Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the Senate on June 9, 2004, to define as a legally born person for all purposes under the law a partially delivered fetus (or “perinate”), if it has a detectable heartbeat, evidence of breathing, or evidence of spontaneous movement. A doctor would be prohibited from harming a perinate unless the procedure was necessary to save the life of the mother, and every reasonable effort was made to preserve the life of both the mother and the perinate. The bill would have the effect of prohibiting “partial birth abortion” in Michigan. It was put before the legislature by a citizen petition drive, as provided by the Constitution, after Gov. Jennifer Granholm vetoed Senate Bill 395, which was the same bill. Under this process, the signature of the governor is not required for the legislation to become law. Since the two-thirds vote required in both bodies for immediate effect was not attained, the new law won't go into effect until late March of 2005

The vote was 23 in favor, 12 opposed and 3 not voting

(Senate Roll Call 364 at Senate Journal 58)

Click here to view bill details.

this type of legislation is created to divide. The issue and the procedure do not exist. Shame on republicans for putting forth such a bogus issue.

Do you understand what "citizen initiated" means? After about 2 months all fetus extermination should be illegal.

A bogus issue? Are you that ignorant to think that this 'procedure' doesn't really exist? This is real and thank God for Republicans for trying to ban such a barbaric form of 'birth control'. Do your research and you'll find this is an actual procedure being performed on fetus'.

There’s no question that the D&X procedure exists and is performed on occasion (rare) and that every description I’ve read of it -- from any source -- is heart-rending. However, the (small L) libertarian in me believes the matter of deciding what medical procedures are to be performed is a very private one that should be left between physician and competent patient or competent adult custodian. Legislators and our neighbors are not competent to make intensely personal medical and moral/philosophical decisions for me, you or anyone else but themselves. They should tend to their knitting and quit trying to impose their individual and debatable version(s) of what is right in these matters on the rest of us by force of law. I have no objection to legislators, politicians and other folks who wish to guide us to their version of personal moral righteousness by persuasive or impassioned argument. I object strongly when they edeavor to force us into submitting to their view of the world with the bludgeon of government power.

You say "However, the (small L) libertarian in me believes the matter of deciding what medical procedures are to be performed is a very private one that should be left between physician and competent patient or competent adult custodian." But who is looking out for the third patient in this "procedure" that ends up in the trash bin?

“But who is looking out for the third patient in this ‘procedure’ that ends up in the trash bin?” Oh, there you go with that business of arguing to have the government impose your belief or superstition about what constitutes ”personhood” on others who may have a different idea. It is absurd for the legislature to endow an unborn fetus with rights that trump those of competent adults when it comes to making decisions about what a woman may do with her own body in regards medical procedures. I believe that the right of competent adults to make their own moral and medical choices is what should be protected.

Then why do we charge killers with 2 homicides if they kill a pregnant woman. You can't have it both ways. I also do not like more government interference / control in my life but most 6 or 7 month fetuses will live if born. This is a right or wrong issue and the liberals in this country cannot color everything a shade of gray. Some things are right and some things are wrong.

So by your argument only 'competent' individuals are allowed to make this decision? And by whose determination are we considering the competence of the person? Is a minor competent? They're not competent enough to vote or drink until a certain age but according to you they would be 'competent' enough to make this decision? Or do we set an age limit to determine competency? Is there punichment then for the 'incompetent' person that made this decision? Hopefully you see the problem with your argument and how it relates to 'competency'. I'd rather have the gov't make a law against it rather then having them get involved in determining competence - let's face it - most of them aren't competent to be where they're at! There is no fetus that ought to be partially delivered and have surgical scissors installed in the base of it's neck and opened up to KILL it. Whether you believe in the 'personhood' of this fetus or not, this is barbaric and should be banned - ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING THE VOTERS OF MICHIGAN WANTED THAT AND ONE person had the power to veto it. It should be a voter mandated law regardless of what the supposed Catholic governor does. Our pets have more rights for goodness sakes!!!!

