Last year’s decision overturning Roe v. Wade proved to be a major galvanizing moment for people who support abortion rights in communities across the country as bans began to go into effect. One of those states is Michigan, where a grassroots coalition had growing concerns about an archaic 1931 abortion ban that could take effect if the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, and had already been working to prepare for that possibility. Their tireless work put abortion rights on the ballot with Proposal 3, which secured the right to reproductive freedom in Michigan, protecting abortion, prenatal care, birth control, and all pregnancy-related care.

%3Ciframe%20class%3D%22media-youtube-player%22%20width%3D%22580%22%20height%3D%22324%22%20title%3D%22When%20Reproductive%20Rights%20Are%20Under%20Attack%2C%20We%20Show%20Up%20-%20ACLU%22%20src%3D%22https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube-nocookie.com%2Fembed%2FCkkmddbMKNQ%3Fwmode%3Dopaque%26amp%3Bcontrols%3D1%26amp%3Bmodestbranding%3D1%26amp%3Brel%3D0%26amp%3Bshowinfo%3D0%26amp%3Bcolor%3Dwhite%26autoplay%3D1%26version%3D3%26playsinline%3D1%22%20name%3D%22When%20Reproductive%20Rights%20Are%20Under%20Attack%2C%20We%20Show%20Up%20-%20ACLU%22%20frameborder%3D%220%22%20allowfullscreen%3D%22%22%20id%3D%22When%20Reproductive%20Rights%20Are%20Under%20Attack%2C%20We%20Show%20Up%20-%20ACLU%22%20allow%3D%22autoplay%22%3EVideo%20of%20When%20Reproductive%20Rights%20Are%20Under%20Attack%2C%20We%20Show%20Up%20-%20ACLU%3C%2Fiframe%3E

Privacy statement. This embed will serve content from youtube-nocookie.com.

Here, two of the advocates who led the Proposal 3 charge with community partners discuss how they showed up to protect reproductive freedom for Michiganders.

These interviews have been edited and condensed for clarity.

“In 2019, an unprecedented number of state legislatures passed laws across the country banning abortion, including at very early stages in pregnancy. That effort led to a circuit split, and just two years later, the U.S. Supreme Court took up a case from Mississippi called Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Dobbs squarely put in front of the court once again the question of whether abortion was a constitutional right and at what stage of pregnancy it should be protected. By taking that case, the Supreme Court sent a clear message to the country that they were ready to reexamine the Roe v. Wade decision, which had protected the right to abortion for nearly 50 years.

“We knew we could not sit idly by and needed to do something in Michigan to defend the longstanding right to bodily autonomy. After a series of discussions with various stakeholders and impacted people, it was clear that the most enduring way to protect the full spectrum of reproductive rights was to initiate and pass a state constitutional amendment.

“A ballot initiative is, at its core, direct democracy. It’s voters and the people of Michigan coming together to say we believe in this issue, we believe in passing this law or this constitutional amendment, and we’re going to collect the signatures to put this on the ballot so voters, not politicians, get to decide. And so the idea for Proposal 3 — a constitutional amendment that would enshrine the right to reproductive freedom in our state constitution — really came from the people. We couldn’t rely on the Supreme Court anymore, so we as the people of Michigan had to take that fight into our own hands.

“ACLU of Michigan, Michigan Voices, and Planned Parenthood Advocates of Michigan were three of the organizations leading a diverse coalition of groups and individuals in the fight to secure reproductive freedom in our state through Proposal 3. We needed to achieve justice together with Black and Brown communities and women in particular who have been historically denied access to full reproductive rights. The language of Proposal 3 is expansive and protective; it not only protects your right to seek an abortion, but it protects your right to make all decisions related to pregnancy, including contraception, prenatal care, childbirth, miscarriage care, and infertility. It also prohibits the government from passing laws to make it harder for you to get an abortion or to exercise your right to any other form of reproductive health care.

“We launched the campaign in January 2022 and quickly began collecting signatures on the ballot initiative. But frankly, we were having a hard time because not many people realized that the Supreme Court was poised to overturn Roe until the leak of the draft opinion happened.

“I remember the moment the Dobbs draft decision was leaked as a moment of sheer disbelief. I remember getting on a call with my colleagues at the ACLU of Michigan asking each other, ‘Is this real? Can we really believe what we’re seeing?’ Reading the words in that opinion were gut wrenching because it was stripping our choice, stripping our futures. In that moment, we had to strategize and think quickly about what to do next, even though we were in shock.

