Amendment offered by Rep. Dave Hildenbrand (R) on June 8, 2010, to add back a Senate-passed provision establishing as the intent of the legislature that universities doing research with embryonic stem cells file an annual report to the legislature containing details on the embryos. Note: Although this amendment was adopted in a record roll call vote, it was later eliminated by the voice-vote adoption of the Angerer substitute. The amendment passed 58 to 48 in the House on June 8, 2010.
View All of Senate Bill 1157: History, Amendments & Comments
The vote was 58 in favor, 48 against, and 2 not voting.
(House Roll Call 246)
|Brown, T. (D)||Constan (D)||Dean (D)||Ebli (D)||Espinoza (D)|
|Huckleberry (D)||Lahti (D)||LeBlanc (D)||Mayes (D)||McDowell (D)|
|Nerat (D)||Neumann (D)||Schmidt, R. (D)||Sheltrown (D)||Slezak (D)|
|Agema (R)||Amash (R)||Bolger (R)||Booher (R)||Calley (R)|
|Caul (R)||Crawford (R)||Daley (R)||Denby (R)||DeShazor (R)|
|Elsenheimer (R)||Genetski (R)||Green (R)||Haines (R)||Hansen (R)|
|Haveman (R)||Hildenbrand (R)||Horn (R)||Jones, Rick (R)||Knollenberg (R)|
|Kowall (R)||Kurtz (R)||Lori (R)||Lund (R)||Marleau (R)|
|McMillin (R)||Meekhof (R)||Meltzer (R)||Moore (R)||Moss (R)|
|Opsommer (R)||Pavlov (R)||Pearce (R)||Proos (R)||Rocca (R)|
|Rogers (R)||Schmidt, W. (R)||Schuitmaker (R)||Scott, P. (R)||Stamas (R)|
|Tyler (R)||Walsh (R)|
|Angerer (D)||Barnett (D)||Bauer (D)||Bennett (D)||Bledsoe (D)|
|Brown, L. (D)||Byrnes (D)||Byrum (D)||Clemente (D)||Corriveau (D)|
|Cushingberry (D)||Dillon (D)||Donigan (D)||Durhal (D)||Geiss (D)|
|Gonzales (D)||Gregory (D)||Griffin (D)||Haase (D)||Hammel (D)|
|Haugh (D)||Johnson (D)||Jones, Robert (D)||Kandrevas (D)||Kennedy (D)|
|Leland (D)||Lemmons (D)||Lindberg (D)||Lipton (D)||Liss (D)|
|Meadows (D)||Melton (D)||Miller (D)||Nathan (D)||Polidori (D)|
|Roberts (D)||Scripps (D)||Segal (D)||Slavens (D)||Smith (D)|
|Stanley (D)||Switalski (D)||Tlaib (D)||Valentine (D)||Warren (D)|
|Womack (D)||Young (D)|
HOUSE LEGISLATORS WHO DID NOT VOTE
|Jackson (D)||Scott, B. (D)|
HOUSE LEGISLATORS ALL VOTES
|Y Agema (R)||Y Amash (R)||n Angerer (D)||n Ball (R)||n Barnett (D)|
|n Bauer (D)||n Bennett (D)||n Bledsoe (D)||Y Bolger (R)||Y Booher (R)|
|n Brown, L. (D)||Y Brown, T. (D)||n Byrnes (D)||n Byrum (D)||Y Calley (R)|
|Y Caul (R)||n Clemente (D)||Y Constan (D)||n Corriveau (D)||Y Crawford (R)|
|n Cushingberry (D)||Y Daley (R)||Y Dean (D)||Y Denby (R)||Y DeShazor (R)|
|n Dillon (D)||n Donigan (D)||n Durhal (D)||Y Ebli (D)||Y Elsenheimer (R)|
|Y Espinoza (D)||n Geiss (D)||Y Genetski (R)||n Gonzales (D)||Y Green (R)|
|n Gregory (D)||n Griffin (D)||n Haase (D)||Y Haines (R)||n Hammel (D)|
|Y Hansen (R)||n Haugh (D)||Y Haveman (R)||Y Hildenbrand (R)||Y Horn (R)|
|Y Huckleberry (D)||- Jackson (D)||n Johnson (D)||Y Jones, Rick (R)||n Jones, Robert (D)|
|n Kandrevas (D)||n Kennedy (D)||Y Knollenberg (R)||Y Kowall (R)||Y Kurtz (R)|
|Y Lahti (D)||Y LeBlanc (D)||n Leland (D)||n Lemmons (D)||n Lindberg (D)|
|n Lipton (D)||n Liss (D)||Y Lori (R)||Y Lund (R)||Y Marleau (R)|
|Y Mayes (D)||Y McDowell (D)||Y McMillin (R)||n Meadows (D)||Y Meekhof (R)|
|n Melton (D)||Y Meltzer (R)||n Miller (D)||Y Moore (R)||Y Moss (R)|
|n Nathan (D)||Y Nerat (D)||Y Neumann (D)||Y Opsommer (R)||Y Pavlov (R)|
|Y Pearce (R)||n Polidori (D)||Y Proos (R)||n Roberts (D)||Y Rocca (R)|
|Y Rogers (R)||Y Schmidt, R. (D)||Y Schmidt, W. (R)||Y Schuitmaker (R)||- Scott, B. (D)|
|Y Scott, P. (R)||n Scripps (D)||n Segal (D)||Y Sheltrown (D)||n Slavens (D)|
|Y Slezak (D)||n Smith (D)||Y Spade (D)||Y Stamas (R)||n Stanley (D)|
|n Switalski (D)||n Tlaib (D)||Y Tyler (R)||n Valentine (D)||Y Walsh (R)|
|n Warren (D)||n Womack (D)||n Young (D)|
House Roll Call 246 on The amendment
