context_text:
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: President
The Senate agreed to the title of the bill.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 426, entitled
A bill to amend 1939 PA 280, entitled “The social welfare act,” (MCL 400.1 to 400.119b) by adding section 117k.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
Senator Wojno offered the following substitute:
Substitute (S-1).
The substitute was adopted, a majority of the members serving voting therefor.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


chamber: senate

result: passed

context_text:
Senate Bill No. 428, entitled
A bill to amend 1939 PA 288, entitled “Probate code of 1939,” by amending sections 2f, 18, 28, and 29 of chapter XIIA (MCL 712A.2f, 712A.18, 712A.28, and 712A.29), section 2f as added by 2016 PA 185, section 18 as amended by 2022 PA 209, section 28 as amended by 2020 PA 362, and section 29 as amended by 2003 PA 74, and by adding section 29a to chapter XIIA; and to repeal acts and parts of acts.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
Senator Johnson offered the following substitute:
Substitute (S-3).
The question being on the adoption of the substitute,
Senator Johnson withdrew the substitute.
Senator Johnson offered the following amendment:
1. Amend page 17, line 22, after “or” by striking out “refusal” and inserting “ inability ”.
The amendment was adopted, a majority of the members serving voting therefor.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: President
The Senate agreed to the title of the bill.
Senator Runestad asked and was granted unanimous consent to make a statement and moved that the statement be printed in the Journal.
The motion prevailed.
Senator Runestad’s statement is as follows:
I cannot support this bill. I think it will have a substantial impact on court budgets and does not allow for a lot of time for them to account for the changes. Many counties are already into their fiscal year which encompasses this change. The bill does not seem to allow for the recovery of court monies spent on damaged lost equipment, for example a juvenile cuts off a tether or otherwise destroys or loses it. They are very expensive and the court would be unable to recoup that money from the juvenile or their parents. Subsection (c) on page 16 also limits the court’s ability to enforce the orders, i.e., can’t remove a child for nonpayment of restitution or doing community service. I don’t like the idea of limiting the court’s ability to enforce their orders. Yes, this change would say they have to be indigent but in talking with the courts and prosecutors, it seems like they don’t do any checking to see if that’s true. I’m also not sure if this is consistent with the Crime Victim’s Rights Act, which is an amendment to the state’s Constitution.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 429, entitled
A bill to amend 1990 PA 250, entitled “DNA identification profiling system act,” by amending section 6 (MCL 28.176), as amended by 2018 PA 310.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
2. Amend page 17, following line 6, by inserting:
“ (9) The child advocate must release information regarding a child protective services case to an individual who is a state legislator at the time of the request or to a member of the media if the state legislator or member of the media has signed a memorandum of understanding with the child advocate in which they agree not to release to the public any information received under this subsection. An individual who releases case-specific or identifying information under this subsection in a manner not allowed under this subsection is guilty of a misdemeanor. As used in this subsection, “member of the media” means a news reporter or a press photographer who holds valid press identification credentials. ”.
The question being on the adoption of the amendments,
The amendments were not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor.
Protests
Senators Victory, McMorrow, Klinefelt, Singh, McDonald Rivet, Shink, Polehanki, Anthony, Brinks, Hertel, Chang, Moss, Wojno, Cavanagh, Camilleri, Bayer, Geiss and Santana, under their constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the adoption of the amendments offered by Senator Runestad to Senate Bill No. 432.
Senator Victory moved that the statement he made during the discussion of the amendments be printed as his reasons for voting “no.”
The motion prevailed.
