Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the Senate on September 17, 2007, to prohibit “partial birth abortions” as defined in the bill, unless in a physician's reasonable medical judgment a partial-birth abortion is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury. The bill does not specify a "health of the mother" exception. Violation would be subject the abortion provider (but not the mother) to up to two years in prison and a $50,000 fine

The vote was 24 in favor, 13 opposed and 1 not voting

(Senate Roll Call 15 at Senate Journal 4)

Click here to view bill details.

I commend the author of the legislation that would ban this barbaric procedure.

But the dems/socialists will never let it pass. The party of no morals / lets surrender in iraq / bought and paid for by moveon.morons is heavily invested in the death of the young and the old.

Thank you Sen. Cameron Brown! I appreciate the effort to protect our children, but with the current power structure, I'm afraid this bill won't pass. Still, I'm glad to see that people will still try.

The supporters of this bill need to explain, if it is wrong to perform an abortion, why is the person seeking the abortion not subject to punishment under this proposed law? If you hire someone to murder another person, are you not as guilty as the person doing the actual murder? Could it be that this is not a crime at all, and supporters of this bill are trying to make it a crime by only punishing the doctors because the public would not support punishing the women who seek abortions? As for the partial birth method, it is used only in emergency situations, although the anti-abortion crowd wants us to think it is done on a regular basis, as a method of choice for abortions.

"why is the person seeking the abortion not subject to punishment under this proposed law?' On this point you are right, I would love to see it added to the bill. "As for the partial birth method, it is used only in emergency situations" About 6000 times a year. You libs get your panties all bunched up when we lose 3800 soldiers in 4 years doing an honorable thing trying to bring freedom to a twisted part of the world but 6000 dead babies every year doesn't bother you a bit? You are a sick bunch. "Could it be that this is not a crime at all" How can the murder of an innocent human being not be a crime????

Senator Jacobs’ statement is as follows: I rise today, on this 35th anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court decision of Roe v Wade, to speak to Senate Bill No. 776, commonly referred to as the partial-birth abortion ban. As you know, Roe v Wade upheld a woman’s constitutional right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. But my goal is not to rekindle the argument over our differences concerning either Roe v Wade or Senate Bill No. 776. Instead, I would simply like to publicly acknowledge that we have philosophical differences that will probably never be resolved. What I am recommending today, however, is that we come together and use our energies on other ways that can save children’s lives. Every day in Michigan, approximately 329 babies are born. Three of them born today will die before they are a year old. In fact, some 68 percent of infant deaths in Michigan occur in their first 28 days of life. Thirty of them will be of low birth weight, adversely affecting their future health. A report several years ago, titled “Keeping Kids Alive,” cited that Michigan mothers are most vulnerable in areas of maternal health and pre-maturity. The study, which was supported by my House colleague, Representative Paul Condino, said there need to be improvement in preconception health, unintended pregnancies, smoking cessation, drug abuse, and specialized prenatal care. In 2006, more than 116,000 Michigan children did not have health insurance, and that number continues to grow as the economy worsens. To date, only one out of three children under six in Detroit has been tested for lead levels. While infant mortality rates may be dropping, the mortality rate for African-American babies remains twice those of whites. In addition, Michigan continues to fall below the national average in infant mortality, asthma, children’s blood lead levels, chlamydia, gonorrhea, and obesity. The 13-23 age groups is the fastest-growing HIV-infected age group. It’s time to shift our passion from the unborn to those vulnerable, helpless, and defenseless children who are already here. It’s time to transfer our fervor into efforts to ensure that schools have a comprehensive sex education policy that is designed to prepare adolescents to become sexually healthy adults. So, while we in this chamber may not agree philosophically, I agree with Representative Condino who said, “We can’t be a civilized society if we don’t protect our most vulnerable and protect our babies. It is unconscionable not to try and work on this problem.” It is unconscionable not to try to work on this problem. Yes, let us save our babies, but I urge my colleagues on both sides on the aisle to focus their time and efforts on the children who are already here. Let us work together to keep kids alive. But there is more. We must do more to prevent the babies from having babies, and I speak of the estimated close to 19,000 pregnancies among Michigan teenagers in 2005. Teen mothers are more likely than adult mothers to have dropped out of high school, to be unemployed, and lack parenting skills. Teen mothers’ lifetime risks of social and economic disadvantage are greatly increased, as well as for their children. The increased health risks of infants born to teenaged mothers include low birth weight, pre-term delivery, fetal distress, and other adverse outcomes. Yes, to abstinence. We must supplement that message, however, with practical, candid, matter-of-fact information about sexuality as well. Studies continue to show that only medically-accurate sex education, including abstinence and birth control, prepares people to make responsible decisions. Studies also show that some 82 percent of Americans support comprehensive sex education classes in schools. Now my stand on Senate Bill No. 776 remains firm, but I implore my colleagues that we must shift our energies from the unborn to the born. And, with that, I want to say, think of all the kids we could save if we do that.