Senator Brater’s statement is as follows:
I did serve on this conference committee also, and I did sign this report, even though it was a very difficult vote for me. This Higher Education budget does include a 2.8 percent cut to our colleges and universities here in the state of Michigan at a time when it is more important than ever to be investing in higher education. Having affordable access to higher education is a crucial aspect of moving Michigan forward and adapting to the needs of the 21st century economy.
I hope that we can do a better job in the future to avoid cutting the funding for higher education, but this cut is less than the amount that we cut when the bill left the Senate, so it is an improvement. As the good chair of the subcommittee has noted, additional money has been put into financial aid in various categories, which I think is a very positive aspect of this conference report.
I am also pleased to see that language that was in this bill when it left the Senate, which would have adversely affected stem cell research at our great universities in the state of Michigan—language that was approved overwhelmingly by the voters of the state of Michigan—that language has been removed and, therefore, will not serve as a deterrent to that very important, potentially life-saving research going forward here in the state of Michigan, which is a source of not only improved health care in the state of Michigan, but also jobs and federal funding coming into the state.
I do hope that we can do a better job in the future finding the funds that we need to hold higher education harmless and even improve the level of funding that we are directing. We have seen a steady decline in funding for higher education over the last decade or two during which many of us have been serving here in the Legislature. It is with mixed feelings that I supported this conference report, but I do support it as it came out of the conference committee.
Senator Cropsey’s statement is as follows:
I want to thank Senator Stamas for the hard work he has done on this. I know he worked very diligently to try to keep a section of boilerplate that I had asked him to put in. Unfortunately, at the last vote, it did not stand. I want folks to know what has happened on this. I asked Senator Stamas to put in boilerplate requiring universities to tell how they accommodate a student’s religious beliefs in their different programs. I think most universities try to do that.
I am very disappointed in Eastern Michigan University. Let me give you an example that has come to my attention and has been in federal courts. At this point, the federal judge has not seen fit to give relief under the First Amendment of the Constitution. This is the story, most of it is taken from the federal judge’s opinion in which he gives this background.
In 2006, Julea Ward applied and was admitted to the master’s degree program in counseling at Eastern Michigan University, endeavoring to pursue a degree that would allow her to become a high school counselor. The program requires that students complete not only traditional lecture discussion courses, but also a practicum course which involves actual counseling of real clients in a clinic operated by the university and supervised by university faculty. The practicum course and student handbook require that all students in the program abide by the American Counseling Association Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice and the American School Counselor Association Ethical Standards for School Counselors. The state of Michigan approves CACREP accreditation standards and requires professional counselors and school counselors to be trained in ethics.
