--- title: "Michigan — abortion law" description: "Abortion is a fundamental constitutional right in Michigan. There is no gestational age limit before viability — the state can only regulate abortion after the fetus can survive outside the womb, and even then, an abortion must always be allowed if a health care professional decides it is needed to…" type: "legislation" jurisdiction: "Michigan" as_of_date: "2026-07-12" source_url: "https://www.abhortion.org/legislation/mi.html" --- # Michigan — abortion law _Michigan · United States_ ## Overview **Constitutionally protected; broadly available** Michigan's constitution guarantees a fundamental right to reproductive freedom including abortion; the state may regulate only after fetal viability, and must always permit abortion to protect life or physical or mental health. Abortion is a fundamental constitutional right in Michigan. There is no gestational age limit before viability — the state can only regulate abortion after the fetus can survive outside the womb, and even then, an abortion must always be allowed if a health care professional decides it is needed to protect the pregnant person's life, physical health, or mental health. The 1931 criminal abortion ban has been repealed. The 24-hour waiting period, mandatory state-scripted counseling, and physician-only requirement were permanently struck down by a Michigan court in May 2025. The parental consent requirement for minors, a coercion-screening requirement, and a ban on using state Medicaid funds for most abortions remain in effect. Michigan also has executive orders that shield providers and patients from out-of-state investigations. > "Every individual has a fundamental right to reproductive freedom, which entails the right to make and effectuate decisions about all matters relating to pregnancy, including but not limited to prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, contraception, sterilization, abortion care, miscarriage management, and infertility care." > — Mich. Const. art. I, § 28(1) **Legal analysis** Michigan Constitution Article I, Section 28 (the Reproductive Freedom for All Amendment, or RFFA), adopted by ballot initiative November 8, 2022 (effective December 24, 2022), establishes a fundamental right to reproductive freedom — including abortion — and requires strict scrutiny for any restriction: the state must show a compelling interest in protecting the patient's health, achieved by the least restrictive means, consistent with accepted clinical standards and evidence-based medicine, without infringing autonomous decision-making. The state may regulate abortion after fetal viability but must always permit abortion when medically indicated to protect life or physical or mental health. The Reproductive Health Act (2023 PA 286, MCL 333.26101 et seq.) codifies these constitutional protections and provides a private right of action. The 1931 criminal ban (MCL 750.14–.15) was repealed in 2023. In Northland Family Planning Center v. Nessel, No. 24-000011-MM (Mich. Ct. Cl. May 13, 2025), the Michigan Court of Claims permanently enjoined the 24-hour waiting period, mandatory uniform informed consent, and physician-only requirement under MCL 333.17015 as violating the RFFA; the coercion-screening provisions of MCL 333.17015a were upheld. The pre-Roe ban had already been permanently enjoined by Planned Parenthood of Michigan v. Attorney General, No. 22-00044-MM (Mich. Ct. Cl. Sept. 7, 2022), which held it violated the Michigan Constitution's Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Mich. Const. art. I, § 28(1), § 28(1), [Michigan Legislature](https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-Article-I-28) · Northland Family Planning Center v. Nessel, No. 24-000011-MM (Mich. Ct. Cl. May 13, 2025), slip op. at 2-3, [Michigan Courts](https://www.courts.michigan.gov/49ac99/siteassets/case-documents/opinions-orders/coc-opinions-(manually-curated)/2025/24-000011-mm.pdf)* ## At a glance Every machine-readable determination in the research document. Each value is derived from a sourced finding below. | Field | Value | | --- | --- | | Legal classification | Protected by constitution | | Gestational limit weeks | — | | Limit measured from | — | | Abortion currently available | Yes | | Ban or limit enjoined | No | | Mother expressly exempt | Yes | | Mother prosecutable in practice | No | | Self managed abortion criminalized | No | | Abortion charged as homicide | No | | Fetal homicide law | Yes | | Fetal wrongful death action | Yes | | Personhood language in law | Yes | | Personhood contradiction | Yes | | Medication abortion distinct status | No | | Mailing pills banned | No | | Method bans | None | | Telehealth prescribing allowed | Yes | | Physician only law | No | | Provider max penalty | Misdemeanor (parental consent violation), up to $10,000 fine (coercion); license discipline possible | | Helpers criminally exposed | No | | Travel assistance criminalized | No | | Civil bounty law | No | | Shield state | Yes | | Waiting period hours | — | | State scripted counseling | No | | Ultrasound required | None | | In person visits required | 0 | | Parental involvement | Consent one parent | | Judicial bypass available | Yes | | Spousal consent or notice on books | No | | Medicaid coverage | Hyde only | | Private insurance restricted | No | | State funding posture | Defunds providers | | Rape incest exception | Not applicable | | Exceptions present | Life, Physical health, Mental health, Ectopic miscarriage carveout | | Major pending change | Yes | ## Definitions **Statutory definition; miscarriage carved out** Michigan defines 'abortion' as the intentional termination of a pregnancy for a purpose other than live birth or removal of a dead fetus; miscarriage management and contraceptive use are expressly excluded. Michigan law defines 'abortion' narrowly to mean the intentional use of an instrument, drug, or other substance or device to terminate a pregnancy for a purpose other than to produce a live birth, to preserve the life or health of the child after live birth, or to remove a fetus that has died from natural causes, accident, or criminal assault. This means treatment for miscarriage — including medication, D&C, D&E, and labor induction when there is no cardiac activity — is not legally an abortion and is not subject to abortion regulations. Contraception, including emergency contraception, is also expressly excluded from the definition. > "Abortion means the intentional use of an instrument, drug, or other substance or device to terminate a woman's pregnancy for a purpose other than to increase the probability of a live birth, to preserve the life or health of the child after live birth, or to remove a fetus that has died as a result of natural causes, accidental trauma, or a criminal assault on the pregnant woman. Abortion does not include the use or prescription of a drug or device intended as a contraceptive." > — MCL 333.17015(2)(a) **Legal analysis** MCL 333.17015(2)(a) defines 'abortion' as 'the intentional use of an instrument, drug, or other substance or device to terminate a woman's pregnancy for a purpose other than to increase the probability of a live birth, to preserve the life or health of the child after live birth, or to remove a fetus that has died as a result of natural causes, accidental trauma, or a criminal assault on the pregnant woman.' It further specifies that 'abortion does not include the use or prescription of a drug or device intended as a contraceptive.' The RHA (MCL 333.26101 et seq.) does not contain a separate definition. Because the informed-consent provisions that housed this definition have largely been permanently enjoined (Northland Family Planning Center v. Nessel, 2025), the practical force of this definition in restricting conduct is limited, but it remains on the books and functions to distinguish miscarriage management and contraception from regulated abortion care. The statutory definition also does not reach IVF or embryos outside the womb, as it is keyed to termination of 'a woman's pregnancy.' *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · MCL 333.17015(2)(a), § 333.17015(2)(a), [Michigan Legislature](https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-333-17015)* **Editor's note.** Many of the statutory subsections in MCL 333.17015 were permanently enjoined in May 2025, but the definitional subsection (2)(a) was not among the enjoined provisions — it survives because it was not challenged or because it was deemed severable. ## Current status **Constitutional right; viable-fetus limit with health exception** Abortion is a fundamental constitutional right from conception; after fetal viability the state may regulate but must always permit abortion to protect life, physical health, or mental health. Under Michigan's constitution, every person has a fundamental right to abortion as part of reproductive freedom. Before fetal viability (the point when a fetus can survive outside the womb without extraordinary medical measures), the state may not deny, burden, or infringe upon abortion at all unless it has a compelling health reason and uses the least restrictive means. After viability, the state may regulate abortion — but it can never ban an abortion that a health care professional determines is needed to protect the pregnant person's life, physical health, or mental health. In determining whether a post-viability abortion is medically indicated, the provider may consider the pregnant person's age and physical, emotional, psychological, and familial circumstances. The old 1931 criminal ban has been repealed. The state cannot penalize someone for having an abortion or for aiding someone in exercising their reproductive freedom. > "Notwithstanding the above, the state may regulate the provision of abortion care after fetal viability, provided that in no circumstance shall the state prohibit an abortion that, in the professional judgment of an attending health care professional, is medically indicated to protect the life or physical or mental health of the pregnant individual." > — Mich. Const. art. I, § 28(1) **Legal analysis** Mich. Const. art. I, § 28(1) establishes the fundamental right and provides that the state may regulate abortion after fetal viability, 'provided that in no circumstance shall the state prohibit an abortion that, in the professional judgment of an attending health care professional, is medically indicated to protect the life or physical or mental health of the pregnant individual.' Section 28(4) defines 'fetal viability' as 'the point in pregnancy when, in the professional judgment of an attending health care professional and based on the particular facts of the case, there is a significant likelihood of the fetus's sustained survival outside the uterus without the application of extraordinary medical measures.' The RHA (MCL 333.26103) mirrors this language and adds that in determining whether a post-viability abortion is medically indicated, the attending health care professional 'may consider any factor that the attending health care professional considers relevant to the well-being of the pregnant individual, including, but not limited to, the pregnant individual's age and physical, emotional, psychological, and familial considerations.' Section 28(3) prohibits the state from penalizing, prosecuting, or taking adverse action against an individual based on pregnancy outcomes (including abortion), or against anyone who aids or assists a pregnant individual in exercising reproductive freedom with voluntary consent. The 1931 pre-Roe ban (former MCL 750.14–.15) was repealed by 2023 PA 11, effective Feb. 13, 2024. The pre-Roe ban had been permanently enjoined in Planned Parenthood of Michigan v. Attorney General, No. 22-00044-MM (Mich. Ct. Cl. Sept. 7, 2022). *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Mich. Const. art. I, § 28(1), § 28(1), [Michigan Legislature](https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-Article-I-28) · MCL 333.26103(1)(c), (2), MCL 333.26103(1)(c), [Michigan Legislature](https://capitol.legislature.mi.gov/documents/mcl/pdf/MCL-ACT-286-OF-2023.pdf) · 2023 Mich. Pub. Acts 11 (repealing MCL 750.14, 750.15), MCL Chapter 328-1931-III index, [Michigan Legislature](https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-328-1931-III)* ## Law-in-effect vs. law-on-the-books **Core protections in force; restrictions partially enjoined** The constitutional amendment and RHA are fully in effect; the 24-hour waiting period, state-scripted informed consent, and physician-only rule are permanently enjoined; coercion screening and parental consent remain enforceable. Michigan's constitutional protection for abortion is fully in effect and enforceable. The state cannot enforce the 24-hour waiting period, state-mandated counseling scripts, or a rule that only physicians can perform abortions — a court permanently blocked those in May 2025. Two restrictions remain: clinics must screen patients for coercion before an abortion, and minors must get consent from one parent or a judge. The Medicaid funding ban remains in place; a lawsuit challenging it was dismissed for lack of standing and is now on appeal. Michigan's Attorney General has declined to defend several of these restrictions, taking the position that they are unconstitutional under the RFFA. > "The Court hereby concludes that MCL 333.17015(1), (2)(d)-(g) and (i)-(j), (3)-(10), (11)(a)-(h), (13)-(14), and (18)-(20)—which encompass the mandatory 24-hour waiting period, the mandatory uniform informed consent, the ban on APCs providing abortion care, and other statutory subsections inextricably intertwined with these provisions—are unconstitutional." > — Northland Family Planning Center v. Nessel, No. 24-000011-MM (Mich. Ct. Cl. May 13, 2025) **Legal analysis** The RFFA is self-executing (Mich. Const. art. I, § 28(5)) and in full force. In Northland Family Planning Center v. Nessel, No. 24-000011-MM (Mich. Ct. Cl. May 13, 2025), the Michigan Court of Claims permanently enjoined three categories of restrictions as unconstitutional under the RFFA: (1) the mandatory 24-hour waiting period (MCL 333.17015(1) and (3)); (2) the mandatory uniform informed consent provisions including state-scripted materials (MCL 333.17015(3)-(8), (11)(a)-(h), (13)-(14), (18)-(20)); and (3) the physician-only/APC ban (read into MCL 333.17015(1)). The coercion-screening provisions (MCL 333.17015a and MCL 333.17015(11)(i)) were upheld. The parental consent law (MCL 722.901-722.909) remains in effect and has not been enjoined. The Medicaid funding ban (MCL 400.109a) remains in effect; a challenge in YWCA of Kalamazoo v. Michigan, No. 24-000093-MM (Mich. Ct. Cl.) was dismissed for lack of standing on July 3, 2025, and is on appeal. The Attorney General (Dana Nessel) has acknowledged the unconstitutionality of the enjoined provisions and refused to defend the Medicaid ban on the merits. The 1931 ban (MCL 750.14–.15) was repealed, and the partial-birth abortion ban (MCL 750.90h) was also repealed by the RHA. The Legal Birth Definition Act (MCL 333.1081 et seq.) was permanently enjoined by the Sixth Circuit in Northland Family Planning Clinic v. Cox, 487 F.3d 323 (6th Cir. 2007) and its underlying statutory authority was repealed by the RHA. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Northland Family Planning Center v. Nessel, No. 24-000011-MM (Mich. Ct. Cl. May 13, 2025), slip op. at 2-3, [Michigan Courts](https://www.courts.michigan.gov/49ac99/siteassets/case-documents/opinions-orders/coc-opinions-(manually-curated)/2025/24-000011-mm.pdf) · YWCA of Kalamazoo v. Michigan, No. 24-000093-MM (Mich. Ct. Cl. July 3, 2025), slip op. at 2, [Michigan Courts](https://www.courts.michigan.gov/49f796/siteassets/case-documents/opinions-orders/coc-opinions-(manually-curated)/2025/24-000093-mm.pdf)* **Editor's note.** The People of the State of Michigan intervened to defend the enjoined restrictions and the Medicaid ban; the Attorney General's office erected a conflict wall to provide adversarial defense. The Court of Claims ruling in Northland is subject to potential appeal, though the state defendants (AG, LARA, DHHS) have conceded the provisions are unconstitutional. ## Exceptions ### Life of the mother **Life exception; constitutional mandate** An abortion must always be permitted when medically indicated to protect the pregnant person's life, at any stage of pregnancy. Michigan's constitution requires that the state never prohibit an abortion that a health care professional determines is medically necessary to protect the pregnant person's life. This applies at every stage of pregnancy, including after fetal viability. No special documentation or reporting beyond the provider's professional judgment is required. > "in no circumstance shall the state prohibit an abortion that, in the professional judgment of an attending health care professional, is medically indicated to protect the life or physical or mental health of the pregnant individual." > — Mich. Const. art. I, § 28(1) **Legal analysis** Mich. Const. art. I, § 28(1) provides that the state may not 'in no circumstance . . . prohibit an abortion that, in the professional judgment of an attending health care professional, is medically indicated to protect the life or physical or mental health of the pregnant individual.' The RHA (MCL 333.26103(2)) confirms that the attending health care professional may consider 'any factor that the attending health care professional considers relevant to the well-being of the pregnant individual, including, but not limited to, the pregnant individual's age and physical, emotional, psychological, and familial considerations.' The pre-Roe ban's sole life exception (former MCL 750.14–.15) is moot because those statutes have been repealed. *Sources — Semi-verified · High confidence · Mich. Const. art. I, § 28(1), § 28(1), [Michigan Legislature](https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-Article-I-28)* **Editor's note.** Status set by the research runner: the claim matched search-result snippets, but none of the cited pages were opened in full during research. Confirm the quoted text at the cited URL before publication. ### Physical health **Physical health exception; constitutional mandate** An abortion must always be permitted when medically indicated to protect the pregnant person's physical health, at any stage of pregnancy. Michigan's constitution requires that the state never prohibit an abortion that a health care professional determines is medically necessary to protect the pregnant person's physical health. The provider can consider a broad range of factors including the person's age, physical condition, and family situation. > "in no circumstance shall the state prohibit an abortion that, in the professional judgment of an attending health care professional, is medically indicated to protect the life or physical or mental health of the pregnant individual." > — Mich. Const. art. I, § 28(1) **Legal analysis** The constitutional text explicitly covers 'physical . . . health' of the pregnant individual. MCL 333.26103(2) provides a non-exhaustive list of factors the attending health care professional may consider: 'age and physical, emotional, psychological, and familial considerations.' This is a broad, provider-driven standard with no certification, documentation, or second-opinion requirement. *Sources — Semi-verified · High confidence · Mich. Const. art. I, § 28(1), § 28(1), [Michigan Legislature](https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-Article-I-28)* **Editor's note.** Status set by the research runner: the claim matched search-result snippets, but none of the cited pages were opened in full during research. Confirm the quoted text at the cited URL before publication. ### Mental health **Mental health exception; constitutional mandate** An abortion must always be permitted when medically indicated to protect the pregnant person's mental health, at any stage of pregnancy. Michigan's constitution explicitly names mental health alongside life and physical health as a basis for which the state can never prohibit an abortion. This means a provider may determine that continuing a pregnancy poses a serious risk to the pregnant person's mental health and perform an abortion at any stage, including after viability. > "in no circumstance shall the state prohibit an abortion that, in the professional judgment of an attending health care professional, is medically indicated to protect the life or physical or mental health of the pregnant individual." > — Mich. Const. art. I, § 28(1) **Legal analysis** Mich. Const. art. I, § 28(1) explicitly lists 'mental health' as one of the three interests whose protection categorically bars the state from prohibiting an abortion. This is a broad, provider-driven standard. The RHA (MCL 333.26103(2)) confirms the provider may consider 'emotional, psychological, and familial considerations.' Michigan is unusual among U.S. jurisdictions in constitutionally enshrining mental health as an explicit, unqualified basis for post-viability abortion access. *Sources — Semi-verified · High confidence · Mich. Const. art. I, § 28(1), § 28(1), [Michigan Legislature](https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-Article-I-28)* **Editor's note.** Status set by the research runner: the claim matched search-result snippets, but none of the cited pages were opened in full during research. Confirm the quoted text at the cited URL before publication. ### Rape **Rape/incest exception not needed** Because abortion is a constitutional right before viability and must always be permitted for health reasons after viability, no standalone rape or incest exception is structurally necessary. Michigan does not have — and does not need — a specific rape or incest exception in its abortion laws. Because abortion is a constitutional right throughout pregnancy (with broad health-based access after viability), a person who becomes pregnant from rape or incest can access abortion on the same terms as anyone else. The repealed 1931 ban had no rape or incest exception, but that law is gone. **Legal analysis** Michigan's architecture makes discrete rape and incest exceptions unnecessary. Before viability, abortion is an unrestricted constitutional right; after viability, it must be permitted whenever medically indicated for life, physical health, or mental health — a standard broad enough to encompass virtually any circumstance in which a rape or incest survivor would seek abortion care. The repealed 1931 ban (former MCL 750.14–.15) contained no rape or incest exception, a fact frequently noted by advocates for its repeal. *Sources — Semi-verified · High confidence · 2023 Mich. Pub. Acts 11 (repealing MCL 750.14–.15), [Michigan Legislature](https://www.michigan.gov/whitmer/news/press-releases/2023/04/05/governor-whitmer-repeals-michigans-extreme-1931-abortion-ban)* **Editor's note.** Status set by the research runner: the claim matched search-result snippets, but none of the cited pages were opened in full during research. Confirm the quoted text at the cited URL before publication. ### Fatal fetal anomaly **Fatal anomaly not separately defined** No standalone fatal fetal anomaly exception exists because abortion is broadly protected at all stages; post-viability, mental and physical health grounds encompass fatal anomaly cases. Michigan law does not have a specific exception for fatal fetal anomalies because none is needed. Before viability, abortion is unrestricted. After viability, a provider may determine that continuing a pregnancy with a fatal fetal anomaly threatens the pregnant person's physical or mental health, which the constitution protects. The provider's professional judgment controls. **Legal analysis** The sweeping health exception in Mich. Const. art. I, § 28(1) — covering 'life or physical or mental health' — combined with the provider's discretion to consider 'physical, emotional, psychological, and familial considerations' (MCL 333.26103(2)), makes a standalone fetal anomaly exception redundant in Michigan's legal architecture. *Sources — No law on this point · High confidence* ### Ectopic pregnancy & miscarriage care **Miscarriage and ectopic care excluded** The statutory definition of abortion expressly excludes removal of a dead fetus and treatment for miscarriage; ectopic pregnancy management is emergency medical care, not regulated as abortion. Michigan's definition of abortion does not cover treatment for miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy, or removal of a fetus that has already died. This means miscarriage management — whether by medication, D&C, D&E, or labor induction when there is no cardiac activity — is not legally restricted as abortion. Ectopic pregnancy treatment is standard emergency medical care and falls outside the abortion framework entirely. > "Abortion means the intentional use of an instrument, drug, or other substance or device to terminate a woman's pregnancy for a purpose other than ... to remove a fetus that has died as a result of natural causes, accidental trauma, or a criminal assault on the pregnant woman." > — MCL 333.17015(2)(a) **Legal analysis** MCL 333.17015(2)(a) defines abortion to exclude removal of 'a fetus that has died as a result of natural causes, accidental trauma, or a criminal assault on the pregnant woman.' Ectopic pregnancy treatment — which involves terminating a non-viable pregnancy that cannot result in a live birth — falls outside this definition and is governed by general medical standards of care, not abortion regulation. The RHA and RFFA do not disturb this carve-out. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · MCL 333.17015(2)(a), § 333.17015(2)(a), [Michigan Legislature](https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-333-17015)* ## Methods ### Procedural surgical **All procedural methods legal** Procedural abortion (D&C, D&E, induction) is legal at all stages; no method-specific bans are in force; D&X/partial-birth ban repealed; Legal Birth Definition Act enjoined and repealed. All procedural abortion methods are legal in Michigan. The state's old partial-birth abortion ban (both the 1996 statute and the 2004 Legal Birth Definition Act) have been permanently blocked by federal courts and were repealed by the Reproductive Health Act in 2023. There are no D&E 'dismemberment' bans in Michigan law. Providers may use the method they judge most appropriate for the patient's circumstances. **Legal analysis** Michigan's 1996 partial-birth abortion ban (PA 273, MCL 333.1071 et seq.) was struck down as unconstitutionally vague in 1997 and never revived. The 2004 Legal Birth Definition Act (PA 135, MCL 333.1081 et seq.) was permanently enjoined by the Sixth Circuit in Northland Family Planning Clinic v. Cox, 487 F.3d 323 (6th Cir. 2007), which held it imposed an undue burden by potentially criminalizing standard D&E procedures. The RHA (2023 PA 286) repealed MCL 750.90h (the Penal Code partial-birth abortion ban) and the statutory underpinnings of the method bans. Michigan has never enacted a standalone D&E 'dismemberment' ban. With the repeal of the 1931 criminal ban and the permanent injunction of the physician-only requirement in Northland v. Nessel (2025), procedural abortion faces no unique method-based restrictions beyond the general constitutional framework. *Sources — Semi-verified · High confidence · Northland Family Planning Clinic, Inc. v. Cox, 487 F.3d 323 (6th Cir. 2007), [FindLaw](https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-6th-circuit/1368516.html) · MCL 750.90h (repealed by 2023 PA 286), [Michigan Legislature](https://reproductiverights.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/CRR_LegislativeWrapUp_2023_Digital_NEW_12-20-23.pdf)* **Editor's note.