Senator Victory’s statement, in which Senators McMorrow, Klinefelt, Singh, McDonald Rivet, Shink, Polehanki, Anthony, Brinks, Hertel, Chang, Moss, Wojno, Cavanagh, Camilleri, Bayer, Geiss and Santana concurred, is as follows:
While I deeply respect the Senator from the 23rd District’s longstanding passion and dedication for protecting Michigan’s youth, I urge a “no” vote on this amendment. The amendment offered simply is not germane to Senate Bill No. 432.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Senator Runestad’s statement is as follows:
I rise to address my amendment. Well colleagues, I have been working on this issue since before I was ever in elected office. Back then I would talk to people in my county who had CPS cases with horrible outcomes and I would try to help them. I worked on many cases when I was on the Oakland County Commission, I worked on case after case when I was in the House of Representatives. I sent out an e-mail to all the other offices indicating I would be willing to work on CPS cases even though they were not in my district if that would be helpful. However, due to an old, obscure Michigan law on the books, legislators and credentialed media are not permitted to get information on individual CPS cases—no matter how horrific, how barbaric, and no matter how callous and incompetent the department’s behavior.
So this last February, I put in a bill that would reverse this mind-boggling travesty and permit sitting legislators and members of credentialed media to get access to this vital information on these individual cases from DHHS, provided that they sign a non-disclosure agreement preventing them, on penalty of a misdemeanor, from disclosing any identifying information on those individual cases. This bill unsurprisingly has been thrown into a death committee. Nothing disgusts me more about this Legislature and my own state of Michigan’s government than good transparency bills like this that would help save our children from rape, murder, torture, etc., being tossed into the sealed vault of a death committee.
Few in our state are aware that Michigan was hit back in 2006 with a lawsuit regarding our rotten, despicable treatment of Michigan’s children. We are still under that court order and I believe it’s still the longest-running federal court case against any state. Nothing in Michigan’s lack of transparency ever seems to change. Today will be no different. Today’s defeat of my amendment just further demonstrates that reality. Yes, Michigan is the least-transparent state and I also believe it is absolutely the most-corrupt state in the nation. I believe the reason transparency bills like this are never allowed out to be debated or even to see the sunshine of day is because whichever party is in power always wants to protect its department and thus, by extension, the sitting Governor. It keeps that dirty laundry locked up in the back room.
Who does not get protecting though? Who does Michigan’s power structure cast to the bottom, unconcerned when it comes to protections? Michigan’s children, that is who. If Michigan’s children are murdered, raped, tortured, slaughtered, that’s just an unfortunate collateral damage in Michigan’s never-ending ongoing cover-your-ass culture. I know this amendment will go down in flames just like my CPS transparency bill, all in the interest of continuing Michigan’s culture of disdainful deceitful self-serving corruption.
Senator Victory’s statement is as follows:
I rise today in support of Senate Bill No. 432. This legislation seeks to improve and expand the current Office of Children’s Ombudsman by replacing it with a new Office of the Child Advocate. The Office of the Child Advocate will provide with the resources and authority to ensure compliance with Michigan law and to implement proven best practices statewide. The Office of the Child Advocate will also allow for more accurate data collection that works toward improving rehabilitation and treatment services that these children need to fully return to society and to live a fulfilling and productive life. This is a much-needed first step toward protecting the legal rights and welfare of Michigan’s most vulnerable children and improving the rehabilitation and treatment throughout all the state juvenile facilities. I ask for your support on this important legislation.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 435, entitled
A bill to amend 1973 PA 116, entitled “An act to provide for the protection of children through the licensing and regulation of child care organizations; to provide for the establishment of standards of care for child care organizations; to prescribe powers and duties of certain departments of this state and adoption facilitators; to provide penalties; and to repeal acts and parts of acts,” by amending sections 5a and 10 (MCL 722.115a and 722.120), section 5a as added by 1994 PA 205 and section 10 as amended by 2022 PA 69.
The question being on the of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Nays—3
Albert Hoitenga Lindsey
Excused—1
Lauwers
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: President
The Senate agreed to the title of the bill.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 436, entitled
A bill to amend 1975 PA 238, entitled “Child protection law,” by amending sections 7, 7b, and 7k (MCL 722.627, 722.627b, and 722.627k), section 7 as amended by 2022 PA 68, section 7b as amended by 2011 PA 89, and section 7k as added by 2011 PA 67.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Nays—3
Albert Hoitenga Lindsey
Excused—1
Lauwers
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: President
The Senate agreed to the title of the bill.