Ms. Ward strictly adheres to orthodox Christian beliefs, a fact which she shared in her application to the program. Prior to the events that instigated the litigation in federal court, Ms. Ward openly shared her view of homosexuality as being morally wrong during classroom discussion and in her coursework. For example, Ms. Ward turned in a paper for a class involving the potential for religion-based values conflicts with clients, for which she received a perfect score. Specifically, she wrote, “In situations where the value differences between a counselor and client are not amenable, ‘standard practice’ requires that the counselor refer his or her client to someone capable of meeting their needs.” Although Ms. Ward claims that her professors’ disagreeable reactions to her opinions shut down her point of view, she nonetheless received A’s in all of her classes. So, evidently, she was right in saying that if you can’t counsel a client, refer them to someone else, which I believe is part of the counseling associations’ standards.
Ms. Ward enrolled in the practicum in January 2009. The controversy arose when she encountered a client who sought counseling regarding depression but who had previously been counseled about his homosexual relationship. After Ms. Ward reviewed the file approximately two hours before the scheduled appointment, she asked her supervisor, Dr. Callaway, under whose license she was practicing, whether she should refer the client to another counselor because she could not affirm the client’s homosexual behavior. Time constraints precluded a full discussion of the conflict, but given her desire not to harm the client, Dr. Callaway opted to cancel the appointment and reschedule it for a later date with a different counselor. As Ms. Ward had written in her paper and during her coursework in which she had received an A, this is what happened. Dr. Callaway later informed Ms. Ward that she would not be assigned any more clients and that she, Dr. Callaway, would be requesting an informal review before herself and the plaintiff’s advisor, Professor Dugger, as to whether she had violated university and ACA policies prohibiting “unethical, threatening, or unprofessional conduct,” an “inability to tolerate different points of view,” “imposing values that are inconsistent with counseling goals,” and “discrimination based on sexual orientation.” Dr. Callaway stated that this informal review was scheduled due to Ms. Ward’s performance in practicum and in order to discuss her obligation to provide counseling based on the client’s values and not those of the counselor. Dr. Dugger insists that during the review, she repeatedly assured Ms. Ward that she was “not incompetent,” which I would take to mean that Ms. Ward was a competent counselor.
At the end of the informal review, Ms. Ward was given the choice of: (1) completing a remediation program as directed; (2) voluntarily leaving the counseling program; or (3) requesting a formal hearing. The remediation program was contingent on “Ms. Ward’s recognition that she needed to make some changes.” Ms. Ward “communicated an attempt to maintain this belief system and those behaviors,” refused to participate in the remediation program, and instead chose to have a formal hearing. I find it very interesting that a student will not change their religious beliefs and, therefore, ask the only remedy for a formal hearing.
A formal hearing was held on March 10, 2009, and was attended by Professors Callaway and Dugger. Others serving on the hearing panel were Professors Ametrano, Francis, and Marx, and student representative Stanifer. During the review, Ms. Ward said that while she objected to counseling homosexual clients on their same-sex relationships, she would counsel them on any other issue; moreover, she refused to affirm any behavior that “goes against what the Bible says.” In addition, Ms. Ward stated that she disagreed with the ACA’s prohibition on reparative therapy, which means therapy targeted at changing a homosexual individual’s sexual orientation, but she would comply with such rules. I would like to see the science that the ACA has on saying they prohibit people from being counseled against their homosexuality, especially if they want to change. Where are the peer-reviewed studies? What about people who have come out of the homosexual lifestyle, or does the ACA not recognize that?
Also during the review, Dr. Francis engaged Ms. Ward in a “theological bout.” The panel asked Ms. Ward whether she viewed her “ ‘brand of Christianity’ as superior to that of other Christians who may not agree with her, like Dr. Francis, a formerly ordained minister.” Ms. Ward was informed in a March 12, 2009, letter that the panel unanimously concluded that she should be dismissed from the counseling program. A part of the letter reads: “I am writing to convey to you the decision of the Formal Review Committee regarding the concerns about your behavior in Counseling 686 Counseling Practicum. It was the unanimous opinion of the committee that clear and convincing evidence was presented that, by your behavior, you have violated the ACA Code of Ethics. Additionally, by your own testimony, you declared that you are unwilling to change this behavior. Your stance is firm despite information provided directly to you throughout your program and discussions you acknowledge having with faculty regarding the conflict between your values that motivate your behavior and those behaviors expected by the profession. Regarding referrals, the ACA recommends that ‘if counselors determine an inability to be of professional assistance to clients, they avoid entering or continuing counseling relationships.’ “—which is exactly what Ms. Ward asked for and what the professor did do.