“So by your argument only 'competent' individuals are allowed to make this decision? And by whose determination are we considering the competence of the person? Is a minor competent? They're not competent enough to vote or drink until a certain age but according to you they would be 'competent' enough to make this decision? Or do we set an age limit to determine competency? Is there punichment then for the 'incompetent' person that made this decision? Hopefully you see the problem with your argument and how it relates to 'competency'. I'd rather have the gov't make a law against it rather then having them get involved in determining competence - let's face it - most of them aren't competent to be where they're at!” I believe that I actually used the term “competent adult” or “competent adult custodian.” So, please, if you are going to argue about what I (or anyone else) have written, please be competent enough to accurately cite what was written and address that. Now, I believe the term “competent adult” in this context would mean a person who has attained the “age of majority” per state stautes, and who has the “capacity to understand and act reasonably.” Like it or not, that covers a lot of people who probably do not share your particular beliefs in a whole range of matters regarding what they should think or how they should behave in their personal lives. It sure covers a lot of people whose beliefs and behaviors differ from mine. Now, you say: “I'd rather have the gov't make a law against it rather then having them get involved in determining competence - let's face it - most of them aren't competent to be where they're at!” That’s a pretty interesting twist. You want to have people ("them" -- lawmakers, I take it, because they are “the gov’t”) who you regard as incompetent “to be where they are” making laws to prohibit something because people at large are incompetent to make their own decisions about whether to do it or not. Is this not the equivalent of turning loose the inmates to run the institution? To quote you back: “Hopefully you see the problem with your argument and how it relates to 'competency'.” I certainly respect your personal view regarding the D&X procedure. I think it’s quite gruesome, myself, from everything I’ve read and know about it. Being the parent of a (now grown) beautiful child who was born many weeks prematurely, I have special reason to be repulsed by thoughts of the procedure in very late term pregnancies. I even have a personal sense that it may -- and I emphasize the word “may” -- be a form of what might loosely be called infanticide or murder. Nonetheless, I still believe the decision to employ such a procedure is a medical matter of an intensely personal nature, and that such decisions in a free society properly are the business of a physician and competent adult patient or personal custodian, and not of the state, and not of one’s neighbors. This is not condoning anything; it merely expresses a view of the world that places enormous value on personal responsibility, which none of us can have without the personal liberty to take it.

You forgot my whole notion that the citizens of Michigan have already made their wishes known - Granholm chose to ignore that - I do believe I said "a voter mandated law" in other words, the voters, by the gov't, making the law. The remark with regards to their (lawmakers) competency, had more to do with the Democrats. I was appalled at reviewing the amount of Senators/Reps. that simply skip votes through ths site- more Dems than Rep. Unless it's a medical necessity, of which the research has not shown this to be the case, then it is NOT a medical matter. It is an abortion on a fetus that if it would delivered, has a very good chance of survival. Don't confuse yourself with 'medical matter' - I'm sure Jack Kevorkian called his procedures 'medical matters' as well. With regards to placing 'enormous value on personal responsibility', obviously someone seeking an abortion for other than medical reasons has already FAILED the test for personal responsibility when they aren't able to guard against unwanted pregnancies - come on!!! Have the courage to jump off the fence post. You 'may' consider this procedure murder or infanticide - who in the heck are trying not to offend??? Have the courage of your convictions to go all the way and call it what it is, murder.

"The remark with regards to their (lawmakers) competency, had more to do with the Democrats." I take it you disagree with the Democrats on this issue. Therefore, they are not competent. That clears everything up.

Oh, come one! You can do better then that. Read the full comment that I made - the competentcy link was drawn using the 'missed votes' tally on this very website. Peruse it for yourself and draw your own analogies. I did not refer to them being incompetent because they disagree with my position. Nice try.

Funny how you would take one comment regarding competency to make hay out of while completely ignoring the entire rest of the post. Now that really clears things up! Avoiding the real issue doesn't make it go away. The citizens of the state have spoken and the legislators should be listening.