Senator Whitmer’s statement, in which Senator Cherry concurred, is as follows: I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this bill today. Like many issues that come before us, this is an issue that is emotional and that is often argued from the basis of emotion and not necessarily always from fact. I think that it is important that we have a factual discussion as well. I know that everyone has an opinion about what someone should or should not be able to do with their body, but the opinion that matters to me in governing what I should do with my body is the opinion of my doctor. In looking toward the thoughts of doctors who routinely see women—gynecologists—they have weighed in on this, and I think it’s important for us to know what they have said. The section of the American College of Gynecologists (ACOG) opposes this bill for multiple reasons. One, the bill includes a definition of partial-birth abortion which does not have an equivalent in medical textbooks or journals. So we are dictating how they do something that is not even defined. Number two, the bill is unscientific and is not in the best interest of the health and welfare of the women and families in Michigan; unscientific that would be a problem as well. Three, the bill includes statements that are unsubstantiated. For instance, we would like to review the document from “the prominent medical association,” which is a quote from the bill, and “the physician who is credited with developing the partial-birth abortion procedure.” These are quotes taken right out of the bill for which these people who are on the front lines don’t know to which we are referring. These are several reasons that I’m going to oppose this bill today. I just simply ask that you take a moment to review the facts, to think about the people who are on the front lines when women are faced with the awful decision of whether or not this is a procedure that they are going to have to request, and that the doctor is going to have to agree to

Senator McManus’ statement is as follows: Mr. President, I rise in support of Senate Bill No. 776 and wish to make a few comments. First, I would like to start off by thanking the good Senator from the 16th District with regard to his very valid comments on this particular issue. As the chamber may recall not very long ago, in 2003, I sponsored Senate Bill No. 395, bipartisan legislation that was all landmark effort to protect infants from a horrible procedure by clearly establishing the point at which they are born and become legally-protected citizens. Unfortunately, our Governor vetoed that legislation. However, nearly a half a million citizens worked day and night in this great state and rallied together to pass an initiative petition which did not need her signature to become law. That’s what you need here in Michigan. We can sometimes have laws brought about by the people of the state of Michigan. Sadly, last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals struck down this public act. Before us to day is Senate Bill No. 776, which directly reflects the language of the federal partial-birth abortion ban, which has been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court as constitutionally valid. Over 70 percent of Americans are opposed to the extreme and unnecessary procedures limited by this legislation. The procedures collectively known as “partial-birth abortions” have never been shown to be safer or even as safe as alternative methods in a peer-review study. Even more, the American Medical Association has stated that even when a mother’s health is endangered by her pregnancy, it is simply better to deliver that child rather than to abort it. Today, on the 35th anniversary of the Roe v Wade decision, I urge my colleagues to support this most important legislation to ban a grizzly and medically-unnecessary procedure.