Eastern Michigan University did offer Ms. Ward the option of a remediation program to change her professional conduct, which, had Ms. Ward chosen to accept it, would have led to Mr. Ward obtaining her degree. Eastern Michigan University pointed out that Ms. Ward failed to identify a materially similar case: neither the student who was permitted a temporary referral due to personal trauma nor the Muslim student who completed her academic requirement under accommodation was similarly situated with Ms. Ward in relation to the school’s pedagogical goals, since neither of them failed to fulfill academic requirements, which I find very interesting. Evidently, a Muslim student was able to get their degree in spite of the fact that the university accommodated them.
Though there were some unfriendly and arrogant remarks during the formal hearing after Ms. Ward’s refusal to participate in remediation, there was no evidence that the university maliciously singled out plaintiff from among other similarly situated individuals for discriminatory treatment as a class of one. Ms. Ward has been a student with excellent academic credentials, and her work earned repeated approval from the faculty members—even when she expressed potential difficulties in following the ACA Code of Ethics due to religious reasons in her papers—until she explicitly refused to comply with the academic requirements of the practicum. Both sides’ positions eventually hardened due to the confrontational atmosphere, culminating in the “theological bout” during the formal hearing. Nevertheless, the court does not perceive any maliciousness in defendants’ behavior amounting to a constitutional violation.
If the court recognizes that there was maliciousness going on against Ms. Ward, isn’t that violating her constitutional rights when you have a professional faculty doing this? If this isn’t a constitutional violation, what is, especially when you consider that other Michigan universities seem to accommodate students religious beliefs in this area or other areas? So what do we have? On March 12, 2009, about a year and a half ago, we have a conscientious teacher kicked out of a counseling program at Eastern Michigan University because she refuses to violate her religious convictions. If this isn’t a violation of the First Amendment, I don’t know what is.
I would also suggest that as legislators, we should take a look at this and say: Is this not a violation of the Michigan Bill of Rights and our Constitution that we are sworn to uphold before almighty God? In particular, Article I in our Declaration of Rights, Section 1: “All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their equal benefit, security and protection.” I would ask: Where is the equal benefit for Julea Ward? Section 2: “No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws; nor shall any person be denied the enjoyment of his civil or political rights or be discriminated against in the exercise thereof because of religion, race, color or national origin. The legislature shall implement this section by appropriate legislation.” I would like to know how have we implemented this in reference to this lady of color who is being discriminated against by the politically correct thought police at Eastern Michigan University.
Section 4 of our Declaration of Rights: “…The civil and political rights, privileges and capacities of no person shall be diminished or enlarged on account of his religious belief.” Eastern Michigan University has obviously violated Julea Ward because her privilege of going to the university has been denied, which is, obviously, open to anyone who agrees with the politically-correct thought police in the counseling program at Eastern Michigan University. Engaging in a theological bout as the court said?
Section 5 of our Declaration of Rights: “Every person may freely speak, write, express and publish his views on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of such right; and no law shall be enacted to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press.” But, oh no, we can’t have someone express their religious beliefs that are in contravention of the American Counseling Association standards. What if the standards violate a student’s or professor’s constitutional rights, which we are sworn to uphold as legislators, and also appointees of Eastern Michigan University? Should we stand by the counseling standards or stand by the Constitution?
How important is this issue? What is going to happen to medical students if the medical standards become such that a student must know how to perform an abortion? What if the practicum says that you must perform an abortion? Do you allow a person who has a conscientious objection, who believes he or she should not commit murder, or do you blithely ignore the moral repercussions and the justice of the Almighty God, whom we refer to in our preamble?
That is why I have voted “no” on this to let future legislators know that Eastern Michigan University is trampling over the rights of its students and is trying to shut out evangelical Christians who dare practice their religion—is shutting them out from the counseling program.
Senator Cassis’ statement is as follows:
It is always admirable when we are able to take corrective action on a budget and provide reductions that are important overall. I congratulate the committee that put this together. However, carve-outs and earmarks still remain. These are carve-outs and earmarks, perhaps well-intentioned, that may not serve this budget well and very possibly have never been evaluated. Over $5 million continues to be awarded in a subsection known as a King-Chavez-Parks competitive grants.
We no longer have the luxury of spending and spending without known outcomes. While it may be well-intentioned, it is time for earmarks and special carve-outs to go. For that reason, I am going to vote “no” on the Higher Education budget.