Legislation watch
Mackinac Center for Public Policy
Capitol Building

2001 House Bill 4655

Public Act 360 of 2002

  1. Introduced by Rep. Mark Jansen (R) on April 24, 2001, to require that agencies and organizations that do not perform abortions, make abortion referrals, or advocate for continued legal abortion be given priority in the allocation of state funds for family planning programs.
    • Referred to the House Families and Childrens Services Committee on April 24, 2001.
    • Substitute offered in the House on December 12, 2001, to replace the previous version of the bill with a version recommended by the committee which reported it. The substitute incorporates changes resulting from committee testimony and deliberation. These changes do not affect the substance of the bill as previously described. The substitute passed by voice vote in the House on December 12, 2001.
    • Amendment offered by Rep. Patricia Lockwood (D) on December 12, 2001, to make technical changes which would exempt from the provisions of the bill certain clinics which perform abortions or make abortion referrals. The amendment passed by voice vote in the House on December 12, 2001.
    • Substitute offered by Rep. Gilda Jacobs (D) on December 12, 2001, to replace the previous version of the bill with a version which does not give preference in the awarding of state family planning contracts or grants to clinics which do not perform abortions or make abortion referrals. The substitute failed 31 to 65 in the House on December 12, 2001.
      Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"

    • Amendment offered by Rep. A.T. Frank (D) on December 12, 2001, to exempt from the provisions of the bill clinics which perform abortions or make abortion referrals if the infant mortality rate in the area they serve is more than five-percent. The amendment failed 39 to 62 in the House on December 12, 2001.
      Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"

  2. Passed 67 to 36 in the House on December 13, 2001, to require that agencies and organizations that do not perform abortions, make abortion referrals, have a written policy that considers elective abortion part of a continuum of family planning services, or advocate for continued legal abortion be given priority in the allocation of state funds for family planning programs. The bill would not apply in an area in which there are no service providers applying for government funding which fit the description.
    Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"

  3. Received in the Senate on December 13, 2001, to require that agencies and organizations that do not perform abortions, make abortion referrals, have a written policy that considers elective abortion part of a continuum of family planning services, or advocate for continued legal abortion be given priority in the allocation of state funds for family planning programs. The bill would not apply in an area in which there are no service providers applying for government funding which fit the description.
    • Substitute offered in the Senate on May 1, 2002, to replace the previous version of the bill with one which removes the provision making the bill apply to organizations that advocate for continued legal abortion. The substitute passed by voice vote in the Senate on May 1, 2002.
    • Amendment offered by Sen. Alma Smith (D) on May 2, 2002, to require that if a clinic serving a certain geographic area does not meet the requirements of the bill, it may only be replaced as the recipient of government grants by a single clinic serving the same geographic area. For example, a clinic serving seven counties could only be replaced by a single clinic also serving all seven counties, rather than by more than two or more clinics. The amendment failed by voice vote in the Senate on May 2, 2002.
  4. Passed 23 to 14 in the Senate on May 2, 2002, to require that agencies and organizations that do not perform abortions, make abortion referrals, or have a written policy that considers elective abortion part of a continuum of family planning services, be given priority in the allocation of state funds for family planning programs. The bill would not apply in an area in which there are no service providers applying for government funding which fit the description.
    Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"

  5. Received in the House on May 2, 2002, to require that agencies and organizations that do not perform abortions, make abortion referrals, or have a written policy that considers elective abortion part of a continuum of family planning services, be given priority in the allocation of state funds for family planning programs. The bill would not apply in an area in which there are no service providers applying for government funding which fit the description.
  6. Passed 67 to 38 in the House on May 7, 2002, to concur with the Senate-passed version of the bill.
    Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"

  7. Signed by Gov. John Engler on May 23, 2002.

Comments

Journal Statement by Senator Peters  by Admin002 on May 29, 2002 
I just wanted to respond briefly to the Senator from the 26th District, who once again brought up the issue of taxpayer dollars and that this bill is related to taxpayer dollars and the access to legal abortions. We need to be very, very clear that this bill is not about taxpayer dollars and how they are spent. Funds for family planning are already prohibited from being used for abortions, and that's both state and federal audits, which are also very clear in ensuring that there's no co-mingling of funds so that those dollars are not used to provide abortion services.