Senator Hardiman’s statement is as follows: I rise to offer my strong support for Senate Bill No. 776. Although it is still very early in this new year, Senate Bill No. 776 is one of the most important bills we will discuss the entire year. It is important because it will help to define us as a people and as a state. Two hundred thirty-two years ago a group of men gathered in Philadelphia to define themselves and a nation as yet unborn. Their character in their choice was written in our Declaration of Independence. I hope those words will guide us today. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” These authors were not perfect, and it took a bloody civil war and another century of striving to bring us closer to the full meaning of those words. But even as we note human failings in our early history, we are humbled by the high standards that these words call us to. We have a choice today in Michigan; in the Michigan Senate as well. Pending before this body is a measure which would value life so much that it would penalize those who would harm it. Since coming to the Senate in 2003, I have been on the Families and Human Services Committee and have watched how we have acted again and again, often unanimously, to protect formable life. We have revised the law and powers of the children’s ombudsman act to investigate child abuse and recommend changes. In the midst of tough budgets, we have found money to add new child protection service workers. We have passed new laws regarding background checks for people in contact with children and laws regarding exposure to lead poisoning or other diseases. Our record is clear and honorable. I believe that we need to protect and work to protect those who are born and unborn. What do we do about Senate Bill No. 776 and partial-birth abortion? This is one of the tough issues; one of the votes we know we’ll hear from constituents on. The fundamental question is, do we believe the words of our Declaration of Independence still matter? Is life still an unalienable right given to all of us? I think our choice is clear. Given the chance to affirm Michigan as a state where life is given the highest value and protection of the vulnerable is a bedrock principle, we must seize that chance and make that statement. Thank you and please join me in supporting Senate Bill No. 776.

Senator George’s statement is as follows: I just wanted to respond to a couple of comments that I heard earlier. Of course, the Health Policy Committee passed Senator Brown’s bill to the Senate floor. We had taken it up because it addressed concerns that had been raised by the court. Some of the objections that you have heard relate to the potential for interfering with the patient-doctor relationship and I suppose that is true. The bill does affect the patient-physician relationship, but state government has already crossed that bridge. We do have an interest in regulating the practice of medicine and protecting the public’s health. We have many laws that already do that. We require physicians to obtain special consent prior to performing a mastectomy, for example; not just any surgical consent, but a special one that is prescribed in state statute. We have prohibitions on physician assisted suicide and euthanasia. We have special laws regarding HIV testing, credentialing its health professionals and the operation of hospitals and nursing homes. So, in fact, health care is probably the most heavily regulated sector of our economy. The state does have an interest in overseeing the patient-physician relationship. The other inference is that if we ban this procedure that somehow it will place mothers at risk, and that’s no longer true. This is a medieval practice or a procedure that is fallen out of modern medical practice and no longer serves any purpose. If a mother’s life is in danger and the baby needs to be delivered, then that can be accomplished in other ways. So the practice is no longer part of modern medical practice and does not need to be used within the state’s boundary, so I rise in support of this measure and would like my colleagues to join me in voting for it.

Senator Cropsey’s statement is as follows: First of all, I want to thank the Senator from the 16th District for sponsoring the pro-life legislation today and also the Senator from the 35th District for the work that she has done on this in the past. I want to say thank you to the Senator from the 31st District for his words, as well as the Senator from the 29th District. I think it is important to note that as we look at 35 years ago today, one of the most tragic decisions that was ever made by the Supreme Court was made and it is still the law of the land. To date, we still have about 50 million abortions that have come about as a result of Roe v Wade. A few quotes, I think, would be appropriates. Albert Schweitzer said, “If a man loses reverence for any part of life, he will lose his reverence for all life.” Mother Teresa said this concerning the Roe v Wade decision, “America needs no words from me to see how your decision in Roe v Wade has deformed a great nation. The so-called right to abortion has pitted mothers against their children and women against men. It has sown violence and discord in the heart of the most intimate human relationships. It has aggravated the derogation of the father’s role in an increasingly fatherless society. It has portrayed the greatest of gifts—a child—as a competitor, an intrusion, and an inconvenience. It has nominally accorded mothers unfettered dominion over the independent lives of their physically dependent sons and daughters. And, in granting this unconscionable power, it has exposed many women to unjust and selfish demands from their husbands or other sexual partners. Human rights are not a privilege conferred by government. They are every human being’s entitlement by virtue of his humanity. The right to life does not depend, and must not be declared to be contingent, on the pleasure of anyone else, not even a parent or a sovereign.” I think Mother Teresa, she said in one quote there, basically what our founding documents and our own Constitution bring out. Certainly, the Declaration of Independence was very clear when it said, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.” The first being the right to life. Article 5 of the Bill of Rights says that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. But, yet, we have had 50 million people in our society today who have been deprived of life without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment goes on to say that, “Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” President Ronald Reagan said this quote: “Abraham Lincoln recognized that we could not survive as a free land when some men could decide that others were not fit to be free and should therefore be slaves. Likewise, we cannot survive as a free nation when some men decide that others are not fit to live and should be abandoned to abortion or infanticide. There is no cause more important for preserving freedom than affirming the transcendent right to life of all human beings, the right without which no other rights have any meaning.” I would just hope and pray that next year at this time we could celebrate the overturning of this tragic decision.

