A constitution is the set of rules about how a country or state should be governed. It includes the framework, and powers of the government along with the fundamental rights of the people. It is a guarantee of civil rights and liberties.

Contrast this with laws. Laws are a set of rules that govern the behavior of the people of the land. They regulate the actions of citizens and guarantee morality in action (however the populace defines that morality).

Laws are debated, rigorously, and can involve compromise. Civil rights and liberties, at least in our system, are inalienable and subject to restraint only in the most unusual of circumstances.

It is with these thoughts in mind that I am suggesting a “NO” vote on Proposal 3 this November. Not because abortions should never be permitted. Not that they are to be permitted at any time, for any reason. Prop 3 should be defeated for the simple reason that an amendment to the state constitution is the wrong way to go about this.

If you think that abortion is a civil right, something that is inalienable, something that can be neither taken or given away, then no argument will sway you. If, however, you think that reasonable people can come to reasonable agreement on when and how abortion is appropriate, then you are likely to see this should be dealt with by a law, a rule about the behavior of people. Debated, crafted and voted on by our representatives in Lansing. That is the way our system is designed.

The proposition itself recognizes that the “right” to abortion is not inalienable, it states, in part, “…Allow state to regulate abortion …” It invites reasonable agreement, not just the most unusual circumstances of rape, incest and the life of the mother. Abortion should be dealt with through legislation, not by changing the very framework our state is governed by.

A “no” vote on Prop 3 is NOT a vote against abortion, it is a vote against tearing down the very process of government that it is trying to use for advancement.