Reproductive rights groups line up to elect Kimberly Ann Thomas to Michigan Supreme Court

Advocates for reproductive rights are backing Kimberly Ann Thomas for the Michigan Supreme Court—and trusting her to keep protecting Michiganders’ legal right to access abortion.

MICHIGAN—With two seats on the state Supreme Court up for grabs in this year’s election, Michiganders will have a chance to decide the makeup of the most powerful court in the state—as well as who has the final say on some of the most important legal issues in the state.

But because the seven judges who serve on the Michigan Supreme Court are technically nonpartisan, and often guarded about their political views, it’s not always easy for voters to identify which judicial candidates align most closely with their personal beliefs and values.

Endorsements, however, can offer clues. And when it comes to protecting access to abortion in Michigan, reproductive rights groups appear to have placed their bets on Kimberly Ann Thomas, who is running to replace retiring Michigan Supreme Court Justice David Viviano. 

Ahead of the election, Thomas has rounded up support from Reproductive Freedom for All, Planned Parenthood Advocates of Michigan, the Michigan Nurses Association, the Michigan Democratic Party, and other groups with lengthy records of defending reproductive rights. 

Here’s the deal:

Unlike some of the Republican candidates in this year’s race who have expressed opposition to reproductive rights, Thomas has avoided taking any predetermined position on abortion.

Instead, Thomas has said that she’ll have to wait for the issue to arrive—and decide based on the case before her.

“As a judicial candidate, we can’t actually take any positions on issues that might be coming before the court,” Thomas told The ‘Gander, during an exclusive interview earlier this summer. “I’ll decide those issues on the facts of the case and on the law that’s being applied. 

But ahead of the election, reproductive rights groups are billing Thomas—as well as Michigan Supreme Court Justice Kyra Harris Bolden—as “reproductive freedom champions” who will keep protecting abortion access in Michigan as required under the state Constitution.

“This is a historic opportunity … to elect Kimberly Ann Thomas, an experienced trial and appellate lawyer to the makeup of the Court,” Reproductive Freedom for All President Mini Timmaraju said in a statement released in June. “We’ve seen time and again that state courts are on the front lines of our fight for reproductive freedom. Michiganders need justices they can trust to uphold their rights—and that’s why we need Bolden and Thomas on the Court.”

Who is supporting Thomas?

Thomas and Bolden have each been endorsed by the Michigan Democratic Party. They’re set to face off in the November election against two Republican-backed state candidates, who will be selected from a field of five candidates at the GOP’s nominating convention on Aug. 23.

MI List, which only backs candidates who support abortion access, has endorsed Thomas. The Michigan Nurses Association, which supports the “full range of reproductive health care for everyone,” including access to abortion, has also thrown its support behind Thomas this year.

The Women Lawyers Association of Michigan, which backs candidates based on their “demonstrated interest in advancing the cause of women in general” has also endorsed Thomas, as has Fems for Democracy, which has a long history of supporting abortion rights.

EMILY’s List has endorsed Thomas this year as well—namely because of her “dedication and tenacity,” as well as the “critical role that state Supreme Courts play in protecting our reproductive freedom,” EMILY’s List President Jessica Mackler said in a statement.

“Thomas spent her life pursuing justice for lower-income Americans and youth, and her devotion to defending our freedom is unparalleled,” Mackler said. “Ensuring a strong pro-choice majority on the state’s Supreme Court is critical to safeguard abortion access for years to come.”

Bolden has also racked up endorsements from those same groups—plus a few others. 

Connecting the Dots

The Michigan Supreme Court is the highest legal authority in the state, and it wields the power to decide whether laws are constitutional and whether ballot initiatives can move forward. It also has the authority to interpret state laws and decide how they apply to Michiganders.

For example, in July 2022, the Court ruled that the state’s anti-discrimination law also applies to LGBTQ people. And after a ballot initiative to enshrine reproductive rights into the state Constitution was initially blocked by Republicans on the state Board of Canvassers, the Michigan Supreme Court stepped in and decided that the initiative should be left to a vote.

That decision to greenlight the state ballot initiative was ultimately the only reason why Michiganders could decide on issues like abortion access on the ballot in November 2022.

And recent decisions in other states have shown just how powerful a role the courts play. 

Earlier this year in Arizona, the state Supreme Court upheld a 160-year-old law that banned all abortions unless the patient’s life was in danger. In Alabama, a decision from the state Supreme Court ruling that frozen embryos were people (temporarily) caused IVF providers to stop offering services in the state. The Florida Supreme Court this year also decided to uphold a 15-week abortion ban, a decision that ultimately allowed a six-week ban to go into effect .

As other lawsuits about abortion care in Michigan make their way through the court system, more questions of reproductive freedom may find their way in front of these seven justices. 

“It’s critical that we have fair and impartial justices on the Michigan Supreme Court who will uphold the abortion rights Michiganders have fought so hard to enshrine,” said Shanay Watson-Whittaker, Michigan Campaigns Director for Reproductive Freedom for All. “We know that Kyra Harris Bolden and Kimberly Ann Thomas are the judges to do the job.”

What’s at stake?

In November, Thomas will face off against one of two possible Republican-backed candidates: either state Rep. Andrew Fink or Court of Claims Judge Mark Boonstra, depending on which one of them is nominated by the Michigan Republican Party at its state convention on Aug. 23.

Fink has a lengthy record of supporting and sponsoring anti-abortion legislation in the Michigan House—including sponsoring a bill to ban abortion after fetal viability, reports the Coldwater Daily Reporter. That legislation failed to advance into law under Democratic leadership. 

Fink also served as a chapter president for the Federalist Society, a conservative group that has openly railed against abortion rights, supporting (and celebrating) the overturning of Roe v. Wade. 

Boonstra has also reportedly spoken at several Federalist Society events. And during a recent candidate forum, he described himself as “pro-life” in response to a question about whether he would be able to separate his personal views from making impartial decisions on the Court.

“There is one area that, I guess, is sort of out there, potentially, and I don’t know what cases might come before us, or how I would rule, or what the issues would be, but I’m pro-life,” he said. “But we now have a constitutional amendment the voters voted in, that puts a right to abortion in our Constitution. So what’s going to happen when cases come up that put that issue at the forefront? … I will deal with it as best I can. I will follow my conscience to the best I can, and maybe there’ll be some creative lawyering that, again, will find a way for me to follow both.”

When asked about their various judicial philosophies, Fink and Boonstra also described a “constitutionalist,” “originalist,” “textualist,” or “constitutional conservative” approach to law.

That’s the same mentality that guided the majority on the US Supreme Court that overturned Roe v. Wade and peeled back the constitutional right to abortion for millions of women.

Because the word “abortion” isn’t literally included in the text of the Constitution, then reproductive health care cannot be considered a “fundamental constitutional right,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe.

The other three candidates seeking the Republican nomination to run against Bolden for a partial term on the Court have also expressed opposition to reproductive rights in Michigan. 

Alexandria Taylor and Patrick William O’Grady have also said they subscribe to a “constitutionalist” or “textualist” judicial philosophy. Matt DePerno, who skipped the recent Republican debate, also has a lengthy record of opposing reproductive rights in Michigan. 

READ MORE: Thomas promises ‘new voice of fairness’ for Michigan Supreme Court

For the latest Michigan news, follow The ‘Gander on Twitter.

Follow Political Correspondent Kyle Kaminski here.