Senator Gleason’s statement is as follows: In regard to Senate Bill No. 776, I’m very proud of my faith; I’m very proud of my Irish heritage. This has been a scourge on our lands for many, many years. I was very blessed to have two members of my family attend the Roman Catholic seminary. I think that it is important that we as Americans understand that we do have an obligation to respect and offer a high level of dignity to human life. I was one who was born with a complication and under certain circumstances other than what I was born under, I might have been one some folks would have chose to abort. This decision is vitally important to me. My biggest concern is that far too often we use political posturing and use words of angst in regard to this delicate situation. Roe v Wade is vitally important to me as an individual and as a member of a family that thought it was vitally important as well. I remember the discussion three and a half decades ago in regard to Roe v Wade. My family talked about this very, very intimately at the time that it was being thought about, but I wish that each and every Senator would take the obligation to read the history of Roe v Wade. There was actually two vacancies on the Supreme Court bench when they first heard Roe v Wade. It didn’t really register across our country at that particular time, but we did have a pretty volatile presidential election, just like we do today, going on across the United States. The first decision that came back in Roe v Wade was five Supreme Court Justices voted “yes” and two voted “no,” but that would have had an impact on that presidential election that year so they used an excuse to say, “Well, we don’t have a full bench. We’ll make the appointments—even though the appointments would not have altered the decision by the Supreme Court—we’ll fill the two vacancies and come back with a determination about this issue at a later date.” So President Nixon at that time filled the two vacancies. The decision then came back 7-2 to take the states’ right away and this would be a federal issue. We would legalize abortion under certain circumstances. I get fairly tired of some saying that this is Democratic or Republican issue. If you look at the history, one Democrat and one Republican voted “no”—presidential appointments, Supreme Court Justices—one voted “yes” and one voted “no.” On the affirmative side, there were six votes to affirm the rights of states to legalize abortions. Six Republicans and one Democrat voted “yes” to affirm it. I think that’s the issue that we have to address today. This is not about politics. This is about something more dear than politics—individuals. The decision came back 7-2 to legalize abortion in this country. So I think it’s time for us to advance beyond, I think, the demarcation line between Democrats and Republicans. I am a Democrat; I am a believer in life from conception to resurrection, but I get quite tired about my party being the one that carries the banner and supports pro-life or pro-choice decisions. It’s interestingly—and I’m just going to underline this once again—it’s understandable that politics are involved in this issue, but it’s also understandable that the Republicans and the final analysis with the appointments to the Supreme Court that legalized abortion, not the Democratic one. I think we have to advance beyond that. I think that pro-life positions are offering everyone health care. I think pro-life positions are those that deter the death penalty and life is precious. It should be taken from our hands and given to the good Lord who gave us this great blessing of life itself. I join the Floor Leader in saying that next year I hope that we have a different conclusion to this issue

All types of murder should be banned.

madman could try to make a case for partial birth murder. Ban it now.

they just call it a CHOICE. yes, murder IS a choice, and thousands of people CHOOSE to murder every day. and we should stick each and every one of them into the electric chair.

Rep. Hammel, 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 could not support SB776 for the following reasons. First and foremost it is a redundant bill that is already covered by Federal Statute. There is no evidence this procedure has been performed in the State of Michigan since 06. The bill also does not allow for any protections for the mothers health or any provisions in cases of rape or incest.”

Rep. Gonzales, 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: This action would create a state law that is not needed due to existing federal law, and results in ambiguity potentially with other medical procedures. I have faith in women controlling their own destinies with the advice of women’s health doctors. Additionally, this bill is essentially unscientific, and it is not in the best interest of the health and welfare of women and families throughout our state.”