The following bill was read a third time:
House Bill No. 4553, entitled
A bill to amend 2000 PA 489, entitled “Michigan trust fund act,” by amending section 2 (MCL 12.252), as amended by 2022 PA 83, and by adding section 3a.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: President
Senator Singh moved that the bill be given immediate effect.
The motion prevailed, 2/3 of the members serving voting therefor.
Pursuant to Joint Rule 20, the full title of the act shall be inserted to read as follows:
“An act to create certain funds; to provide for the allocation of certain revenues among certain funds and for the operation, investment, and expenditure of certain funds; and to impose certain duties and requirements on certain state officials,”
The Senate agreed to the full title.
The following bill was read a third time:
House Bill No. 4554, entitled
A bill to amend 1937 PA 94, entitled “Use tax act,” by amending section 21 (MCL 205.111), as amended by 2023 PA 21.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
In The Chair: President
Senator Singh moved that the bill be given immediate effect.
The motion prevailed, 2/3 of the members serving voting therefor.
Pursuant to Joint Rule 20, the full title of the act shall be inserted to read as follows:
“An act to provide for the levy, assessment, and collection of a specific excise tax on the storage, use, or consumption in this state of tangible personal property and certain services; to appropriate the proceeds of that tax; to prescribe penalties; and to make appropriations,”
The Senate agreed to the full title.
By unanimous consent the Senate returned to consideration of the following bill:
Senate Bill No. 382, entitled
A bill to facilitate access to state services by individuals with limited English proficiency; to provide for the powers and duties of certain state governmental officers and entities; and to provide for biennial reports concerning equal language access.
(This bill was read a third time earlier today and consideration postponed. See p. 2067.)
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Senator Chang asked and was granted unanimous consent to make a statement and moved that the statement be printed in the Journal.
The motion prevailed.
Senator Chang’s statement is as follows:
I am excited today to talk about Senate Bill No. 382 and, with permission, Senate Bill No. 383 as well, bills that will help facilitate access to state services for individuals with limited English proficiency. As the daughter of immigrants, I recognize the importance of helping those who have faced the difficulties of navigating life in the United States when English is not your first language. One in ten Michiganders over the age of 5 speak another language than English, and Michigan is becoming a more and more diverse state that includes a large immigrant population. Immigrants are responsible for Michigan’s net population growth over the last three decades, having grown 96 percent over that time frame, and Census numbers show clearly that it’s actually international migration that has offset the loss of population due to domestic outmigration and more deaths than births.
Regardless of how well an individual speaks English, they deserve equal access to the same services that fluent English speakers do. Whether it’s accessing DHHS benefits, interacting with the unemployment agency, or navigating housing and resources, every Michigander should have access to our state government and be able to understand and communicate with state employees. By making our state agencies more accessible, we will be helping the number of immigrant-owned businesses grow as well and keep the ones currently here open.
We worked closely with several immigrant-serving organizations as well as the Office of Global Michigan on the development of these bills and are very grateful for the work the Office of Global Michigan has been doing and for their new language access coordinator doing this work. Under these bills, state departments will be required to take reasonable steps to provide equal language access services and that can mean oral language services through face-to-face, in-house or telephonic oral language services, having available sufficient oral language services based on the data about the people served by that agency, translating vital documents, and designating a language access liaison.
Several other states already have laws or executive orders requiring language access plans for state agencies, and I believe it’s time for Michigan to join them. Regardless of someone’s English language capabilities, everyone deserves fair and equitable access to resources from our state and we cannot fall behind on this if we hope to continue to attract more people to our state and grow our population.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 383, entitled
A bill to provide for the statewide coordination of equal language access to state services by individuals with limited English proficiency; to provide for the powers and duties of certain state governmental officers and entities; and to establish a process for submitting complaints and obtaining remedies for lack of equal language access and for denials of equal access based on one’s national origin.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


result: unknown

context_text:
By unanimous consent the Senate returned to the order of
Messages from the House
Senate Bill No. 88, entitled
A bill to amend 1973 PA 116, entitled “An act to provide for the protection of children through the licensing and regulation of child care organizations; to provide for the establishment of standards of care for child care organizations; to prescribe powers and duties of certain departments of this state and adoption facilitators; to provide penalties; and to repeal acts and parts of acts,” by amending section 1 (MCL 722.111), as amended by 2022 PA 208, and by adding sections 3i, 3j, 3k, and 3 l .
