Legislation watch
Mackinac Center for Public Policy
Capitol Building

2008 Senate Resolution 134: Urge more restrictive drug approval process (Senate Roll Call 23)
facebook  twitter 

Amendment offered by Sen. John Gleason (D) on January 29, 2008, to pledge to repeal Michigan's prohibition against filing a lawsuit against legal drugs that have successfully been through the FDA drug approval process. The amendment failed 17 to 20 in the Senate on January 29, 2008.
View All of Senate Resolution 134: History, Amendments & Comments 

The vote was 17 in favor, 20 against, and 1 not voting.
(Senate Roll Call 23 at Senate Journal 7)

Print-friendly version

 Comment on this vote   View others' comments   Add to scorecard 

Line

Vote
In Favor In Favor
Against Against
Not Voting Not Voting
 Undecided
Republican
1000%
95595%
4964%
21 total votes
Democrat
100100%
1000%
1000%
17 total votes

What do you think? In Favor Against Undecided (log on required)

Line

The amendment

IN FAVOR

SENATE DEMOCRATS

Anderson (D)Barcia (D)Basham (D)Brater (D)Cherry (D)
Clark-Coleman (D)Clarke (D)Gleason (D)Hunter (D)Jacobs (D)
Olshove (D)Prusi (D)Schauer (D)Scott (D)Switalski (D)
Thomas (D)Whitmer (D)   

SENATE REPUBLICANS
none


AGAINST

SENATE DEMOCRATS
none

SENATE REPUBLICANS

Allen (R)Birkholz (R)Bishop (R)Brown (R)Cassis (R)
Cropsey (R)George (R)Gilbert (R)Hardiman (R)Jansen (R)
Jelinek (R)Kahn (R)Kuipers (R)McManus (R)Pappageorge (R)
Patterson (R)Richardville (R)Sanborn (R)Stamas (R)Van Woerkom (R)


SENATE LEGISLATORS WHO DID NOT VOTE

Garcia (R)



SENATE LEGISLATORS ALL VOTES

  n  Allen (R)Y    Anderson (D)Y    Barcia (D)Y    Basham (D)  n  Birkholz (R)
  n  Bishop (R)Y    Brater (D)  n  Brown (R)  n  Cassis (R)Y    Cherry (D)
Y    Clark-Coleman (D)Y    Clarke (D)  n  Cropsey (R)  -  Garcia (R)  n  George (R)
  n  Gilbert (R)Y    Gleason (D)  n  Hardiman (R)Y    Hunter (D)Y    Jacobs (D)
  n  Jansen (R)  n  Jelinek (R)  n  Kahn (R)  n  Kuipers (R)  n  McManus (R)
Y    Olshove (D)  n  Pappageorge (R)  n  Patterson (R)Y    Prusi (D)  n  Richardville (R)
  n  Sanborn (R)Y    Schauer (D)Y    Scott (D)  n  Stamas (R)Y    Switalski (D)
Y    Thomas (D)  n  Van Woerkom (R)Y    Whitmer (D)  

Senate Roll Call 23 on The amendment

Line

Comments

Sen. Gleason’s "journal statement"  by Admin003 on January 30, 2008 
Senator Gleason’s statement is as follows:

I think the attempt of the previous speaker and the sponsor of the resolution is in good favor; however, I believe that we have to make an alteration to this. In regards to the terminology, it says that in this way Michigan’s tort law and strict FDA standards will ensure that Michigan’s residents can have confidence in the drugs and medications that they take. We not only need confidence in the medications that we take, but we need legal recourse when the medications go beyond the FDA and end up in the bodies of our Michigan citizens.

I know firsthand, June Godlesky who lives very near me in Flushing took Vioxx for three years. She met with an attorney and the attorney told her to get a remedy that it would take much travel and much money; that she could not utilize a court here in Michigan; that she must travel—as sick as she was and still is—to a distant state; that she must go to a state that had better laws and more concerns for their citizens than we did.

There were very horrendous efforts undertaken by those prior to us being here over a decade ago, but I have waited patiently for three years now to ask for a remedy. If someone would be kind enough to tell me where I can advise June Godlesky and her family to go for legal recourse, I would sure like to hand that information over to her.

There are two issues here we are dealing with. The FDA does have requirements to authorize the marketing and the availability of drugs on the American market and our citizens individually, but we also since this country was founded have been offered legal recourse under several situations that harm our people in this state. We no longer have that right.

Now people will tell us, and they readily do when they say that we have legal recourse, not one person can tell us where to send these folks who are harmed here in Michigan, except they had to be part of a lawsuit. They could not join a lawsuit after November 9, even though they are still ill and some have attributed these drugs to the death of family members.

So I would say that we need to pass this amendment to make sure that our citizens are made whole. We should not be denying our citizens the right to go to court. We have three branches of government and the reason that is is because sometimes the legislative branch and the executive branch deny our citizens rights. There is a reason why the Bill of Rights was placed in such a lofty position in our U.S. Constitution—to protect our citizenry from government and some of the wrong decisions that we make.

It is time to get this right. We have tried this for over a dozen years. Every single state has a right to remedy and they can do it in their own state. Michigan must travel half the continent across to present their difficulties; even in the most ill form, they must traverse halfway across this continent to see a judge—an impartial judge. That is all we are asking—give us that legal remedy that everybody else has. How can you have $5 billion disbursed across all these states, and for us to be a part of that resolution, we must go to a distant state? We can’t even go to a court here in Michigan.

My fellow Senators, I think it is time to put this to rest. Now some of the argument has said that we will bring jobs and drug companies to Michigan. Since my bill was introduced here a year ago, we have seen Pfizer pack up and leave, even though they had this immunity. So I ask for you to give my amendment full consideration.

I ask for your support not only on behalf, but for all the Michigan citizens who have been harmed.


Sen. Whitmer’s "journal statement"  by Admin003 on January 30, 2008 
Senator Whitmer’s statement is as follows:

I’ve been watching with great curiosity this particular resolution come on and off the calendar and get passed. I was wondering if and when we would ever take it up because it creates some questions in my mind. Now I am reading this and thinking, let me get this straight: Our drug immunity law is based on the FDA standard. The rationale behind that public policy is that the FDA standard is strict enough to protect our consumers, our citizens here in Michigan.

Now instead of taking action like the other 49 states in the country have to protect our citizens, we are once again advocating and asking Congress to enact a stricter standard because we don’t think their standard is strict enough, but that is our standard.

So it leaves you to conclude that our law is not sufficient to protect Michigan citizens. I think that is exactly what we have been saying for the better part of three years on this issue. Our law is not strict enough to protect Michigan citizens. Do we want stricter standards? Absolutely, but let’s also resolve to not wait on Congress to protect our citizens. Let’s take action to give Michigan victims the same rights victims in 49 other states have to protect them. This amendment says that is just what we will do.

I ask that you support this amendment.


2008 Senate Resolution 134 (Urge more restrictive drug approval process)  by admin on January 1, 2001 
Introduced in the Senate on January 22, 2008

Click here to view bill details.

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