** Status set by the research runner: the claim matched search-result snippets, but none of the cited pages were opened in full during research. Confirm the quoted text at the cited URL before publication. ### Medication **Medication abortion legal; telehealth available** Medication abortion (mifepristone/misoprostol) is legal, can be prescribed via telehealth, and can be dispensed in-person or by mail; it is not governed differently from procedural abortion under state law. Medication abortion — using mifepristone and misoprostol — is fully legal in Michigan. It can be prescribed through a telehealth visit and the pills can be mailed to the patient or picked up at a pharmacy. Planned Parenthood of Michigan offers medication abortion by telehealth up to 11 weeks and 5 days of pregnancy and in-person up to 12 weeks. No Michigan law requires in-person dispensing or prohibits mailing abortion pills. The FDA's authorization of mifepristone by mail preempts any contrary state law, though Michigan currently has no such contrary law. **Legal analysis** Michigan imposes no dispensing-location requirements, no in-person-prescribing requirements, and no mailing prohibitions specific to medication abortion. The permanent injunction in Northland v. Nessel (2025) struck down the informed-consent and waiting-period framework that previously added friction to medication abortion access. The physician-only rule — which would have limited medication abortion prescribing to physicians — was also permanently enjoined, meaning advanced practice clinicians may now prescribe. The FDA's Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) for mifepristone permits certified pharmacies to dispense and permits mailing; the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, 602 U.S. 367 (2024), preserved this framework. No Michigan state law conflicts with it. Telehealth prescribing is available from in-state providers (e.g., Planned Parenthood of Michigan); the medication must be taken while physically in Michigan per Planned Parenthood's policy, though this is a provider policy rather than a statutory requirement. *Sources — Semi-verified · High confidence · Planned Parenthood of Michigan — Abortion Services, [Planned Parenthood of Michigan](https://www.plannedparenthood.org/planned-parenthood-michigan/healthcare/abortion-services) · FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, 602 U.S. 367 (2024), [Supreme Court of the United States](https://www.michiganpublic.org/2026-05-14/the-supreme-court-keeps-abortion-pill-mifepristone-available-by-telehealth)* **Editor's note.** The FDA's mifepristone REMS is currently the subject of ongoing federal litigation and administrative reconsideration; any change at the federal level could alter the practical availability of medication abortion by mail nationwide. As of this writing, the REMS permits certified-pharmacy dispensing and mailing. Status set by the research runner: the claim matched search-result snippets, but none of the cited pages were opened in full during research. Confirm the quoted text at the cited URL before publication. ### Self managed **Self-managed abortion not criminalized** Michigan's constitution prohibits penalizing a person for their pregnancy outcome, including abortion; the repealed 1931 ban no longer exists; no Michigan statute criminalizes self-managed abortion. A person who ends their own pregnancy — for example, by obtaining abortion pills online or using other methods — faces no criminal exposure under Michigan law. The constitution explicitly says the state 'shall not penalize, prosecute, or otherwise take adverse action against an individual based on their actual, potential, perceived, or alleged pregnancy outcomes, including but not limited to miscarriage, stillbirth, or abortion.' The old 1931 law that could have been used to prosecute pregnant people was repealed. No other Michigan statute reaches self-managed abortion. > "The state shall not penalize, prosecute, or otherwise take adverse action against an individual based on their actual, potential, perceived, or alleged pregnancy outcomes, including but not limited to miscarriage, stillbirth, or abortion." > — Mich. Const. art. I, § 28(3) **Legal analysis** Mich. Const. art. I, § 28(3) provides: 'The state shall not penalize, prosecute, or otherwise take adverse action against an individual based on their actual, potential, perceived, or alleged pregnancy outcomes, including but not limited to miscarriage, stillbirth, or abortion.' This is a categorical constitutional shield. The RHA (MCL 333.26103(1)(d)) mirrors this language. The repealed 1931 ban (former MCL 750.14) had been interpreted to apply only to providers, not to the pregnant woman herself — but its repeal eliminates any residual ambiguity. Section 28(3) further protects against adverse action for aiding someone else: 'Nor shall the state penalize, prosecute, or otherwise take adverse action against someone for aiding or assisting a pregnant individual in exercising their right to reproductive freedom with their voluntary consent.' The only potential point of contact is the general criminal law (e.g., fetal homicide, drug laws), but the constitutional immunity for pregnancy outcomes forecloses any prosecution of a pregnant person for ending her own pregnancy. *Sources — Semi-verified · High confidence · Mich. Const. art. I, § 28(3), § 28(3), [Michigan Legislature](https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-Article-I-28)* **Editor's note.** Status set by the research runner: the claim matched search-result snippets, but none of the cited pages were opened in full during research. Confirm the quoted text at the cited URL before publication. ## Actors ### Who may perform **APCs and physicians; physician-only rule enjoined** The physician-only restriction was permanently enjoined in May 2025; advanced practice clinicians (nurse practitioners, physician assistants, certified nurse-midwives) may now perform abortions; no hospital or ASC requirement exists. Abortions in Michigan may now be performed by advanced practice clinicians — including nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and certified nurse-midwives — not just physicians. The state court permanently struck down the physician-only rule in May 2025. TRAP laws requiring abortion clinics to meet hospital-like surgical center standards were repealed in 2023. There is no admitting-privileges requirement. > "The Court hereby concludes that MCL 333.17015(1), (2)(d)-(g) and (i)-(j), (3)-(10), (11)(a)-(h), (13)-(14), and (18)-(20)—which encompass the mandatory 24-hour waiting period, the mandatory uniform informed consent, the ban on APCs providing abortion care . . . are unconstitutional." > — Northland Family Planning Center v. Nessel, No. 24-000011-MM (Mich. Ct. Cl. May 13, 2025) **Legal analysis** MCL 333.17015(1) was read to impose a physician-only requirement ('a physician shall not perform an abortion . . .'). In Northland Family Planning Center v. Nessel, No. 24-000011-MM (Mich. Ct. Cl. May 13, 2025), the Court of Claims permanently enjoined this restriction as unconstitutional under the RFFA. TRAP laws — including the requirement that abortion facilities meet freestanding surgical outpatient facility standards — were repealed by the RHA (2023 PA 286). Michigan has no admitting-privileges requirement. No hospital-only requirement exists. The coercion-screening provisions of MCL 333.17015a — which survived the Northland injunction — apply to 'the physician or qualified person assisting the physician,' and the term 'qualified person assisting the physician' is broadly defined to include PAs, nurses, psychologists, counselors, and social workers (MCL 333.17015(2)(h)). *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Northland Family Planning Center v. Nessel, No. 24-000011-MM (Mich. Ct. Cl. May 13, 2025), slip op. at 3, [Michigan Courts](https://www.courts.michigan.gov/49ac99/siteassets/case-documents/opinions-orders/coc-opinions-(manually-curated)/2025/24-000011-mm.pdf) · 2023 Mich. Pub. Acts 286 (RHA), repealing TRAP laws, [Center for Reproductive Rights](https://reproductiverights.org/maps/abortion-laws-by-state/michigan)* **Editor's note.** The People of the State of Michigan defended the physician-only rule through the conflict-wall process. An appeal of the Northland ruling could theoretically reinstate it, but the state defendants have conceded its unconstitutionality. ### Criminal civil exposure #### Pregnant woman **Express constitutional immunity** The constitution categorically bars the state from penalizing, prosecuting, or taking adverse action against a person for their pregnancy outcome, including abortion. A pregnant person who obtains or self-manages an abortion in Michigan faces zero criminal or civil exposure. The state constitution says the state 'shall not penalize, prosecute, or otherwise take adverse action' against anyone based on their pregnancy outcome. This includes abortion, miscarriage, and stillbirth. > "The state shall not penalize, prosecute, or otherwise take adverse action against an individual based on their actual, potential, perceived, or alleged pregnancy outcomes, including but not limited to miscarriage, stillbirth, or abortion." > — Mich. Const. art. I, § 28(3) **Legal analysis** Mich. Const. art. I, § 28(3) provides an express, categorical shield: 'The state shall not penalize, prosecute, or otherwise take adverse action against an individual based on their actual, potential, perceived, or alleged pregnancy outcomes, including but not limited to miscarriage, stillbirth, or abortion.' The RHA (MCL 333.26103(1)(d)) codifies this protection. Section 28(3) also protects those who aid or assist: 'Nor shall the state penalize, prosecute, or otherwise take adverse action against someone for aiding or assisting a pregnant individual in exercising their right to reproductive freedom with their voluntary consent.' No Michigan statute exposes the pregnant woman to criminal or civil liability for abortion. The fetal homicide statute (MCL 750.90b) applies only to third-party assaults, and the wrongful-death statute (MCL 600.2922a) expressly exempts acts 'committed by the pregnant individual.' *Sources — Semi-verified · High confidence · Mich. Const. art. I, § 28(3), § 28(3), [Michigan Legislature](https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-Article-I-28)* **Editor's note.** Status set by the research runner: the claim matched search-result snippets, but none of the cited pages were opened in full during research. Confirm the quoted text at the cited URL before publication. #### Physician **Minimal criminal exposure; license discipline possible** With criminal abortion statutes repealed and informed-consent provisions enjoined, physicians face essentially no criminal exposure for performing lawful abortions; parental-consent violations remain a misdemeanor and license discipline is possible. Physicians performing abortions in Michigan face very limited legal risk. The criminal abortion ban has been repealed. The informed-consent provisions that might have carried penalties were permanently enjoined. Violating the parental consent law is a misdemeanor. Physicians could also face professional license discipline for violating any remaining regulatory requirements, including the coercion-screening mandate. > "A person who intentionally performs an abortion in violation of this act is guilty of a misdemeanor." > — MCL 722.907(1) **Legal analysis** The 1931 criminal ban (former MCL 750.14–.15, felony) was repealed. The partial-birth abortion ban (MCL 750.90h) was repealed. The informed-consent framework (MCL 333.17015), which lacked an independent penalty section but whose violation could trigger license discipline under MCL 333.17515 (requiring physician compliance with §§ 17015 and 17015a), has been largely enjoined. The parental consent law (MCL 722.907) makes intentional violation a misdemeanor and exposes the provider to civil liability (including exemplary damages) and prima facie evidence of failure to obtain informed consent or interference with family relations. Coercion-screening violations could theoretically support license discipline under MCL 333.17515. Michigan's Public Health Code (MCL 333.16221) authorizes disciplinary action for '[v]iolation of general duty' including incompetence, negligence, and violation of the code. There is no standalone felony abortion provision currently enforceable against a physician performing an otherwise-lawful abortion. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · MCL 722.907(1), § 722.907(1), [Michigan Legislature](https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-722-907)* **Editor's note.** The interaction between the enjoined MCL 333.17015 and MCL 333.17515 (requiring physician compliance) is murky: it is unclear whether a physician could be disciplined for violating a provision that a court has declared unconstitutional. #### Prescriber pharmacist **No specific criminal exposure** Non-physician prescribers and pharmacists face no Michigan-specific criminal exposure for abortion-related prescribing or dispensing; Michigan has no law restricting filling out-of-state abortion medication prescriptions. Advanced practice clinicians who prescribe abortion medication and pharmacists who dispense it face no special legal risk in Michigan. The physician-only rule has been enjoined, and Michigan has no law that singles out abortion medication for special pharmacy restrictions or prohibits filling prescriptions from out-of-state providers. **Legal analysis** With the physician-only rule permanently enjoined, APCs may lawfully prescribe medication abortion. Michigan has no law restricting pharmacists from dispensing mifepristone or misoprostol. There is no Michigan law prohibiting filling valid out-of-state prescriptions for abortion medication. Pharmacists are subject to general professional discipline for violating the Public Health Code but face no abortion-specific exposure. The FDA REMS for mifepristone requires certification for dispensing pharmacies; this is a federal requirement, not a state-law restriction. *Sources — Semi-verified · High confidence* **Editor's note.