Michigan Votes Forum

Senator Jacobs’ statement is as follows:

I rise to vehemently oppose Senate Resolution No. 43. If we think back, in the midst of a national health care crisis which hasn’t improved, with 17 million women, maybe more, in need of publicly-funded family planning, the Bush Administration politicized reproductive health care information and services, including birth control, by imposing rules through the Department of Health and Human Services. This was and still is out of step with the American electorate—3 percent of who support policies that make it easier for women of all income levels to obtain contraceptives and services. So now we fast-forward to what our new President has done which would rescind Bush’s midnight regulation that undermines our country’s ailing health care system as well as patients’ access to health care information and services.

Now, I have been working on health policy for many years and the one take-away that I have is that we should be working together to increase and not to hinder access to care. Patients—all patients—deserve access to complete and accurate health care information and services. I am confident that our current administration will continue to try to help meet this need. We have very difficult economic times. We have more than 45 million American currently uninsured. It is critical that we increase and not limit access to health care. When a patient walks into a hospital, pharmacy, or any health care center, he or she should be confident that they will receive complete and accurate information and services.

Now, when the Bush Administration proposed the rule, opposition to this was wide-ranging. It came from citizens, patients, consumers, federal and elected state officials, but most importantly, medical organizations—health care advocacy and religious organizations. They have all submitted comments that indicated that we should not have a conscience clause. The opposition has not changed. There was also a group of attorney generals, the American Nurses Association, American Medical Association, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Social Health Association, National Association of Community Health Centers, and Association of Reproductive Health Professionals. These are important organizations and institutions that we all depend on for their advice. What we are trying to do is undermine, today, their expertise and their advocacy. We should not be part and parcel of this.

So I urge my colleagues not to vote in favor of this Senate resolution. By doing so, I suppose, in my mind, it reinforces the reason why Senator Arlen Specter has jumped ship and changed parties. I don’t think that we want to be; well, maybe we will have some changes here in the Senate if we move forward with these types of things.

Senator Brater’s statement is as follows:

I rise to oppose this resolution. I vigorously support the actions of the Obama Administration in rescinding this ill-considered rule that was adopted in the waning days of the Bush Administration. It will prevent not only citizens from getting legally-available care, but also information about that care so that they can make informed choices.

This is a time that we are advocating that consumers inform themselves to become actively involved in choices regarding their medical care so that they can not only get the best quality care, but also save money in the health care system. The rule that this resolution urges that we keep in place prevents consumers from getting that very information that could lead them to these informed choices.

There is also the question that when one presents oneself for care, it could very much be a life-and-death matter. This rule not only exempts individuals from having to provide legally-available care, but also entire institutions. So a person in dire need of an abortion who is possibly in a life-threatening situation could present herself at a hospital not knowing that the entire hospital had opted out of providing legally-available abortions. So this rule being rescinded would not only govern individuals, but also entire institutions and that can be a very dangerous situation for a woman in search of emergency care not even knowing that she entering a building where they will refuse to provide care that could save her life.

Further, I am informed that this rule goes far beyond family planning and abortion services. It also could include other procedures that some people may have religious objections to, such as even providing blood transfusions. This is certainly a broadly-ranging rule that could be extremely detrimental to citizens of the state of Michigan and the United State trying to access modern medical care.

Senator Cropsey asked and was granted unanimous consent to make a statement and moved that the statement be printed in the Journal.

Senator Cropsey’s statement is as follows:

I don’t know if I have the words to express the abhorrence of what is going on in the Obama Administration regarding this issue. I have four children—the oldest will be 27 this year; then every two years we had additional children. One of the key things that my wife looked for in a doctor was good medical care not only for herself, but for the unborn child. And she wanted to make sure that she used a doctor who would not perform abortions. Then when the children were being born and we were going to the hospital, she wanted to make sure we didn’t go down here to Sparrow Hospital, where on one floor they do everything they can to save a baby and on another floor they do everything they can to kill a baby. We went to St. Lawrence Hospital which is a Catholic hospital having an objection to and would not perform abortions.

The Obama Administration is going to take the rights of my wife and myself away because of their extreme dedication to the culture of death. And, folks, that is what we are talking about. I just cannot believe we have a President of the United States where the Catholic hospitals are now saying that most of them—not all of them—will close down because they have principles, and before God Almighty, they know they will stand one day and say, “I have done everything I could to protect life, and I will not be a party to taking innocent human life.” I applaud those hospitals. And for people on the other side to say that they will make you perform abortions and they end up closing, you tell me how that is going to help health care. It is not going to help, and the Obama Administration is doing tremendous destruction to health care by this policy.

I would strongly urge, if you care about health care for women and children in this state, let them have the choice that they need to have to protect their values, morals, and lives, which for thousands of years has been the standard for decent human beings and decent doctors, which says that we will protect the unborn. Now for the Obama Administration to say, “Oh no, we are going to make sure that if you are a doctor or a hospital, you will provide this service to kill the unborn.” This is the land of the free and the home of the brave, but it is supposed to be the land of the living also. I am amazed that this culture of death has so permeated Washington, D.C., that they will try and impose it on the rest of this nation.