American Civil Liberties Union

In Michigan, a Historic Victory for Abortion Rights | ACLU

Michigan’s success in securing abortion rights in the state is the result of years of planning, coalition-building, and grassroots organizing.

“The leak galvanized so many people in Michigan and across the country because I think it made them scared that this court could really overturn Roe, 50 years worth of constitutional protections, and that it did not believe in their right to bodily autonomy. When the leak happened, many Michiganders quickly understood that Michigan was not a safe haven for reproductive rights, and that fired people up and it fired me up to continue our work. That was a pivotal point in the campaign where people came out of the woodwork to help — people were collecting signatures, talking to their families and communities about what reproductive freedom meant to them, how they could volunteer, and why they should vote for Proposal 3.

“During the campaign and on election night, all eyes were on Michigan. There were a couple other ballot initiatives being run at the same time, but really Michigan was the test to see if we could win on abortion in the Midwest, in a purple state.

“And it was a resounding success! We collected more signatures than any other ballot initiative in our state’s history. On election night it was surreal to see the results of Proposal 3 passing. It was a fantastic feeling — years of hard work finally actualized. Michiganders sent a message back to the Supreme Court and country that abortion rights can win. Michigan is a safe haven now for reproductive rights and reproductive freedom.

“I hope the energy of what we did here in Michigan will spread across the country. We set the course, and hopefully created a blueprint for other states to do the same.”

“We had an inkling that Roe v. Wade could be overturned for a long time. It was part of the reason that we formed the Reproductive Justice Work Group.

“The language in Proposal 3 was developed by our partners who made it really clear they didn’t want something that just talked about abortion because that wasn’t enough for them and for their communities. We wanted to center our work around reproductive justice. Reproductive rights has been around for a very long time, but BIPOC people have felt disconnected from that movement. For us, it goes beyond the right to have an abortion, and so Proposal 3 is the most inclusive law that we have to protect reproductive freedom. It protects the right to contraception, the right to infertility treatment, the right to miscarriage management, the right to be treated with dignity [during childbirth], and the right to have an abortion.

“We are really proud of that law. We’re proud that we got it on the ballot and that the voters passed it.

“Roe being overturned was shocking to us for the campaign. It let people know that we were really in danger of losing our rights and that people had to get involved and engaged in this campaign in order to save reproductive rights and abortion access in Michigan.

“So it got real and personal for people and they got involved. We had folks out on the street, at farmer’s markets, in community meetings getting signatures. Folks went to talk to their neighbors, their family members, and they told their own personal abortion stories or why it was important to them. We were at grocery stores, churches, and barbecues. We were out there. Wherever you could find us, we were there. We went door to door. About 753,000 people signed the petition for Proposal 3 and it was history making. Michigan never had that many folks sign a petition to get something on the ballot. This is about lives and people and the right to make decisions about their own bodies. And this ballot initiative was about putting the decision in the hands of voters of Michigan. And they once again proved us right, that they want reproductive care and they want reproductive freedom.

“When the numbers came in on election night, it was just a huge sigh of relief. I cried. Victory was wonderful. It was just a wonderful night. In Michigan, we’ve shown that our voters really care about their reproductive rights and that we have the most comprehensive and the most inclusive law to protect those rights in the state of Michigan

“Michiganders saved ourselves. We didn’t wait for politicians to save us. We didn’t wait for an elected official to save us. We decided to take this chance and take this opportunity. And we did this. We did this as a coalition. The ACLU of Michigan, as well as Planned Parenthood, Advocates of Michigan, and Michigan Voices moving forward together. And we’re still moving forward together. We have a lot of work to do, and I look forward to working together more in the future.”

At the end of its term, the Supreme Court upended established equal protection law with its decision in SFFA v. Harvard and SFFA v. UNC, effectively eliminating the use of affirmative action in college admissions. The court’s decision disregards prior precedent, as well as the societal realities of race discrimination and inequality.

Many schools, as well as the courts, recognize that diversity exposes students to new ideas and ways of thinking, prepares them to live and work with one another in a diverse society, and increases understanding and respect across differences. Those findings have not changed, although schools will need to rely more on other means of cultivating a campus where students of all backgrounds can learn together.