[“You forgot my whole notion that the citizens of Michigan have already made their wishes known - Granholm chose to ignore that - I do believe I said "a voter mandated law" in other words, the voters, by the gov't, making the law. The remark with regards to their (lawmakers) competency, had more to do with the Democrats. I was appalled at reviewing the amount of Senators/Reps. that simply skip votes through ths site- more Dems than Rep.”] Well, it actually wasn’t the voice of “the voters,” that got this bill passed either. It was a bunch of people who circulated and signed a petition. That’s the way our government processes are set up. The process worked: Popular sentiment trumped real deliberation, and the anti-abortion crowd got what it wanted, which actually is a legal definition of “personhood.” That definition is, by the way, not universally accepted, and remains open to considerable philosophical debate. I’m always skeptical when the legislature and popular opinion gets entangled in such things. A legislator’s competence is not measured by whether you or I as individuals agree with how he or she votes; it is measured by the simple fact that he or she was elected to and legally holds office. That’s a low standard, perhaps, but it’s the one that actually counts when it cmes to elected officias. The competency of any legislative act is measured by whether it is “constitutional” (state and US). This often is decided by courts whose judges either are elected or appointed by our elected leaders. [“Unless it's a medical necessity, of which the research has not shown this to be the case, then it is NOT a medical matter. It is an abortion on a fetus that if it would delivered, has a very good chance of survival. Don't confuse yourself with 'medical matter' - I'm sure Jack Kevorkian called his procedures 'medical matters' as well.”] If you are referring to the term, “partial birth abortion,” of course you are quite correct. The term does not exist in medical parlance and was, in fact, created by the anti-abortion propagandists to inflame public opinion. Conversely, D&X certainly is a known if relatively rarely performed medical procedure, and there is something well short of universal agreement on the use of it, as to when and why, in the medical community. At least that’s what my reading indicates. I think the US Supreme Court agrees with my take on it and insists that the life, safety and health of the pregnant woman must be properly considered in any laws that seek to regulate its use. Now, about your reference to Jack Kevorkian: I happen to think physician-assisted suicide should be legally permitted, as a private matter to be weighed and decided upon between doctor and competent patient. No doctor should be compelled by law to assist in suicide, but no doctor should be prohibited by law from assisting in it either, in my opinion. Period. End. [“With regards to placing 'enormous value on personal responsibility', obviously someone seeking an abortion for other than medical reasons has already FAILED the test for personal responsibility when they aren't able to guard against unwanted pregnancies - come on!!!”] This is YOUR judgement, a harsh personal opinion, and not a fact. Of course, you are entitled to your opinion. I believe competent adults should be free to work out their own solutions and to resolve personal situations in which they find themselves in accord with their own consciences and without undue nanny state government interference. [“Have the courage to jump off the fence post. You 'may' consider this procedure murder or infanticide - who in the heck are trying not to offend??? Have the courage of your convictions to go all the way and call it what it is, murder.”] Actually, I do not wish to debate the right and wrong of abortion or the D&X procedure with you. We simply never will agree because you have made up your mind about it (good for you, by the way) and I remain ambivalent about its morality. So yes, you could say I am on the fence about abortion, itself. But I certainly do have the courage of my convictions, which I act on daily. I am not on the fence about personal liberty. Personal liberty -- the freedom individuals have to make their own decisions about how to live their own lives -- is what makes ours a great nation. I am keenly aware of diverse personal opinion and belief about whether or not abortion, physician assisted suicide, stem cell research, and even organ transplants are morally acceptable and permissable, or “conscionable.” Opinions in such matters often are based on individual “belief systems” that guide how we conduct our personal lives. That’s where the personal liberty part of it comes into play. Because there is such diversity, I believe people must be free to weigh and make their own choices in matters of conscience like those listed above. I do not approve of authoritarian regimes, which I believe are oppressive and fundamentally immoral. That is where this debate should focus. Either you believe personal liberty is important and that personal liberty should be protected and preserved, or you don’t. Where do you stand?

I am pregnant and if testing proves that I am carrying a child with a serious problem, and I cannot find a doctor to perform an abortion, I WILL kill myself. That is my right... they haven't managed to outlaw suicide in Michigan yet and no one can stop me.

The libertarian thinks it is a privacy issue? Would it have been okay if Hitler had gassed the Jews indoors in a private manner?

iGb3gc Cool, bro!