2007 House Bill 4162 (Require school bullying policies ) (House Roll Call 74)
Amendment offered by Rep. Judy Emmons (R) on March 28, 2007, to require that if a students parents claim that their child has been the target of bullying or harassment, and request the child be transferred to another school district or a charter school, the school must agree to the transfer, and must pay to the new district or charter a pro-rated share of the state aid money received for the student. Note: This and the other amendment votes on this bill were actually on the parliamentary issue of whether to allow them to be considered on “third reading,” which explains the consistent party line votes. The amendment failed in the House (52 to 58) on March 28, 2007. [History, Amendments & Comments]
The vote was 52 in favor, 58 opposed, and 0 not voting
(House Roll Call 74 at House Journal 31)
[Comment on this vote | View others' comments]
|
|
|
Support
Oppose
Not Voting
Undecided
The following legislators supported the amendment:
The following legislators opposed the amendment:
The following legislators did not vote on the amendment:
Most Recent Comments
1) Thank you [by Ironbutterfly on March 29, 2007]For voting your conscience on this bill. Yes, it is a Trojan Horse.
Isn't it ironic how the groups that claim to be "tolerant" of others are the ones who spew hate speech "want to cause bodily harm" to those with different viewpoints?
How about a bill being introduced to protect heterosexuals from harrassment and hate speech?
Reply
How Ironic, today in our paper on the same page I see "House Approves anti-bullying bill" and "Detroit Gay Man Died Naturally" articles.
Sen. Levin cited this "gay death" as evidence of the need to extend hate crime legislation to gays. We find out today, the gay man died of natural causes. This case has been closed by the police. I find the timing of this "gay death" accusation convenient timing.
"The model policy would establish that prohibited harassment, intimidation, or bullying includes a gesture or written, verbal, or physical act that is reasonably perceived as being motivated by religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, disability, height, weight, or socioeconomic status, or by any other distinguishing characteristics" .
I can fore-see lawsuits arising due to the words "reasonably perceived". Who determines this? The word "visual" will certainly open many doors. Heaven forbid if someone frowns at you or rolls their eyes as they pass a student in the hallway.
The Democrats and a couple of Republicans have succeeded in having a hand in making our country like Nazi Germany and the "thought police" idealism.
I read several articles that there are students and teachers who "police" the hallways and classrooms at schools in various states looking for "harrassment violations". Why aren't the teachers "teaching" as they are paid to do? Why arent the students in their classrooms getting their education?
This bill only had to say "ALL" and didn't have to break down into specific groups, specifically "gays and transgenders".
But this was the original agenda all along.....
As a swing voter, I am sadly disappointed to see all the "yes votes" for this bill. I will remember this at election time.
Reply
Rep. Elsenheimer, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:
"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:
I cannot support final passage of this bill. The process of adoption was set up to avoid the minority from addressing issues important to this state. While the underlying policy is good, that of attempting to prevent bullying, the bill also serves as a subterfuge to create for the first time in Michigan law certain protected classes. If the policy to create these protected classes was sound, then the issue could rise and fall on its own rather than being tied to protection of children."
Reply
View Full Conversation