I rise, as a citizen of this state, in strong opposition to this resolution. If medical professionals were to have a choice in what recognized medical procedure they will or will not use or prescribe, based on their conscience, what kind of medical system would we have? One based on science, or one based on religion? If Catholic hospitals choose to decide procedure according to the dictates of their religion, they must do so without tax dollars.

 Those in opposition to Senate Resolution 43 have very weak excuses.  It all comes down to the right of choice.  Individuals can chose a physician, healthcare provider or hospital that agree's with their position.  Our government should not be passing laws that violates anothers religious or moral belief.  We could and would lose many excellent people who are in the practice of medicine due to  the government violating their religious and/or moral belief.  There are many who would steer away from making medicine a career if that moral choice is taken away from them.

Those opposed to this resolution don't have excuses, weak or strong. They have opinions. Opinions that have has much validity as those opinions in favor.

Individuals in need of emergency treatment may not have the option of shopping around for the doctor or medical facility that has not decided to opt out of the kind of legal medical treatment or drugs the individual needs. If a medical treatment is legal, and a doctor or hospital is medically qualified to perform it, not performing it when needed because of a personal religious belief by those capable of performing the required procedure is a violation of the medical oath, in my opinion.

Following my comments is the language of Senate Resolution 43. If an individual in all conscience, moral convictions and religious belief is against abortion and believes that it is murder/killing  they should not be pressured or forced under any laws to help commit an abortion unless it is to save the mother.  An abortion is not an emergency procedure.

Under your theory, Gypsy --  they should be mandated to help perform abortions.  In all the time I carried my child I never referred to her as a "fetus."  I was having a baby that had a soul from the minute she was conceived.  God's child, not the states!

 We now have a tremendous shortage of nurses and not enough attending nursing schools.  You will have many able, responsible and dedicated people turning away from the nursing and medical field because in all conscience, and faith they cannot be involved with an abortion procedure.  Nor, do they wish to fined and imprisoned for following their deep beliefs.

 Brilliant -- conscience does not count under government mandates and you can be punished for following your faith and conscience.  Seig Heil!!!!    You are in all terms a statist and not a constitutionalist.  Hitler, Stalin and many other dictators would have loved to have you as one of their followers/sheep.

     Senator George offered the following resolution:

            Senate Resolution No. 43.

            A resolution to express opposition to the Obama Administration's plan to repeal recently-adopted federal conscience clause regulations.

             Whereas, On December 18, 2008, the Bush Administration finalized regulations to implement existing federal laws protecting health care providers who object to performing procedures that violate their religious beliefs or moral convictions.  The Church amendments, Public Health Service Act, Section 245, and the Weldon amendment provide the statutory foundations that prohibit federal funds from being used to perpetuate discrimination against health care providers; and

            Whereas, The recent move by the Obama Administration to rescind the conscience clause regulations jeopardizes the right of a health care professional to follow his or her personal or religious convictions. This regulation was carefully designed to safeguard against forced violations of conscience in federally-funded health care programs; and

            Whereas, The Bush Administration's decision brought a long-awaited resolution to the dilemma of countless medical professionals by approving the implementation of this right of conscience rule. The final rule's certification requirement would ensure that recipients of federal Department of Health and Human Services funding are aware of the nondiscrimination requirements contained in federal law and that they are committed to complying with these laws.  The rescission proposal's suggestion of an "outreach and education" effort is a poor substitute for this effective and targeted compliance mechanism of certification; and           

            Whereas, If conscientiously-opposed individuals and institutions were forced to make a choice between performing abortions and facing punishment, they will still not perform abortions but, instead, face the punishment--whether this means loss of a job, loss of participation in a government program, or even civil or criminal penalties.  This results in the provider being punished for heeding the voice of conscience; and

            Whereas, The provider conscience regulation enhances clarity and reduces ambiguity and confusion.  It faithfully implements the terms of the statute, and the Obama Administration, therefore, should retain it; now, therefore, be it

            Resolved by the Senate, That we express opposition to the federal rule change to eliminate a health care professional's right to refrain from performing morally-objectionable procedures; and be it further

            Resolved, That copies of this resolution be transmitted to the Office of the President of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, and the members of the Michigan congressional delegation. 

inform4:

 Brilliant -- conscience does not count under government mandates and you can be punished for following your faith and conscience.  Seig Heil!!!!    You are in all terms a statist and not a constitutionalist.  Hitler, Stalin and many other dictators would have loved to have you as one of their followers/sheep.

Your personal insults don't reinforce your argument, they only expose the victory of your emotions over reason.

If a medical doctor or worker has religious beliefs that would interfere with performing their job, they can apply for work in hospitals or clinics that don't take federal funds.