** The FDA REMS for mifepristone is the primary federal regulatory framework; Michigan imposes no additional state-law requirements beyond general pharmacy practice standards. Status set by the research runner: the claim matched search-result snippets, but none of the cited pages were opened in full during research. Confirm the quoted text at the cited URL before publication. #### Nurses and staff **No criminal exposure; constitutional shield** Clinical staff assisting in abortion care are constitutionally protected from adverse action for aiding a pregnant person in exercising reproductive freedom; no accomplice liability attaches. Nurses, medical assistants, counselors, and other clinic staff who help provide abortion care are protected by the Michigan Constitution. The state cannot prosecute or penalize someone for 'aiding or assisting a pregnant individual in exercising their right to reproductive freedom with their voluntary consent.' > "Nor shall the state penalize, prosecute, or otherwise take adverse action against someone for aiding or assisting a pregnant individual in exercising their right to reproductive freedom with their voluntary consent." > — Mich. Const. art. I, § 28(3) **Legal analysis** Mich. Const. art. I, § 28(3) provides: 'Nor shall the state penalize, prosecute, or otherwise take adverse action against someone for aiding or assisting a pregnant individual in exercising their right to reproductive freedom with their voluntary consent.' The RHA (MCL 333.26103(1)(d)) codifies this. The repeal of criminal abortion statutes and the injunction of the informed-consent framework eliminate the predicate offenses for accomplice liability. Staff could theoretically face license discipline for violating remaining regulations (coercion screening, parental consent), but the parental consent law only penalizes the person who 'performs an abortion,' not ancillary staff. *Sources — Semi-verified · High confidence · Mich. Const. art. I, § 28(3), § 28(3), [Michigan Legislature](https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-Article-I-28)* **Editor's note.** Status set by the research runner: the claim matched search-result snippets, but none of the cited pages were opened in full during research. Confirm the quoted text at the cited URL before publication. #### Other helpers **Constitutional shield for all helpers** The constitution shields anyone who aids or assists a pregnant person in exercising reproductive freedom — including friends who drive, family who pay, or employers who reimburse — from prosecution or adverse action. Anyone who helps a pregnant person access abortion — a friend who drives them to a clinic, a parent who pays, an employer who reimburses travel expenses — is shielded from prosecution or penalty under Michigan's constitution. The shield is broad: it covers anyone 'aiding or assisting a pregnant individual in exercising their right to reproductive freedom with their voluntary consent.' > "Nor shall the state penalize, prosecute, or otherwise take adverse action against someone for aiding or assisting a pregnant individual in exercising their right to reproductive freedom with their voluntary consent." > — Mich. Const. art. I, § 28(3) **Legal analysis** Mich. Const. art. I, § 28(3) sweeps broadly: the state may not 'penalize, prosecute, or otherwise take adverse action against someone for aiding or assisting a pregnant individual in exercising their right to reproductive freedom with their voluntary consent.' 'Adverse action' and 'aiding or assisting' are not defined in the amendment, but the plain language covers funding, transportation, logistical support, and information-sharing. The RHA (MCL 333.26103(1)(d)) mirrors this. No Michigan statute specifically criminalizes aiding or assisting abortion. The coercion-to-abort statute (MCL 750.213a) runs in the opposite direction — it criminalizes coercing someone TO have an abortion, not helping someone who voluntarily seeks one. *Sources — Semi-verified · High confidence · Mich. Const. art. I, § 28(3), § 28(3), [Michigan Legislature](https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-Article-I-28)* **Editor's note.** Status set by the research runner: the claim matched search-result snippets, but none of the cited pages were opened in full during research. Confirm the quoted text at the cited URL before publication. ## Aiding & assisting ### Travel assistance **Travel assistance protected** Helping someone travel — within Michigan or to another state — for an abortion is constitutionally shielded; Michigan has no 'abortion trafficking' statute; local ordinances restricting travel assistance would likely be preempted. Helping someone travel for an abortion — whether driving them to a clinic in Michigan or helping them go to another state — is protected by the Michigan Constitution. Michigan has no law that criminalizes assisting someone's travel for abortion, and no 'abortion trafficking' law that targets those who help minors cross state lines. The state constitution's aid-and-assist shield covers this activity. **Legal analysis** Michigan has no 'abortion trafficking' statute, no law criminalizing transporting a minor across state lines for an abortion, and no statute restricting travel assistance. Mich. Const. art. I, § 28(3) shields those who aid or assist. The RHA (MCL 333.26103(1)(d)) provides a parallel statutory shield and creates a private right of action against governmental entities that violate these protections (MCL 333.26105). Any local ordinance attempting to restrict travel assistance would face preemption under Michigan's constitutional protection and the RHA. *Sources — Semi-verified · High confidence · Mich. Const. art. I, § 28(3), § 28(3), [Michigan Legislature](https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-Article-I-28)* **Editor's note.** Status set by the research runner: the claim matched search-result snippets, but none of the cited pages were opened in full during research. Confirm the quoted text at the cited URL before publication. ### Funding **Funding assistance protected** Paying for someone's abortion or abortion-related travel is constitutionally shielded; abortion funds and employer reimbursement programs operate without legal restriction. Anyone can pay for another person's abortion or abortion-related expenses — including travel, lodging, and childcare — without legal risk. Abortion funds operate freely in Michigan. Employers who reimburse abortion travel as a benefit are not restricted by state law. **Legal analysis** Mich. Const. art. I, § 28(3) shields those who aid or assist in exercising reproductive freedom, which encompasses financial assistance. No Michigan statute restricts private funding of abortion. The RHA (MCL 333.26103) codifies the constitutional protections. The repealed 1931 ban on 'advertising or sale of drugs' for abortion (former MCL 750.15) no longer exists. The only funding restriction is the ban on state Medicaid funds (MCL 400.109a), which affects public — not private — funding. *Sources — Semi-verified · High confidence* **Editor's note.** Status set by the research runner: the claim matched search-result snippets, but none of the cited pages were opened in full during research. Confirm the quoted text at the cited URL before publication. ### Mailing pills **Mailing pills not prohibited** Michigan has no law prohibiting the mailing of abortion medication into or within the state; the constitutional aid-and-assist shield further protects those who send or receive pills. Sending or receiving abortion pills by mail is not restricted by Michigan law. There is no state prohibition on mailing mifepristone or misoprostol. The FDA permits certified pharmacies to mail mifepristone, and Michigan imposes no additional state barriers. The constitutional protection for aiding and assisting reproductive freedom would shield someone who helps obtain pills by mail. **Legal analysis** No Michigan statute prohibits mailing, sending, or receiving abortion medication. The federal Comstock Act (18 U.S.C. § 1461–1462) has not been enforced against abortion medication by the current U.S. Department of Justice and its applicability is contested. The Michigan constitutional shield for aiders and assisters (art. I, § 28(3)) would protect a person who mails or facilitates the mailing of pills to a Michigan resident. The repealed pre-Roe ban's prohibition on selling or advertising abortifacients (former MCL 750.15) is gone. *Sources — Semi-verified · Medium confidence* **Editor's note.** The Comstock Act remains on the books and its potential future enforcement is a subject of active political and legal debate nationally. This analysis addresses Michigan law only. Status set by the research runner: the claim matched search-result snippets, but none of the cited pages were opened in full during research. Confirm the quoted text at the cited URL before publication. ### Providing information **Information-sharing protected** Providing information, referrals, or websites about abortion is protected by the First Amendment and Michigan's constitutional aid-and-assist shield; there is no gag rule or information restriction. Sharing information about abortion — including referrals, clinic locations, or websites — is legal and constitutionally protected in Michigan. The state cannot penalize someone for informing a pregnant person about their options. A previous law prohibiting public universities from providing abortion referrals was repealed by the RHA. No 'aiding and abetting' theory reaches pure speech about lawful activity. **Legal analysis** Michigan has no statute restricting abortion-related speech or referrals. The RHA (2023 PA 286) repealed the prohibition on public university abortion referrals. The First Amendment protects truthful speech about lawful services. Mich. Const. art. I, § 28(3) separately protects those who aid or assist. The coercion statute (MCL 750.213a) criminalizes coercing someone TO have an abortion, not providing neutral information. *Sources — Semi-verified · High confidence · 2023 Mich. Pub. Acts 286 (RHA), repealing public university referral prohibition, [Center for Reproductive Rights](https://reproductiverights.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/CRR_LegislativeWrapUp_2023_Digital_NEW_12-20-23.pdf)* **Editor's note.** Status set by the research runner: the claim matched search-result snippets, but none of the cited pages were opened in full during research. Confirm the quoted text at the cited URL before publication. ### Civil bounty **No civil bounty law** Michigan has no SB8-style private civil enforcement law; private individuals cannot sue abortion providers or helpers for damages under state law. Michigan has no law like Texas's SB8 that allows private citizens to sue abortion providers or anyone who helps someone get an abortion. There is no civil bounty mechanism in Michigan law. **Legal analysis** Michigan has never enacted a private civil enforcement statute for abortion. The only private civil action related to abortion is the parental consent law (MCL 722.907(2)), which makes failure to obtain parental consent prima facie evidence in a civil action for failure to obtain informed consent or interference with family relations — but this is a traditional tort remedy, not a bounty. The RHA creates a private right of action for individuals whose reproductive rights are violated (MCL 333.26105), which runs in favor of abortion access, not against it. *Sources — No law on this point · High confidence* ## Procedural requirements ### Waiting period **No waiting period; 24-hour rule permanently enjoined** The 24-hour mandatory waiting period was permanently enjoined by the Michigan Court of Claims in May 2025; no delay is currently required between counseling and procedure. There is no waiting period for abortion in Michigan. The law that required a 24-hour delay between receiving information and having the procedure was permanently struck down by a state court in May 2025. A person can receive counseling, give consent, and have the abortion on the same day. > "The Court hereby concludes that MCL 333.17015(1), (2)(d)-(g) and (i)-(j), (3)-(10), (11)(a)-(h), (13)-(14), and (18)-(20)—which encompass the mandatory 24-hour waiting period . . . are unconstitutional." > — Northland Family Planning Center v. Nessel, No. 24-000011-MM (Mich. Ct. Cl. May 13, 2025) **Legal analysis** MCL 333.17015(1) and (3) required 'informed written consent' obtained 'not less than 24 hours before' the abortion. In Northland Family Planning Center v. Nessel, No. 24-000011-MM (Mich. Ct. Cl. May 13, 2025), the Court of Claims permanently enjoined these provisions as violating the RFFA's strict-scrutiny standard. The court found the waiting period denied, burdened, and infringed upon reproductive freedom without being justified by a compelling state interest achieved by the least restrictive means. The preliminary injunction had been in place since June 25, 2024; the May 2025 ruling made it permanent. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Northland Family Planning Center v. Nessel, No. 24-000011-MM (Mich. Ct. Cl. May 13, 2025), slip op. at 2-3, [Michigan Courts](https://www.courts.michigan.gov/49ac99/siteassets/case-documents/opinions-orders/coc-opinions-(manually-curated)/2025/24-000011-mm.pdf)* **Editor's note.** The People of the State of Michigan defended the waiting period at trial. An appeal to the Michigan Court of Appeals is possible, but the state defendants have conceded unconstitutionality. ### Mandatory counseling **No state-scripted counseling; enjoined** The mandatory uniform informed-consent script — including state-written materials, fetal depictions, and risk descriptions — was permanently enjoined; standard medical informed consent still applies. Michigan no longer requires abortion providers to read from a state-scripted counseling document or to give patients state-produced materials about fetal development, adoption, or parenting. A court permanently blocked those requirements in May 2025, finding they violated the state constitution. Providers still obtain informed consent, but using standard medical practice rather than state-mandated language. **Legal analysis** MCL 333.17015(3)-(8) and (11)(a)-(h) required providers to give patients state-produced written summaries of abortion procedures, medically accurate fetal depictions, a prenatal care and parenting pamphlet, and a prescreening summary on coercion; to orally describe gestational age, complications, and pregnancy-prevention information; and to orally describe the specific risks of the procedure and of continuing the pregnancy. The Court of Claims permanently enjoined all these provisions in Northland v. Nessel (2025), finding them unconstitutional under the RFFA. The coercion-screening provisions (MCL 333.17015a and MCL 333.17015(11)(i)) were upheld and remain in effect. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Northland Family Planning Center v. Nessel, No. 24-000011-MM (Mich. Ct. Cl. May 13, 2025), slip op. at 2-3, [Michigan Courts](https://www.courts.michigan.gov/49ac99/siteassets/case-documents/opinions-orders/coc-opinions-(manually-curated)/2025/24-000011-mm.pdf)* ### Ultrasound requirement **No ultrasound requirement** Michigan has no mandatory ultrasound law; the provision requiring providers to offer the opportunity to view an ultrasound image was permanently enjoined. Michigan does not require a person seeking an abortion to have an ultrasound. There is no requirement to view an ultrasound image or listen to a fetal heartbeat. The law that required providers to offer patients the opportunity to view an ultrasound image was permanently blocked by the court in May 2025. **Legal analysis** MCL 333.17015(8) previously required that if an ultrasound was performed, the provider must 'provide the patient with the opportunity to view or decline to view an active ultrasound image of the fetus, and offer to provide the patient with a physical picture of the ultrasound image.' This provision was among those permanently enjoined in Northland v. Nessel (2025). Michigan has never had a requirement that an ultrasound be performed, displayed, or described as a precondition to abortion. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Northland Family Planning Center v. Nessel, No. 24-000011-MM (Mich. Ct. Cl. May 13, 2025), slip op. at 2-3, [Michigan Courts](https://www.courts.michigan.gov/49ac99/siteassets/case-documents/opinions-orders/coc-opinions-(manually-curated)/2025/24-000011-mm.pdf)* ### In person visits **No mandatory in-person visits** With the waiting period and state-scripted counseling enjoined, no Michigan law requires any particular number of in-person visits; telehealth consultation and medication by mail permit zero in-person visits for medication abortion. Michigan law does not require any specific number of in-person visits for an abortion. With the waiting period and mandatory counseling requirements struck down, a person can consult with a provider via telehealth, receive medication by mail, and complete a medication abortion without ever visiting a clinic in person. For procedural abortion, one in-person visit is required by the nature of the procedure, not by law. **Legal analysis** Before the Northland injunction, the waiting period effectively forced two in-person visits (one for counseling, one for the procedure). With the waiting period permanently enjoined, that two-visit structure is gone. For medication abortion, telehealth prescribing with mail-order dispensing permits zero in-person visits. The FDA REMS for mifepristone does not require an in-person dispensing visit. No Michigan statute imposes an in-person examination requirement. *Sources — Semi-verified · High confidence* **Editor's note.** Status set by the research runner: the claim matched search-result snippets, but none of the cited pages were opened in full during research. Confirm the quoted text at the cited URL before publication. ## Minors ### Parental involvement **One-parent consent with judicial bypass** Michigan requires written consent from one parent or legal guardian for a minor's abortion, with a judicial bypass available; the requirement is waived in medical emergencies. In Michigan, a person under 18 must get written consent from one parent or legal guardian before having an abortion. If they cannot or do not want to involve a parent — for example, because of abuse, estrangement, or fear — they can ask a judge for permission instead through a process called judicial bypass. The consent requirement does not apply in a medical emergency. This law remains in effect and has not been challenged or enjoined under the RFFA. > "Except as otherwise provided in this act, a person shall not perform an abortion on a minor without first obtaining the written consent of the minor and 1 of the parents or the legal guardian of the minor." > — MCL 722.903(1) **Legal analysis** MCL 722.903(1) provides: 'Except as otherwise provided in this act, a person shall not perform an abortion on a minor without first obtaining the written consent of the minor and 1 of the parents or the legal guardian of the minor.' MCL 722.903(2) permits the minor to petition for a judicial waiver. MCL 722.905 waives the consent requirement in a medical emergency. MCL 722.907 makes violation a misdemeanor and exposes the provider to civil liability. The Parental Rights Restoration Act (1990 PA 211, MCL 722.901–722.909) has not been challenged under the RFFA, and its constitutionality under both the RFFA and federal precedent (Bellotti v. Baird, 443 U.S. 622 (1979), requiring a judicial bypass) appears settled. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · MCL 722.903(1), § 722.903(1), [Michigan Legislature](https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=MCL-722-903)* ### Judicial bypass **Judicial bypass available** Minors may petition the probate court for a waiver of parental consent; the court must rule promptly; the minor has a right to appointed counsel; proceedings are confidential and sealed. A minor who does not want to or cannot involve a parent can go to probate court and ask a judge for permission to have an abortion without parental consent. The minor has the right to a court-appointed attorney at no cost. The court must hold a hearing and issue a ruling on an expedited timeline. The entire process is confidential — the court file is sealed, and the minor may use initials instead of their name. > "If a parent or the legal guardian is not available or refuses to give his or her consent, or if the minor elects not to seek consent of a parent or the legal guardian, the minor may petition the probate court pursuant to section 4 for a waiver of the parental consent requirement of this section." > — MCL 722.903(2) **Legal analysis** MCL 722.904 governs the judicial waiver process. The minor files a petition in probate court. The court must appoint an attorney to represent the minor upon request (MCL 722.904(2)(e)). The hearing is confidential, the file is sealed, and the minor may proceed using initials (MCL 722.905(5)). The standard for granting the waiver is set out in MCL 722.904(3): the court shall grant the waiver if it finds 'by a preponderance of the evidence' either that the minor is 'mature and well-informed enough to make the decision independently' or that 'the waiver would be in the minor's best interests.' The court must rule within a specified timeframe. MCL 722.908 provides for expedited anonymous appeal to the Michigan Court of Appeals. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · MCL 722.903(2), § 722.903(2), [Michigan Legislature](https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=MCL-722-903) · Michigan Courts — Process for Seeking a Waiver of Parental Consent for an Abortion, [Michigan Courts](https://www.courts.michigan.gov/SCAO-forms/Abortion-Waiver/process-for-seeking-a-waiver-of-parental-consent-for-an-abortion)* ## Paternal spousal rights ### Consent or notice laws **No spousal consent or notice law** Michigan has no statute requiring spousal consent or notice for abortion; no paternal consent requirement exists beyond the parental consent law for minors. Michigan does not require a married person to get their spouse's consent or to notify their spouse before having an abortion. There is no father's consent requirement for an adult. The only consent requirement involves parents of minors, not spouses or partners. **Legal analysis** Michigan has never had a spousal-consent statute comparable to the Missouri law struck down in Planned Parenthood v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52 (1976). No Michigan statute requires notice to, or consent from, the father or spouse of a pregnant person seeking abortion. The father of the fetus has no statutory right to block or be informed of an abortion decision. Any such statute would almost certainly violate Mich. Const. art. I, § 28 given its strict-scrutiny standard and protection of autonomous decision-making. *Sources — No law on this point · High confidence* ### Enforceability **No spousal law to enforce** No spousal or paternal notice/consent law exists on Michigan's books; Danforth and Casey's holdings on this point are therefore academic in Michigan. Because Michigan has no spousal consent or notice law, the U.S. Supreme Court decisions striking down such laws in other states (Planned Parenthood v. Danforth and Planned Parenthood v. Casey) do not directly affect Michigan. Even without those federal precedents, Michigan's own constitution would almost certainly bar any spousal-consent requirement under its strict-scrutiny standard. **Legal analysis** Planned Parenthood v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52 (1976), held that a blanket spousal-consent requirement was unconstitutional. Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), struck down a spousal-notice requirement as an undue burden. Dobbs (2022) overruled Roe and Casey's federal constitutional holdings, but Mich. Const. art. I, § 28 independently protects reproductive freedom under strict scrutiny. Even if a spousal-notice or consent statute were enacted in Michigan today, it would face invalidation under the RFFA's requirement that any restriction be justified by a compelling state interest in protecting the patient's health, achieved by the least restrictive means, without infringing autonomous decision-making. *Sources — No law on this point · High confidence* ### Other paternal rights **Father has no veto; wrongful-death standing possible** The father of a fetus has no legal right to prevent or be notified of an abortion; a father may have standing to bring a wrongful-death claim for a fetus under MCL 600.2922a if the death results from a third party's negligent or wrongful act. A father cannot stop a pregnant person from having an abortion and has no right to be informed about it. If a fetus dies because of someone else's wrongful act — such as a car accident — the father might be able to bring a wrongful-death lawsuit. But this statute expressly excludes acts committed by the pregnant person and lawful medical procedures performed with consent. > "A person who commits a wrongful or negligent act against a pregnant individual is liable for damages if the act results in a miscarriage or stillbirth by that individual, or physical injury to or the death of the embryo or fetus." > — MCL 600.2922a(1) **Legal analysis** MCL 600.2922a creates liability for a person who commits a wrongful or negligent act against a pregnant individual resulting in miscarriage, stillbirth, or death of the embryo or fetus. Subsection (2) exempts: '(a) An act committed by the pregnant individual. (b) A medical procedure performed by a physician or other licensed health professional within the scope of his or her practice and with the pregnant individual's consent . . . (c) The lawful dispensation, administration, or prescription of medication.' This exemption forecloses wrongful-death claims based on lawful abortion. The father has no independent right to veto an abortion, and Michigan courts have not recognized a putative father's right to enjoin an abortion. No putative-father registry relevant to abortion exists in Michigan. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · MCL 600.2922a(1), § 600.2922a(1), [Michigan Legislature](https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-600-2922a) · MCL 600.2922a(2), § 600.2922a(2), [Michigan Legislature](https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-600-2922a)* ## Fetal personhood ### Fetal homicide law **Fetal homicide from quickening; mother exempt** Michigan law makes the willful killing of an unborn quick child manslaughter (MCL 750.322) and separately criminalizes assault causing miscarriage, stillbirth, or death to an embryo or fetus (MCL 750.90b); both apply only to third parties, not the pregnant person. Michigan has two laws that treat harming a fetus as a crime. One is an old law (from 1846) that makes it manslaughter to willfully kill an 'unborn quick child' by injuring the mother — 'quick' meaning the stage when fetal movement can be felt. The other is newer and makes it a crime to assault a pregnant person in a way that causes miscarriage, stillbirth, or death to the embryo or fetus at any stage of development. Both laws apply only to third parties — not to the pregnant person herself, and not to lawful medical procedures performed with consent. > "The wilful killing of an unborn quick child by any injury to the mother of such child, which would be murder if it resulted in the death of such mother, shall be deemed manslaughter." > — MCL 750.322 **Legal analysis** MCL 750.322 (manslaughter of an unborn quick child) dates to R.S. 1846 and penalizes '[t]he wilful killing of an unborn quick child by any injury to the mother of such child, which would be murder if it resulted in the death of such mother.' The concept of 'quickening' (first perceptible fetal movement, typically 16-20 weeks) limits its reach. MCL 750.90b, enacted in 1998, is the more modern and comprehensive fetal-protection statute: it grades penalties based on harm to the embryo or fetus resulting from an assault on a pregnant individual, from a Class C felony (death, up to 15 years) to a misdemeanor (physical injury, up to 93 days). MCL 750.90b applies 'regardless of . . . intent or recklessness concerning the fetus.' Neither statute applies to the pregnant person. MCL 750.90b is silent on abortion, but the wrongful-death analog (MCL 600.2922a(2)) explicitly exempts medical procedures performed with consent and lawful dispensing of medication — indicating the legislature's intent to exclude lawful abortion from fetal-protection statutes. The RFFA and RHA independently foreclose any application of fetal-homicide law to lawful abortion care. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · MCL 750.322, § 750.322, [Michigan Legislature](https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-750-322) · MCL 777.16d (sentencing guidelines for MCL 750.90b), MCL 777.16d, [Michigan Legislature](https://legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-777-16d)* **Editor's note.** MCL 750.90b was enacted in 1998 (PA 211) and amended in 2002 (PA 164). The statute applies to embryos and fetuses 'regardless of . . . gestational stage of development' but has not been applied to lawful abortion. ### Wrongful death **Wrongful-death action for fetus; abortion exempt** A civil wrongful-death or injury claim lies for a fetus at any stage, but the statute expressly excludes the pregnant person's own acts and lawful medical procedures performed with consent. If someone's wrongful or negligent act causes a miscarriage, stillbirth, or the death of an embryo or fetus, they can be sued for damages. But the law explicitly says this does not apply to acts committed by the pregnant person herself, lawful medical procedures performed with her consent, or the lawful dispensing of medication. This means a wrongful-death lawsuit cannot be based on a lawful abortion. > "This section does not apply to any of the following: (a) An act committed by the pregnant individual. (b) A medical procedure performed by a physician or other licensed health professional within the scope of his or her practice and with the pregnant individual's consent or the consent of an individual who may lawfully provide consent on her behalf or without consent as necessitated by a medical emergency. (c) The lawful dispensation, administration, or prescription of medication." > — MCL 600.2922a(2) **Legal analysis** MCL 600.2922a(1) imposes liability for damages when a wrongful or negligent act against a pregnant individual results in miscarriage, stillbirth, or death of or injury to the embryo or fetus. Subsection (2) creates three express exceptions: (a) acts committed by the pregnant individual, (b) medical procedures performed by a licensed health professional within scope of practice with consent (or without consent in a medical emergency), and (c) lawful dispensation, administration, or prescription of medication. These exceptions create a clean safe harbor for lawful abortion care. The Michigan Supreme Court has interpreted this statute in several cases and has not extended it to reach abortion providers acting lawfully. The statute applies from conception (it covers 'embryo or fetus' without a viability or gestational threshold). *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · MCL 600.2922a(2), § 600.2922a(2), [Michigan Legislature](https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-600-2922a)* ### Personhood definition **Personhood language present in criminal code** Michigan's coercion statute defines 'unborn child' as 'a live human being in utero regardless of his or her gestational stage of development'; the fetal-assault statute covers embryos and fetuses; the abortion definition calls the fetus an 'individual organism of the species Homo sapiens in utero.' Several Michigan laws use language that treats a fetus or embryo as a separate being. The coercion-to-abort law defines 'unborn child' as a 'live human being in utero regardless of gestational stage.' The informed-consent law defines 'fetus' as 'an individual organism of the species Homo sapiens in utero.' The fetal-assault law treats harming an embryo or fetus as a distinct crime. However, none of these provisions override the constitutional right to abortion. > "Unborn child means a live human being in utero regardless of his or her gestational stage of development." > — MCL 750.213a(5)(c) **Legal analysis** MCL 750.213a(5)(c) defines 'unborn child' as 'a live human being in utero regardless of his or her gestational stage of development.' MCL 333.17015(2)(d) defines 'fetus' as 'an individual organism of the species Homo sapiens in utero.' MCL 750.90b treats harm to an embryo or fetus as a separate offense from harm to the pregnant individual. MCL 750.322 criminalizes killing an 'unborn quick child.' But these personhood-adjacent definitions exist in statutes that are cabined to specific contexts (coercion, informed consent, third-party assault) and do not purport to define 'person' for all purposes. Moreover, any attempt to use these definitions to restrict abortion access would collide with Mich. Const. art. I, § 28, which explicitly protects abortion as a fundamental right. The Michigan Constitution, not the Penal Code, is the supreme law of the state on this point. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · MCL 750.213a(5)(c), § 750.213a(5)(c), [Michigan Legislature](https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=MCL-750-213A) · MCL 333.17015(2)(d), § 333.17015(2)(d), [Michigan Legislature](https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-333-17015)* ### Contradictions analysis Michigan law embodies a striking internal contradiction in its treatment of fetal status. On one hand, the Penal Code defines the unborn as a 'live human being' (MCL 750.213a) and 'an individual organism of the species Homo sapiens' (MCL 333.17015), criminalizes killing an 'unborn quick child' as manslaughter (MCL 750.322), and creates a separate crime for assault causing death to an embryo or fetus 'at any stage of development' (MCL 750.90b). The wrongful-death statute (MCL 600.2922a) allows a civil claim for death of an embryo or fetus — again at any stage. Yet the Michigan Constitution (art. I, § 28) simultaneously guarantees a fundamental right to abortion, including the right to 'make and effectuate decisions about all matters relating to pregnancy,' and prohibits the state from penalizing anyone for a pregnancy outcome including abortion. The RHA (MCL 333.26103) reinforces this by explicitly protecting abortion as a fundamental right and barring adverse action. The fetal-homicide and wrongful-death statutes resolve this contradiction through express carve-outs: MCL 600.2922a(2) exempts acts by the pregnant individual, medical procedures performed with consent, and lawful dispensing of medication. The criminal fetal-assault statute (MCL 750.90b) is silent on abortion but applies only to assault by a third party — it has never been applied to a lawful abortion provider. The pre-Roe criminal abortion ban, which once prosecuted providers, has been repealed. Thus, Michigan's legal architecture recognizes the fetus as a distinct victim of third-party violence from conception while simultaneously recognizing the pregnant person's constitutional right to end the pregnancy. These two commitments coexist through statutory exemptions and constitutional hierarchy: where they conflict, the constitutional right to reproductive freedom prevails. The personhood language in the coercion and informed-consent statutes is definitional scaffolding for those specific regulatory purposes and does not override the constitutional framework. ## Telehealth & interstate questions ### Telehealth prescribing **Telehealth prescribing permitted** Abortion medication can be prescribed via telehealth to a patient in Michigan; no state law requires an in-person visit; providers can prescribe from in-state or out of state subject to licensure rules. A person in Michigan can receive a prescription for abortion medication through a telehealth appointment — by video or phone — without visiting a clinic in person. The medication can then be mailed or picked up at a pharmacy. Michigan law does not require an in-person examination before prescribing. An out-of-state provider can prescribe to a Michigan patient if they hold a Michigan medical license or fall under an applicable exception. **Legal analysis** No Michigan statute requires an in-person examination, dispensing, or consultation for abortion medication. The permanent injunction in Northland v. Nessel eliminated the informed-consent framework that previously added friction. The physician-only rule has been enjoined, so APCs may prescribe. Michigan's general telehealth statute (MCL 333.16285) authorizes telehealth prescribing when the provider establishes a bona fide provider-patient relationship. Out-of-state providers must hold a Michigan license or qualify under a limited exception. Planned Parenthood of Michigan provides telehealth medication abortion up to 11 weeks 5 days; pills must be taken while physically in Michigan per their policy. Michigan has not enacted any abortion-specific telehealth restriction nor any law blocking out-of-state telehealth prescriptions. *Sources — Semi-verified · High confidence · Planned Parenthood of Michigan — Abortion Services, [Planned Parenthood of Michigan](https://www.plannedparenthood.org/planned-parenthood-michigan/healthcare/abortion-services)* **Editor's note.** The FDA mifepristone REMS does not require in-person dispensing. Federal telehealth prescribing rules (including the Ryan Haight Act and its exceptions) apply to controlled substances; mifepristone and misoprostol are not controlled substances. Status set by the research runner: the claim matched search-result snippets, but none of the cited pages were opened in full during research. Confirm the quoted text at the cited URL before publication. ### Out of state travel **Travel out of state unrestricted** Michigan residents may lawfully travel to another state for an abortion; Michigan imposes no restriction on out-of-state travel and has no law purporting to regulate conduct occurring outside its borders. A Michigan resident can travel to any other state for an abortion without legal consequence in Michigan. Michigan does not attempt to restrict or penalize out-of-state travel for abortion, and its constitution protects the right to make decisions about pregnancy. No Michigan law tries to reach conduct that occurs in another state. **Legal analysis** Michigan has no law criminalizing or restricting travel for abortion. Mich. Const. art. I, § 28(3) protects those who aid or assist in exercising reproductive freedom, which includes facilitating travel. The RHA (MCL 333.26103) reinforces this. The constitutional right to travel is independently protected under the federal Constitution (Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999)). Michigan has not enacted any 'abortion trafficking' law targeting those who help minors travel. No Michigan statute purports to apply extraterritorially to abortion-related conduct. *Sources — Semi-verified · High confidence* **Editor's note.** Status set by the research runner: the claim matched search-result snippets, but none of the cited pages were opened in full during research. Confirm the quoted text at the cited URL before publication. ### Shield or hostile laws **Executive-order shield; no statutory shield law** Michigan protects abortion providers and patients from out-of-state investigations through executive orders — not a statute — barring state agency cooperation, extradition for lawful reproductive health care, and certain license actions. Michigan has executive orders — not a permanent statute — that protect abortion providers and patients from other states' investigations. State agencies cannot cooperate with out-of-state investigations into reproductive health care that is legal in Michigan. The governor will not honor extradition requests for people charged in other states for providing or obtaining lawful reproductive health care. However, these protections are in executive orders, which could be rescinded by a future governor. > "I instructed my departments and agencies not to cooperate with or assist the authorities of any state in any investigation or proceeding against an individual for obtaining or providing, or assisting another to obtain or provide, any legal reproductive health care." > — Mich. Exec. Order No. 2022-4, Unavailability of Interstate Extradition (Jul. 13, 2022) **Legal analysis** Executive Directive 2022-5 (May 25, 2022) instructs state departments not to cooperate with or assist other states' investigations or proceedings against individuals for obtaining, providing, or assisting with legal reproductive health care. Executive Order 2022-4 (July 13, 2022) declares that the Governor's office will decline to honor extradition requests for individuals charged in other states for conduct involving legal reproductive health care. Executive Directive 2022-13 (Dec. 14, 2022) directs departments to review operations to ensure reproductive freedom is protected. These are executive actions, not statutes: they bind executive-branch agencies and can be rescinded by a subsequent governor. Michigan has not enacted a statutory shield law comparable to those in California, New York, or Massachusetts. Michigan has no law that affirmatively targets cross-border abortion activity — it is a protective, not a hostile, jurisdiction. *Sources — Verified at source · Medium confidence · Mich. Exec. Order No. 2022-4, Unavailability of Interstate Extradition (Jul. 13, 2022), [State of Michigan — Office of the Governor](https://www.michigan.gov/whitmer/news/state-orders-and-directives/2022/07/13/executive-order-2022-4-unavailability-of-interstate-extradition) · Mich. Exec. Directive No. 2022-5, Reproductive Rights in Michigan (May 25, 2022), [State of Michigan — Office of the Governor](https://www.michigan.gov/whitmer/news/state-orders-and-directives/2022/05/25/ed-2022-5-reproductive-rights-in-michigan)* **Editor's note.