The House of Representatives has substituted (H-1) the bill.
The House of Representatives has passed the bill as substituted (H-1), ordered that it be given immediate effect and amended the title to read as follows:
A bill to amend 1973 PA 116, entitled “An act to provide for the protection of children through the licensing and regulation of child care organizations; to provide for the establishment of standards of care for child care organizations; to prescribe powers and duties of certain departments of this state and adoption facilitators; to provide penalties; and to repeal acts and parts of acts,” by amending section 1 (MCL 722.111), as amended by 2022 PA 208, and by adding sections 3i.
Pending the order that, under rule 3.202, the bill be laid over one day,
Senator Singh moved that the rule be suspended.
The motion prevailed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor.
The question being on concurring in the substitute made to the bill by the House,
The substitute was concurred in, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
The Senate agreed to the full title.
The bill was referred to the Secretary for enrollment printing and presentation to the Governor.
Senate Bill No. 358, entitled
A bill to amend 1956 PA 218, entitled “The insurance code of 1956,” (MCL 500.100 to 500.8302) by adding section 3406z.
The House of Representatives has substituted (H-1) the bill.
The House of Representatives has passed the bill as substituted (H-1), ordered that it be given immediate effect and amended the title to read as follows:
A bill to amend 1956 PA 218, entitled “An act to revise, consolidate, and classify the laws relating to the insurance and surety business; to regulate the incorporation or formation of domestic insurance and surety companies and associations and the admission of foreign and alien companies and associations; to provide their rights, powers, and immunities and to prescribe the conditions on which companies and associations organized, existing, or authorized under this act may exercise their powers; to provide the rights, powers, and immunities and to prescribe the conditions on which other persons, firms, corporations, associations, risk retention groups, and purchasing groups engaged in an insurance or surety business may exercise their powers; to provide for the imposition of a privilege fee on domestic insurance companies and associations and the state accident fund; to provide for the imposition of a tax on the business of foreign and alien companies and associations; to provide for the imposition of a tax on risk retention groups and purchasing groups; to provide for the imposition of a tax on the business of surplus line agents; to provide for the imposition of regulatory fees on certain insurers; to provide for assessment fees on certain health maintenance organizations; to modify tort liability arising out of certain accidents; to provide for limited actions with respect to that modified tort liability and to prescribe certain procedures for maintaining those actions; to require security for losses arising out of certain accidents; to provide for the continued availability and affordability of automobile insurance and homeowners insurance in this state and to facilitate the purchase of that insurance by all residents of this state at fair and reasonable rates; to provide for certain reporting with respect to insurance and with respect to certain claims against uninsured or self-insured persons; to prescribe duties for certain state departments and officers with respect to that reporting; to provide for certain assessments; to establish and continue certain state insurance funds; to modify and clarify the status, rights, powers, duties, and operations of the nonprofit malpractice insurance fund; to provide for the departmental supervision and regulation of the insurance and surety business within this state; to provide for regulation over worker’s compensation self-insurers; to provide for the conservation, rehabilitation, or liquidation of unsound or insolvent insurers; to provide for the protection of policyholders, claimants, and creditors of unsound or insolvent insurers; to provide for associations of insurers to protect policyholders and claimants in the event of insurer insolvencies; to prescribe educational requirements for insurance agents and solicitors; to provide for the regulation of multiple employer welfare arrangements; to create an automobile theft prevention authority to reduce the number of automobile thefts in this state; to prescribe the powers and duties of the automobile theft prevention authority; to provide certain powers and duties upon certain officials, departments, and authorities of this state; to provide for an appropriation; to repeal acts and parts of acts; and to provide penalties for the violation of this act,” (MCL 500.100 to 500.8302) by adding section 3406ee.