The ironic thing about those who are supporting this bill is that it may actually increase the number of abortions. Without access to care, without access to thoughtful family planning, unwanted pregnancies may very well increase. The fact is that this bill will place women's overall health at risk. We need to be conscious of the fact that 42 percent of uninsured people now already have no regular source of care, no access to care that they need, and they often have to seek out an emergency room for some of their basic care. In fact, 1 in 10 individuals in Michigan have limited access to any health care whatsoever.

The proper health care is not about whether or not someone supports or opposes abortion. It's about ensuring that all women, including low-income women have access to quality care. This bill, without question, is playing a game of risky politics at the expense of women just because some powerful special interest group is in denial about Roe v. Wade. Women's health should not be placed in jeopardy for the sake of politics.

I urge my colleagues to vote "no" on this bill. If you don't vote "no" on this bill, I urge you to deny immediate effect, so those clinics that are now providing needed services to women across this state can continue to do that with the budgets in place for as long as possible and can make the proper planning they need to do so that they can continue to provide that health service for years to come. So please vote "no" on this bill. If you cannot vote "no," then please vote "no" on immediate effect.

Journal Statement  by Admin002 on May 29, 2002 
Senator Schwarz's statement, in which Senator Johnson concurred, is as follows:

House Bill No. 4655 represents an attempt to deny federal Title X funds to 60,000 women and a few men for birth control counseling, prescription and nonprescription methods, including family planning; yearly gynecological checkups, including breast exams and Pap tests; pregnancy testing and counseling with referrals for prenatal care; testing and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases, HIV and AIDS testing and counseling; services for women in midlife, including hormone replacement therapy; and laboratory screening for high blood pressure, cholesterol, diabetes, and other conditions. Further, the bill would divert the funds instead to organizations philosophically in tune with the organization which undeniably owns this bill.

All people are free to hold an opinion on this issue according to their own religious, ethical, and moral beliefs. That fact is not now, nor has it ever been, an issue. It is a matter of personal choice.

The real issue is that this clearly and blatantly subverts the law of the land. It is another instance where a group, predominantly men--and I say this as someone who has delivered hundreds of babies; some under the most primitive conditions in the world, and have done my very, very best to make sure the baby and the mother did well. In this instance, a group, predominantly men, tell women what their reproductive rights are; that they know best. And one political party professes to wonder why women, angry women, are leaving it in droves.

Journal Statement  by Admin002 on May 29, 2002 
Senator Smith's statement, in which Senator Scott concurred, is as follows:

Now we've heard a lot about the impact of Jim Crow to health care and to abortions. I want this body to understand that probably only one member has been impacted by Jim Crow laws in the United States, and that's me. When I was two years old living in Columbia, South Carolina, my identical twin sister caught her dress on fire and because the family was black, we could not get an ambulance to take her to the hospital, and she died. Don't talk to me about Jim Crow. Don't use that to make any kind of comparison to what's happening here. Abortions in the United States are safe, they are rare, and they are constitutional. They are declining in number year after year because planned parenthood works carefully in family planning issues with young and middle-aged women and because they use their own dollars to make sure women get the information they need to make wise choices about their reproductive health.

Planned Parenthood of Mid-Michigan is not the enemy here. Taking dollars away from an organization that makes certain that young women and middle-aged women have the care they need through their pregnancies to deliver healthy babies is what they are about. And what they deserve is to continue to do that without having to jump through additional hoops because you've got an agenda that this bill does not address. I urge my colleagues to defeat this bill.

View pre-2013 Comments.
Your new comments should be made in the box below.