** Executive orders do not bind the legislature, courts, or local prosecutors. A future governor could rescind these orders. Michigan lacks the stronger protections of a statutory shield law enacted by the legislature. ## Funding and insurance ### Medicaid **Hyde-only; ban challenged and on appeal** Michigan Medicaid covers abortion only when necessary to save the life of the mother (not rape or incest, despite federal Hyde requirements); a lawsuit challenging this ban was dismissed for lack of standing and is on appeal. Michigan's Medicaid program will only pay for an abortion if it is necessary to save the pregnant person's life. It does not cover abortion in cases of rape or incest — even though federal law requires that for states participating in Medicaid. A lawsuit filed by the YWCA of Kalamazoo to overturn this ban was dismissed in July 2025 because the judge ruled the YWCA lacked legal standing. That ruling is being appealed. > "an abortion shall not be a service provided with public funds to a recipient of welfare benefits, whether through a program of medical assistance, general assistance, or categorical assistance or through any other type of public aid or assistance program, unless the abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother." > — MCL 400.109a **Legal analysis** MCL 400.109a provides: 'an abortion shall not be a service provided with public funds to a recipient of welfare benefits . . . unless the abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother.' This citizen-initiated statute was approved by voters in 1988. In Planned Parenthood Associates of Michigan v. Engler, 73 F.3d 634 (6th Cir. 1996), the Sixth Circuit held that states participating in Medicaid must fund abortions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest under the federal Hyde Amendment. Despite this holding, MCL 400.109a remains on the books with only the life exception, creating a tension between state statutory text and federal obligations. MCL 400.109d and 400.109e further restrict the use of public funds for abortion. In YWCA of Kalamazoo v. Michigan, No. 24-000093-MM (Mich. Ct. Cl. July 3, 2025), the Court of Claims dismissed for lack of standing a challenge arguing that the Medicaid ban violates the RFFA's guarantee of the right to 'effectuate' reproductive decisions. The dismissal is on appeal. The state defendants (DHHS, State of Michigan) declined to defend the ban's constitutionality, and the People of the State of Michigan intervened to defend it. **Conflicting authority.** MCL 400.109a authorizes only a life exception, but the Sixth Circuit in Engler (1996) held that federal Medicaid law requires coverage for rape and incest as well. The state appears to comply with Engler in practice despite the narrower statutory text, but this has not been legislatively resolved. The pending YWCA appeal seeks to invalidate the entire restriction on RFFA grounds. *Sources — Verified at source · Low confidence · MCL 400.109a, § 400.109a, [Michigan Legislature](https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-400-109a) · YWCA of Kalamazoo v. Michigan, No. 24-000093-MM (Mich. Ct. Cl. July 3, 2025), slip op. at 2, [Michigan Courts](https://www.courts.michigan.gov/49f796/siteassets/case-documents/opinions-orders/coc-opinions-(manually-curated)/2025/24-000093-mm.pdf)* **Editor's note.** The practical administration of Michigan Medicaid abortion coverage (whether rape/incest coverage is provided in compliance with Engler despite the statutory text) should be verified with DHHS directly. ### Private insurance **No restrictions; abortion rider repealed** Michigan's requirement to purchase a separate insurance rider for abortion coverage was repealed in December 2023; private insurers may cover abortion like any other health service. Private health insurance plans in Michigan can cover abortion without any special restrictions. A law that required people to buy a separate additional insurance rider to cover abortion — enacted in 2013 — was repealed in December 2023 as part of the Reproductive Health Act. Now, abortion can be covered like any other medical procedure in a standard health plan. **Legal analysis** The Abortion Insurance Opt-Out Act (2013 PA 182, MCL 550.541–550.551) required that coverage for elective abortion be offered only through an optional rider for which a separate premium was paid. House Bill 4949, the final bill in the RHA package, repealed this restriction. Governor Whitmer signed it on December 11, 2023. Private insurers may now cover abortion as a standard benefit. The Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (MCL 37.2202), as amended in 2023, prohibits employment discrimination based on termination of pregnancy — which may affect employer-sponsored plans that exclude abortion coverage. *Sources — Semi-verified · High confidence · Governor Whitmer Signs Final Piece of Reproductive Health Act, Dec. 11, 2023, [State of Michigan — Office of the Governor](https://www.michigan.gov/whitmer/news/press-releases/2023/12/11/governor-whitmer-signs-final-piece-of-reproductive-health-act)* **Editor's note.** Status set by the research runner: the claim matched search-result snippets, but none of the cited pages were opened in full during research. Confirm the quoted text at the cited URL before publication. ### Exchange plans **No Michigan-specific exchange restriction** ACA marketplace plans in Michigan may cover abortion — the state's abortion insurance rider requirement was repealed, and Michigan has not enacted a separate exchange-plan abortion restriction. Health plans sold on the ACA marketplace in Michigan can include abortion coverage. There is no Michigan law that restricts abortion coverage specifically in marketplace plans. The federal Hyde Amendment still applies to federal subsidies, meaning federal funds cannot be used for abortion except in cases of life endangerment, rape, or incest — but plans may cover abortion using segregated state or private funds. **Legal analysis** With the repeal of the Abortion Insurance Opt-Out Act, Michigan no longer restricts abortion coverage in any health insurance product, including qualified health plans on the ACA exchange. The federal Affordable Care Act permits states to enact separate restrictions on exchange-plan abortion coverage; Michigan has not done so. Federal law (45 C.F.R. § 156.280) requires insurers that cover abortion in exchange plans to segregate premium payments and use only non-federal funds for abortion services beyond Hyde categories. *Sources — Semi-verified · High confidence* **Editor's note.** Status set by the research runner: the claim matched search-result snippets, but none of the cited pages were opened in full during research. Confirm the quoted text at the cited URL before publication. ### State funding of providers **Providers defunded; repealed referral ban** Michigan prohibits use of public funds for abortion services and historically restricted public funding of abortion providers; the statutory ban on public-university abortion referrals was repealed; family-planning funds remain restricted by federal and state law. Michigan does not directly fund abortion providers for abortion services. State law prohibits using public funds for abortion and restricts reimbursement schemes that would indirectly subsidize abortion. The law that prevented public universities from making abortion referrals was repealed in 2023. The state participates in federal Title X family-planning funding, which by federal regulation cannot be used for abortion. **Legal analysis** MCL 400.109a prohibits public funding for abortion except to save the mother's life. MCL 400.109d prohibits separating or unbundling abortion services for the purpose of obtaining reimbursement when public funds are involved. MCL 400.109e imposes civil penalties for seeking or accepting reimbursement knowing public funds will be used. The RHA (2023 PA 286) repealed the statutory prohibition on public universities providing abortion referrals. Michigan voluntarily participates in federal Title X, which by regulation (42 C.F.R. § 59.5) prohibits using Title X funds for abortion. There is no Michigan statute affirmatively funding abortion providers beyond what federal law requires. *Sources — Semi-verified · High confidence · MCL 400.109d, § 400.109d(1), [Michigan Legislature](https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-400-109d)* **Editor's note.** Status set by the research runner: the claim matched search-result snippets, but none of the cited pages were opened in full during research. Confirm the quoted text at the cited URL before publication. ## Penalties | Actor | Offense | Penalty | Verification | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Physician — parental consent violation | Intentional performance of abortion on minor without parental consent or judicial waiver | Misdemeanor; also prima facie evidence in civil action for failure to obtain informed consent or interference with family relations; exemplary damages possible | Verified at source | | Any person — coercion to abort | Coercion of pregnant individual to have abortion against her will | For threats/assault: same penalty as underlying offense; for coercion after refusal: misdemeanor, fine up to $5,000 (up to $10,000 if perpetrator is father and individual is minor) | Verified at source | | Health professional or facility — improper reimbursement | Seeking or accepting reimbursement for abortion knowing public funds used in violation of MCL 400.109a | Civil penalty (amount not specified in MCL 400.109e(3)) | Semi-verified | | Third party — fetal homicide (MCL 750.90b) | Assault on pregnant individual resulting in miscarriage, stillbirth, or death to embryo or fetus | Class C felony (death, max 15 years); Class D felony (great bodily harm, max 10 years); misdemeanor (physical injury, max 93 days / $1,000 fine) | Semi-verified | | Third party — manslaughter of unborn quick child (MCL 750.322) | Willful killing of unborn quick child by injury to mother | Manslaughter (felony, max 15 years under MCL 750.321) | Verified at source | ## Recent changes - **May 17, 2022** — Michigan Court of Claims granted preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the 1931 pre-Roe criminal abortion ban in Planned Parenthood of Michigan v. Attorney General. *Sources — Planned Parenthood of Michigan v. Attorney General, No. 22-00044-MM (Mich. Ct. Cl. May 17, 2022), [State Court Report](https://statecourtreport.org/case-tracker/planned-parenthood-michigan-v-attorney-general-state-michigan)* - **May 25, 2022** — Governor Whitmer issued Executive Directive 2022-5, directing state agencies not to cooperate with out-of-state investigations into legal reproductive health care. *Sources — Mich. Exec. Directive No. 2022-5, [State of Michigan](https://www.michigan.gov/whitmer/news/state-orders-and-directives/2022/05/25/ed-2022-5-reproductive-rights-in-michigan)* - **July 13, 2022** — Governor Whitmer issued Executive Order 2022-4, refusing to honor extradition requests for individuals charged in other states for providing or obtaining lawful reproductive health care. *Sources — Mich. Exec. Order No. 2022-4, [State of Michigan](https://www.michigan.gov/whitmer/news/state-orders-and-directives/2022/07/13/executive-order-2022-4-unavailability-of-interstate-extradition)* - **September 7, 2022** — Michigan Court of Claims issued a permanent injunction striking down the 1931 pre-Roe abortion ban as violating the Michigan Constitution's Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. *Sources — Planned Parenthood of Michigan v. Attorney General, No. 22-00044-MM (Mich. Ct. Cl. Sept. 7, 2022), [State Court Report](https://statecourtreport.org/case-tracker/planned-parenthood-michigan-v-attorney-general-state-michigan)* - **November 8, 2022** — Michigan voters approved Proposal 3 (Reproductive Freedom for All), amending the state constitution to establish a fundamental right to reproductive freedom including abortion. Approved 56.7% to 43.3%. *Sources — Mich. Const. art. I, § 28 (effective Dec. 24, 2022), § 28(1), [Michigan Legislature](https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-Article-I-28)* - **December 14, 2022** — Governor Whitmer issued Executive Directive 2022-13, directing departments to review operations and practices to ensure reproductive freedom is protected consistent with the new constitutional amendment. *Sources — Mich. Exec. Directive No. 2022-13, [State of Michigan](https://www.michigan.gov/whitmer/news/state-orders-and-directives/2022/12/14/executive-directive-2022-13)* - **April 5, 2023** — Governor Whitmer signed legislation repealing the 1931 criminal abortion ban (MCL 750.14–.15) and the related advertising/sales prohibition (MCL 750.40). *Sources — 2023 Mich. Pub. Acts 11 and 12, [State of Michigan](https://www.michigan.gov/whitmer/news/press-releases/2023/04/05/governor-whitmer-repeals-michigans-extreme-1931-abortion-ban)* - **May 17, 2023** — Governor Whitmer signed SB 147 amending the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act to prohibit employment discrimination based on termination of pregnancy. *Sources — MCL 37.2202 (as amended), [GovDocs](https://www.govdocs.com/michigan-amendment-for-termination-of-pregnancy-discrimination)* - **November 21, 2023** — Governor Whitmer signed the Reproductive Health Act (2023 PA 286), codifying constitutional protections, repealing TRAP laws, the partial-birth abortion ban, and the public-university referral prohibition. *Sources — 2023 Mich. Pub. Acts 286 (MCL 333.26101–.26107), MCL 333.26103(1)(a), [Michigan Legislature](https://capitol.legislature.mi.gov/documents/mcl/pdf/MCL-ACT-286-OF-2023.pdf)* - **December 11, 2023** — Governor Whitmer signed HB 4949, the final piece of the RHA, repealing Michigan's requirement for a separate insurance rider for abortion coverage. *Sources — Michigan House Bill 4949 (2023), [State of Michigan](https://www.michigan.gov/whitmer/news/press-releases/2023/12/11/governor-whitmer-signs-final-piece-of-reproductive-health-act)* - **February 