choices. but it is not on the recent legislation that is actually threatening access to abortion. just as the day, a michigan judge blocked a county, rather a county prosecutor, excuse me, from enforcing the states 1931 ban on abortion. let me play for you some of what the judge said. weaponizing the forced pregnancy on our states women is contrary to the due process, legal protection and bodily autonomy. i am not issuing and in the junction today the issue in cost of which will be put on the woman of her good state and not lost on the court without any repercussion for the man who, without a doubt, are a necessary component to create a pregnancy. joining me now is michigan attorney general dana nessel, who has been fighting to protect abortion access in that state. madam attorney general, thank you so much for joining us. can he tell us a little bit briefly about the 1931 law and how democrats won in court this
prosecutors can enforce that 1931 ban. the ultimate expression of political power in this country comes not from the branches of our government and those that serve as public officials in them, but from the people. this court finds it is overwhelmingly in the publics interest to let the people of the great state of michigan beside this matter at the ballot box, assuming the constitutional amendment initiative is on the ballot in november 8th. therefore, for all these reasons, the court grants preliminary injunction in this case. this is a rare glimmer of hope in the otherwise extremely disturbing array of news stories we keep hearing about as far as abortion rights and access being locked in state after state. while michigan s abortion ban is from now blocked from being enforced, the decision will most likely be appealed. at the end of today s hearing for good measure a, the judge reminded the public that october 24th is the last day to register to vote in the state of michigan. co
1931 law. this statute is the product of a 57th michigan legislative session, notably compress almost entirely of men. judge cunningham also addressed the impact this ban would ve had subjecting providers to criminal penalty for medical care that was available, not to mention safe, as the testimony suggested, safer than pregnancy itself, without any justification from the state for doing so simply does not pass constitutional muster under our state s constitution. women, and all persons capable of carrying children, not having the ability and freedom to consult with their medical professionals without fear of prosecution puts the government into the patient examining room. a person carrying a child has the right to bodily and autonomy and integrity as well as a safe doctor-patient relationship, free from government interference, as they have been able to do so for nearly 50 years. with us tonight to discuss, two of my absolute favorite, political strategist rachel
law of the land. governor whitmer, for seeing with the high court would do and strip abortion rights from americans, she sued the states prosecuting attorneys and 13 counties, where all the states abortion clinics are located. those are the attorneys who would ultimately be in charge of prosecuting this law if it took effect. governor whitmer sued to stop them from enforcing the draconian 1931 ban. and as that case has made it way through the courts, a historic number of michigan areas, over 750,000 of them, signed a petition one that signaled their support for about initiative in november that would codify the right to an abortion in the states constitution. it would therefore make the states 1931 ban moot. by the end of the month, the state board of kansas areas will decide if that constitutional amendment with all that support will be on the november ballot. so with that in mind, today, the circuit court overseeing governor whitmer s case handed down of ruling. the judge decided whe
i know that, madam attorney general, hindsight is 2020, but why did michigan democrats never take legislative steps to scrap his 1931 abortion ban? is that a common practice that lets that is go back to review legislation that is no longer relevant and basically, they repeal them or try to get them off the books? or did they just try to legislate forward looking and not backward looking? there were many efforts to try to repeal the old law, but, unfortunately, our state is badly gerrymandered. it will not be after this year because we now have a non i should say a bipartisan redistricting commission. the republicans will never allow it to go through. we have not had both the house and the senate and the governor s office and a very long time. all the efforts of the democrats had made to repeal the 1931 law were unsuccessful. we are not seeing the results of that.