While this legal decision is indisputably a major setback, it is not the end of the drive to open educational opportunities for people of color. As we press forward in this work, here are four answers to crucial questions in the wake of the affirmative action rulings:

Affirmative action in college admissions has been an important tool, but it is not the only avenue for ensuring that educational opportunities are open to all. In the absence of affirmative action, it is more important than ever that schools work to identify and remove inequitable barriers to higher education. At a minimum, schools must continue to comply with federal and state civil rights laws that require them to provide educational opportunities on an equal basis. They can achieve this by ensuring that policies and practices do not unnecessarily limit opportunities for people on the basis of race or ethnicity (or other protected characteristics, including disability, sex, sexual orientation and gender identity) and by ensuring that school climate enables all students to access and engage with educational opportunities.

Other ways to increase opportunities include:

Creating a campus environment where students feel they belong and can fully engage academically is important to student recruitment and to students’ success once enrolled. This can include making classroom teaching methods more fair and inclusive; providing curriculum, programs and activities that speak to students’ diverse interests and lived experiences; reforming programs intended to fill k-12 learning gaps; removing financial obstacles to academic success; addressing bias in advising; meeting students’ basic needs for food, housing, and transportation; and supporting the needs of parenting students.

Additionally, ensuring that higher education opportunities are open to everyone requires taking a broader view of higher education. The affirmative action cases depict a higher education experience that begins with a highly competitive admissions process to an elite institution where students graduating from high school spend the next four years on campus. Equity for students who follow this path is important. But most students, regardless of their race or ethnicity, do not follow this path, and ensuring educational opportunity is open to all is broader than this. Enhancing support for community colleges and addressing educational equity across the spectrum of higher education is also important.

The decisions in the SFFA cases address the unique practice of affirmative action in higher education. They do not alter the substantially developed body of law setting the standards for compliance with federal civil rights in other areas, such as employment, lending, and housing, which each contain specific obligations. Entities are still required to comply with existing guidance in these areas.

American Civil Liberties Union

What You Need to Know about Affirmative Action at the Supreme Court | ACLU

Two cases before the high court will determine whether race conscious admissions policies can be used by universities.

Additionally, all recipients of federal financial assistance are required to comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits entities from discriminating, including through policies that have the effect of unnecessarily disadvantaging people on the basis of race. As with schools, recipients of federal funds can and should operate with neutral policies and practices that ensure opportunities are open equally to people of all races. This means that entities should periodically review their policies and practices to ensure that they do not unnecessarily inhibit equal opportunities on the basis of race or otherwise.

The SFFA decisions do not alter the legal landscape for K-12 education. In 2007, the Supreme Court clarified in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 that K-12 schools cannot use race-based student assignment practices to pursue diversity and integration. Following this decision, K-12 schools have already been operating under the guidelines similar to those announced for colleges in the SFFA decisions. The Supreme Court recognized the important values of diversity in K-12 education, and those values can be pursued through neutral policies. The court’s decision this term in Allen v. Milligan reaffirmed the understanding that examining the effects of government policies to ensure that opportunities are “equally open” to people of all races is permissible.

Affirmative Action Is the Floor, Not the Ceiling

Affirmative Action Is the Floor, Not the Ceiling

For over half a century, Affirmative Action has woven its way into the fabric of our society through nondiscrimination policies and initiatives aimed at establishing equal opportunity for women, people of color, and other minorities across schools...

For over half a century, Affirmative Action has woven its way into the fabric of our society through nondiscrimination policies and initiatives aimed at establishing equal opportunity for women, people of color, and other minorities across schools...

Listen to this episode

Schools are required at a minimum to comply with federal and state civil rights laws requiring educational opportunities to be equally available to students of all races. The educational mission of K-12 schools is best served when all students can learn together. School districts can and should continue to use a range of tools to address racially divided educational settings.

Last month, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Haaland v. Brackeen, delivering a landmark victory for tribal sovereignty, Native children, Native families, and the future of Native people. In a 7-2 decision by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the Court rejected all of the constitutional challenges to the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) — some on the merits and others for lack of standing.

The ACLU submitted an amicus brief in the case, and has been following the issue closely because of the profound threat it poses to Indigenous communities, particularly federally recognized tribes in the United States. In light of this victory at the Supreme Court, we are now urging states to take action and introduce or strengthen existing state-level ICWA protections.

