own abortion. The Arkansas law has a section clearly stating prosecutors can’t charge or convict a woman in the death of her own unborn child. Other laws, such as in Michigan, do not make this explicit, but past court cases make it clear that a woman who obtains the abortion cannot be charged. —L.S.