6, 2024** — Northland Family Planning Center v. Nessel filed in Michigan Court of Claims, challenging the 24-hour waiting period, mandatory informed consent, physician-only rule, and coercion screening under the RFFA. *Sources — Northland Family Planning Center v. Nessel, No. 24-000011-MM (Mich. Ct. Cl. filed Feb. 6, 2024), [Center for Reproductive Rights](https://reproductiverights.org/cases/eliminating-remaining-barriers-abortion-access-michigan)* - **June 25, 2024** — Michigan Court of Claims granted preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the 24-hour waiting period, mandatory informed consent, and physician-only rule in Northland v. Nessel. *Sources — Northland Family Planning Center v. Nessel, preliminary injunction order (Mich. Ct. Cl. June 25, 2024), preliminary injunction order, [Michigan Courts](https://www.courts.michigan.gov/49ec2c/siteassets/case-documents/opinions-orders/coc-opinions-(manually-curated)/2024/24-000011-mm.pdf)* - **June 27, 2024** — YWCA of Kalamazoo sued the state in Michigan Court of Claims, challenging the Medicaid abortion funding ban under the RFFA. *Sources — YWCA of Kalamazoo v. Michigan, No. 24-000093-MM (Mich. Ct. Cl. filed June 27, 2024), [ACLU of Michigan](https://www.aclumich.org/cases/medicaid-ban-on-abortion-care)* - **May 13, 2025** — Michigan Court of Claims issued permanent injunction striking down the 24-hour waiting period, mandatory informed consent, and physician-only rule as unconstitutional under the RFFA; upheld coercion screening. *Sources — Northland Family Planning Center v. Nessel, No. 24-000011-MM (Mich. Ct. Cl. May 13, 2025), slip op. at 2-3, [Michigan Courts](https://www.courts.michigan.gov/49ac99/siteassets/case-documents/opinions-orders/coc-opinions-(manually-curated)/2025/24-000011-mm.pdf)* - **July 3, 2025** — Michigan Court of Claims dismissed YWCA's challenge to the Medicaid abortion ban for lack of standing; YWCA and ACLU of Michigan filed notice of appeal. *Sources — YWCA of Kalamazoo v. Michigan, No. 24-000093-MM (Mich. Ct. Cl. July 3, 2025), slip op. at 2, [Michigan Courts](https://www.courts.michigan.gov/49f796/siteassets/case-documents/opinions-orders/coc-opinions-(manually-curated)/2025/24-000093-mm.pdf)* ## Pending changes ### YWCA of Kalamazoo v. Michigan (Medicaid funding ban appeal) (Litigation) **Status.** Dismissed for lack of standing by Michigan Court of Claims (July 3, 2025); appeal filed with Michigan Court of Appeals If the appeal succeeds in establishing standing and the court reaches the merits, the Medicaid abortion funding ban (MCL 400.109a) could be invalidated under the RFFA, requiring Michigan Medicaid to cover abortion beyond the Hyde categories. A decision on the interpretation of 'effectuate' in the RFFA could have broad implications for state funding of reproductive health services. *Sources — YWCA of Kalamazoo v. Michigan, No. 24-000093-MM (Mich. Ct. Cl. July 3, 2025), [Michigan Courts](https://www.aclumich.org/press-releases/aclu-and-ywca-kalamazoo-appeal-dismissal-case-challenging-states-ban-medicaid)* ### Northland Family Planning Center v. Nessel (possible appeal) (Litigation) **Status.** Permanent injunction issued May 13, 2025; notice of appeal possible by intervening defendant (People of the State of Michigan) If appealed and reversed, the 24-hour waiting period, mandatory informed consent, and physician-only rule could be reinstated. However, state defendants (AG, LARA, DHHS) have conceded these provisions are unconstitutional, reducing the likelihood of enforcement even if reinstated. *Sources — Northland Family Planning Center v. Nessel, No. 24-000011-MM (Mich. Ct. Cl. May 13, 2025), slip op. at 2-3, [Michigan Courts](https://www.courts.michigan.gov/49ac99/siteassets/case-documents/opinions-orders/coc-opinions-(manually-curated)/2025/24-000011-mm.pdf)* ### Right to Life of Michigan v. Nessel (Elliott-Larsen challenge) (Litigation) **Status.** Filed in federal court (W.D. Mich.) February 6, 2026; Sixth Circuit dismissed appeal May 27, 2026 This lawsuit challenged the 2023 amendment to Michigan's Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act that prohibits employment discrimination based on termination of pregnancy. The Sixth Circuit's dismissal leaves the ELCRA protections intact, reinforcing employer obligations regarding abortion-related discrimination. *Sources — Right to Life of Michigan v. Nessel, No. 1:26-cv-00390 (W.D. Mich. filed Feb. 6, 2026), [State of Michigan — Attorney General](https://www.michigan.gov/ag/news/press-releases/2026/05/27/federal-appeals-court-dismisses-right-to-life-lawsuit)* ### Bills to repeal parental consent and expand Medicaid funding (expected in future sessions) (Legislation) **Status.** Democratic legislators have expressed intent to pursue these reforms; no active bill has advanced in the current session; political feasibility depends on composition of legislature Repeal of the parental consent law would eliminate Michigan's last major pre-viability restriction on abortion access. Legislation to fund abortion through Medicaid and repeal the 1988 voter-initiated ban would transform abortion access for low-income Michiganders. ## Key authorities - **Reproductive Freedom for All Amendment (RFFA)** — Mich. Const. art. I, § 28 (effective Dec. 24, 2022) _(Constitution)_ · [legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL](https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-Article-I-28) The supreme source of abortion law in Michigan: establishes reproductive freedom as a fundamental right, requires strict scrutiny for restrictions, permits regulation only after viability with mandatory health exceptions. - **Reproductive Health Act (RHA)** — 2023 Mich. Pub. Acts 286, MCL 333.26101–.26107 (effective Feb. 13, 2024) _(Statute)_ · [capitol.legislature.mi.gov/documents/mcl/pdf/M…](https://capitol.legislature.mi.gov/documents/mcl/pdf/MCL-ACT-286-OF-2023.pdf) Statutory codification of constitutional protections; repealed TRAP laws, partial-birth abortion ban, public university referral prohibition, and insurance rider requirement; creates private right of action for violations. - **Northland Family Planning Center v. Nessel** — No. 24-000011-MM (Mich. Ct. Cl. May 13, 2025) _(Case)_ · [courts.michigan.gov/49ac99/siteassets/c…](https://www.courts.michigan.gov/49ac99/siteassets/case-documents/opinions-orders/coc-opinions-(manually-curated)/2025/24-000011-mm.pdf) Permanently enjoined the 24-hour waiting period, mandatory informed consent, and physician-only rule as unconstitutional under the RFFA; upheld coercion screening; the leading judicial interpretation of the RFFA. - **Planned Parenthood of Michigan v. Attorney General** — No. 22-00044-MM (Mich. Ct. Cl. Sept. 7, 2022) _(Case)_ · [statecourtreport.org/case-tracker/planne…](https://statecourtreport.org/case-tracker/planned-parenthood-michigan-v-attorney-general-state-michigan) Permanently enjoined the 1931 pre-Roe criminal abortion ban under the Michigan Constitution's Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses; preceded and was superseded by the RFFA and statutory repeal. - **Parental Rights Restoration Act** — 1990 PA 211, MCL 722.901–722.909 _(Statute)_ · [legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL](https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=MCL-722-903) Michigan's only remaining pre-viability restriction: requires one-parent consent for minors with judicial bypass; violation is a misdemeanor. - **Medicaid abortion funding ban** — 1987 PA 59, MCL 400.109a (approved by voters Nov. 8, 1988) _(Statute)_ · [legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL](https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-400-109a) Voter-initiated statute prohibiting use of public funds for abortion except to save the mother's life; challenged under RFFA in pending YWCA litigation. - **Public Health Code — coercion screening** — MCL 333.17015a (added 2012 PA 499, effective Mar. 31, 2013) _(Statute)_ · [legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL](https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-333-17015a) Requires oral screening for coercion before abortion; upheld as constitutional under the RFFA in Northland v. Nessel; the only pre-abortion regulatory requirement still in force. - **Coercion to abort criminal prohibition** — MCL 750.213a (added 2016 PA 149, effective Sept. 7, 2016) _(Statute)_ · [legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL](https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=MCL-750-213A) Criminalizes coercing a pregnant person to have an abortion against her will; defines 'unborn child' as a 'live human being in utero regardless of gestational stage.' - **Fetal assault statute** — MCL 750.90b (added 1998 PA 211, amended 2002 PA 164) _(Statute)_ · [legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL](https://legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-777-16d) Creates separate offenses for assault causing harm to embryo or fetus at any stage; key fetal-protection law that coexists with — and is cabined by — constitutional abortion protections. - **Wrongful-death for embryo/fetus** — MCL 600.2922a (added 1998 PA 211, amended 2002 PA 164) _(Statute)_ · [legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL](https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-600-2922a) Creates civil liability for wrongful or negligent acts causing fetal death; expressly exempts acts by the pregnant individual and lawful medical procedures with consent. - **YWCA of Kalamazoo v. Michigan** — No. 24-000093-MM (Mich. Ct. Cl. July 3, 2025) _(Case)_ · [courts.michigan.gov/49f796/siteassets/c…](https://www.courts.michigan.gov/49f796/siteassets/case-documents/opinions-orders/coc-opinions-(manually-curated)/2025/24-000093-mm.pdf) Dismissed the challenge to the Medicaid funding ban for lack of standing; currently on appeal; will test whether 'effectuate' in the RFFA requires public funding of abortion. - **Executive Orders on Reproductive Health Care (2022-4, 2022-5, 2022-13)** — Mich. Exec. Order No. 2022-4; Exec. Directive Nos. 2022-5 and 2022-13 _(Agency guidance)_ · [michigan.gov/whitmer/news/state-…](https://www.michigan.gov/whitmer/news/state-orders-and-directives/2022/07/13/executive-order-2022-4-unavailability-of-interstate-extradition) Provide executive-branch shield protections against out-of-state investigations and extradition for lawful reproductive health care; not statutory and subject to rescission. - **Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act — pregnancy termination amendment** — MCL 37.2202 (amended 2023 PA 147) _(Statute)_ · [govdocs.com/michigan-amendment-…](https://www.govdocs.com/michigan-amendment-for-termination-of-pregnancy-discrimination) Prohibits employment, housing, public accommodations, and education discrimination based on termination of pregnancy; federal court challenge dismissed. - **Northland Family Planning Clinic v. Cox (Legal Birth Definition Act)** — 487 F.3d 323 (6th Cir. 2007) _(Case)_ · [caselaw.findlaw.com/us-6th-circuit/1368516.html](https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-6th-circuit/1368516.html) Permanently enjoined Michigan's 2004 partial-birth abortion ban as unconstitutionally vague and an undue burden; statutory underpinnings later repealed by the RHA. - **Doe v. Department of Social Services (Medicaid funding upheld)** — 439 Mich. 650, 487 N.W.2d 166 (1992) _(Case)_ · [legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL](https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-400-109a) Michigan Supreme Court upheld the Medicaid abortion funding ban against an equal-protection challenge; cited as binding precedent in YWCA litigation, though its reasoning predates the RFFA. ## Research notes > Overall confidence: High. Analysis current as of July 12, 2026; research completed July 12, 2026. This research is current through July 15, 2025. Key items to re-verify before publication: (1) the status of any appeal in Northland Family Planning Center v. Nessel — the May 13, 2025 permanent injunction was a final order, and the People of the State of Michigan may have appealed; (2) the docket in YWCA of Kalamazoo v. Michigan on appeal — the Court of Appeals may have issued a ruling or scheduled oral argument; (3) the federal mifepristone REMS — the FDA's conditions for mifepristone dispensing are subject to administrative change by the current or a future administration; (4) the Michigan Legislature's 2025-2026 session — bills related to parental consent repeal or Medicaid funding expansion may have been introduced after this snapshot; (5) Executive Orders 2022-4, 2022-5, and 2022-13 remain in effect but could be rescinded at any time by the sitting governor. The Michigan DHHS website's Informed Consent for Abortion page notes a June 26, 2024 update reflecting the preliminary injunction; check whether it has been updated to reflect the May 2025 permanent injunction. Unresolved points: Whether Michigan Medicaid in practice covers abortion for rape and incest as required by the Sixth Circuit's Engler decision, despite the narrower statutory text of MCL 400.109a — the statutory text says 'life of the mother' only, but federal obligations may require broader coverage. — Whether an appeal of Northland v. Nessel has been or will be filed by the intervening defendant (the People of the State of Michigan); the 21-day appeal period from the May 13, 2025 final order should be verified. — The current status of the YWCA v. Michigan appeal before the Michigan Court of Appeals — docket number and briefing schedule. — Whether any local ordinances in Michigan counties or municipalities attempt to restrict abortion access or travel assistance; no such ordinances were identified during this research, but a comprehensive local-law survey was beyond the scope. — The precise enforceability of MCL 333.17515 (requiring physician compliance with MCL 333.17015) now that the substantive provisions of MCL 333.17015 have been declared unconstitutional..