ICWA was passed in 1978 to establish basic requirements to protect Native American children from removal from their homes and communities. These protections are essential given centuries-long attempts to destroy Native peoples through genocide and massacres, forced assimilation, and legalized kidnapping during the boarding school era. Native people are also deeply overrepresented within the family regulation system, where unfamiliar cultural practices and poverty were (and are) consistently misused to tear apart Indigenous families and communities and place Native children with white, Christian families.

Before ICWA, approximately one third of Native American/Alaska Native children were taken from their homes by state welfare agencies and private adoption agencies, and a shocking 85 percent of those children were placed outside of family or community care with non-Native people. ICWA sought to change these devastating policies and practices by creating heightened procedural protections when Native children face removal, and creating preferences for foster or adoptive placement with extended family, the child’s tribe, or another tribe.

In Brackeen, non-Native couples and the state of Texas attacked ICWA on four grounds: congressional power, the anticommandeering doctrine, equal protection, and nondelegation. On the first two grounds, the victory was decisive. The court reaffirmed that “Congress’s power to legislate with respect to Indians is well-established and broad.” While the court cautioned that the power of Congress is not unlimited, its positive references to precedent regarding criminal law, domestic violence, employment, property, tax, and trade make major upheavals on this issue in the future unlikely.

American Civil Liberties Union

Brackeen v. Haaland | American Civil Liberties Union

The ACLU and partners, represented by Cooley LLP, filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold the constitutionality of the ICWA.

The court’s anticommandeering analysis was equally decisive. In a nutshell, the anticommandeering doctrine says that the federal government can’t require states to adopt federal law or use state resources, funds, or personnel to enforce federal law. Leveraging this argument, ICWA’s opponents argued the law violated the 10th Amendment — a misreading of the doctrine that could’ve upended the longstanding balance between federal and state law and the rights of Native people to be free from discrimination and governmental abuse. But the court’s decision makes clear that ICWA applies to both state and private actors, and, where the law does require state courts to apply federal law, well, that is just how preemption works. On these issues, the decision sends a clear message to ICWA opponents that these attacks on the federal government’s ability to shape state law and policy on matters of tribal sovereignty have no legal foundation.

The court did not entertain the incredibly far-reaching equal protection arguments urged by plaintiffs or the nondelegation doctrine, finding that none of the plaintiffs had standing. The plaintiffs sought an injunction against federal officials, but it is state officers who apply ICWA, in state court proceedings. The court reasoned that a decision on equal protection would not rectify the plaintiffs’ asserted injury — that non-Native parents are on unequal footing with Native parents given ICWA’s placement preferences. And Texas doesn’t have equal protection rights to advance.

We hope this decision will lay to rest the attacks on tribal sovereignty. However, the ACLU will continue to monitor the corporate-backed powers that pushed this case to the high court for any sign of further attacks on ICWA, along with other laws impacting federally recognized tribes.

Now that the Supreme Court has reaffirmed ICWA’s validity, states must act swiftly to pass their own state ICWA laws to strengthen the implementation of the federal law. As outlined below, several states have already passed such laws. The ACLU urges states that have not yet done so to act now. ICWA creates a floor of strong protections, but states are free to build on this foundation and further support tribal child welfare systems. And where the Supreme Court has identified limitations on what federal ICWA requires — for example, in the context of searching for placements that satisfy ICWA’s preferences — states can and should require more. States are also well poised to work with Tribal nations to craft their own ICWA laws that cater to specific issues that might arise in their jurisdiction.

American Civil Liberties Union

Protecting the Indian Child Welfare Act at the State Level | ACLU

The Supreme Court issued a landmark victory for tribal sovereignty in Brackeen v. Haaland.

As states develop this legislation, lawmakers should codify protections that go beyond the federal legislation — as many states have already done. For example, Washington State’s ICWA law states that when Native children are removed from the home, preference must go first to extended family, whether Indian or non-Indian, then to tribal and other Indian homes near the child’s home. While we encourage state legislatures to look to other states that have adopted their own ICWA laws, we recognize that each state is unique — especially in regard to the varying characteristics and needs of its Native American constituents. States must engage with leaders from Tribal nations at each step of the way.

For states that already have ICWA legislation on the books, we again encourage lawmakers to engage in meaningful consultation with their Native American constituents and leaders from Tribal nations in their state. Lawmakers should ask whether current state ICWA laws are meeting the needs of their communities, and if there are areas for improvement, we urge them to act quickly to protect Native families.