Rep. Bauer, having reserved the right to explain her protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement: “Mr. Speaker and members of the House: I voted no for Senate Bill 776 because it is an unnecessary law that interferes with decisions that are better made based on sound medical judgment, and because several amendments to add protections for a woman’s health, which I supported, were not adopted. Doctors, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, oppose this bill because it interferes with medical decision making. A letter from the Michigan Section of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists states that “the bill is unscientific and is not in the best interest of the health and welfare of women and families in Michigan” and also states the group’s opposition to the criminalization of any medical practice. A federal law, which is currently in effect in all 50 states, provides all the legal protection necessary to ensure that the late term abortion procedure known as partial birth abortion is not utilized in Michigan, even though this procedure is utilized in less than 0.02% of all abortion procedures. Even though the federal law was upheld on constitutional grounds by the U.S. Supreme Court, four of the nine justices questioned the constitutionality of this law because it does not include adequate protections for the mother and required under Roe v Wade. Senate Bill 776 contains even fewer protections for the life of the mother than the federal law. Several amendments were offered that would have at least provided some exceptions for situations in which a woman’s health becomes a consideration, and for instances of rape and incest when a later term abortion decision must be made. Further, this law even infringes on a woman’s legal right to choose an abortion before viability of the fetus, which should be a medical decision, not a political one. Most important, I believe that politicians should not legislate medical decision-making. Women should be making these decisions based on their own personal values and their doctor’s advice.”

Rep. Warren, having reserved the right to explain her protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement: “Mr. Speaker and members of the House: Thank you for this opportunity to explain why I am voting against Senate Bill 776. Today is truly a sad day for the Michigan Legislature. Today is a sad day not only because we are interfering in the private medical decisions made between women and their doctors, but also because we have made the conscious determination to put divisive politics above good public policy. We have let a vocal minority make decisions for the diverse and varied citizens of this state. And perhaps most distressingly, we have let special interests dictate our legislative agenda. That I stand before you today I am sure comes as no surprise to most of you. As a longtime advocate for women’s rights, I wholeheartedly support a woman’s right to choose and oppose any attempt to chip away at this fundamental freedom. More than that however, I am standing here today because at its very core, Senate Bill 776 is an answer in search of a question. It is a redundant and unnecessary bill that bans a safe and rarely used medical procedure that has in fact already been prohibited by federal legislation. Even more insultingly, it offers absolutely no exception to protect a woman’s health or future fertility and does nothing to increase citizens’ access to birth control or comprehensive sex education. I was elected to the Michigan Legislature in order to pass public policies that would put the people of Michigan before petty politics and with each bill we read and each vote we take, I think that it is our duty, as Representatives, to ask ourselves how this legislation moves Michigan forward. After spending countless hours discussing and debating this bill, I can tell you, without equivocation, that this legislation simply does not pass this test. And yet today, with approximately 30 session days left in our legislation session, we are not taking up the remaining bills in a groundbreaking package that seeks to protect our Great Lakes from large-scale water diversions or even addressing the $300 million shortfall in our general fund budget that threatens our vital public safety and core health and human services. Instead we are taking a vote on a bill that does not one thing to make Michigan a stronger and better place to live. And when it comes down to it, I know that is question my constituents will be asking when I go back to my district. Thank you Rebekah Warren State Representative 53rd District”

To say that a partial birth abortion is used only in an emergency situation is illogical. An emergency by definition is: "an unforeseen combination of circumstances or the resulting state that calls for immediate action". A partial birth abortion takes hours to complete. Labor must be induced for the baby to begin the delivery process. This takes hours, not minutes. If the health of the mother were at risk, a cesarean section can be completed in approximately six minutes. This would greatly decrease the level of stress that is placed on the body of the mother.

If a woman's health is in jeopardy, there's nothing to talk about, she should have a choice. In fact, I don't go around telling men how many times a day to think about sex or how many times to mastrubate, so I think they should have no say in abortion at all. Not your body. Not your say. I liked it back in the day when men didn't even realize they had anything to do with the reproductive process at all. Ah, those were the days. Seriously. Kind of interesting that land was passed down from woman to woman in some culturals and that some culturals were purely matriarchal. The Cathars of France had absolutely equality. The Church didn't like THAT much. So, they killed most of them. We've come a long with since men spread the idea that woman had no souls or value beyond livestock, but we OBVIOUSLY have a ways to go.