Pending the order that, under rule 3.202, the bill be laid over one day,
Senator Singh moved that the rule be suspended.
The motion prevailed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor.
The question being on concurring in the substitute made to the bill by the House,
The substitute was concurred in, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
The Senate agreed to the title as amended.
The bill was referred to the Secretary for enrollment printing and presentation to the Governor.
By unanimous consent the Senate proceeded to the order of
Third Reading of Bills
Senator Singh moved that the Senate proceed to consideration of the following bill:
Senate Bill No. 227
The motion prevailed.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 227, entitled
A bill to amend 1973 PA 116, entitled “An act to provide for the protection of children through the licensing and regulation of child care organizations; to provide for the establishment of standards of care for child care organizations; to prescribe powers and duties of certain departments of this state and adoption facilitators; to provide penalties; and to repeal acts and parts of acts,” by amending sections 1, 2b, and 2c (MCL 722.111, 722.112b, and 722.112c), section 1 as amended by 2022 PA 208, section 2b as amended by 2007 PA 217, and section 2c as amended by 2017 PA 257.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Chang Johnson Outman Wojno
Cherry Klinefelt
Nays—0
Excused—0
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: Moss
The Senate agreed to the title of the bill.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 57, entitled
A bill to amend 1978 PA 368, entitled “Public health code,” by amending section 7453 (MCL 333.7453), as added by 1988 PA 139.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Cherry
Nays—1
Lindsey
Excused—0
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: Moss
The Senate agreed to the title of the bill.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 58, entitled
A bill to amend 1978 PA 368, entitled “Public health code,” by amending section 7455 (MCL 333.7455), as added by 1988 PA 139.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Cherry
Nays—1
Lindsey
Excused—0
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: Moss
The Senate agreed to the title of the bill.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 572, entitled
A bill to amend 1954 PA 116, entitled “Michigan election law,” by amending section 658 (MCL 168.658), as amended by 2023 PA 88.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Nays—8
Bellino Damoose Lauwers Runestad
Daley Hoitenga Lindsey Theis
Excused—0
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: Moss
The Senate agreed to the title of the bill.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 573, entitled
A bill to amend 1954 PA 116, entitled “Michigan election law,” by amending section 661 (MCL 168.661), as amended by 2023 PA 88.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
The motion prevailed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
Senator Singh moved that further consideration of the bill be postponed for today.
The motion prevailed.
Senator Singh moved that the Senate proceed to consideration of the following bill:
Senate Bill No. 388
The motion prevailed.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 388, entitled
A bill to amend 2003 PA 215, entitled “Credit union act,” by amending section 355 (MCL 490.355), as amended by 2016 PA 152.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
The Senate agreed to the title of the bill.
Senator Runestad asked and was granted unanimous consent to make a statement and moved that the statement be printed in the Journal.
The motion prevailed.
Senator Runestad’s statement is as follows:
This is a bill that I definitely do support, except I think it should be expanded to all citizens in the state of Michigan. Since I got elected, way back eight-and-a-half years ago, we have had constant calls from constituents who got bottled up in Treasury trying to get back their unclaimed property. Five years before I was elected to office, I was owed $800 from Chase Bank for an account that unfortunately Chase sent over to the state of Michigan. So I began the process five years before I was elected trying to get that money back.
They ran me through hoop, after hoop, after hoop, and had wanted me to produce some documents that didn’t even exist and were not even pertinent to getting that money back. Then after I got in elective office for two years, I would be sending them stuff. I eventually had Treasury come in, explained everything, showed them all the documentation, they finally—so that’s what, 10 years or something after I began the process to get that money—finally I got that $800 back. I think this is outrageous.
Treasury hangs onto that money with dear life. When somebody proves that they owe that money, and there’s nobody else, there was nobody else conceivable that could have produced all the documentation I had, and they still wouldn’t give me that money until I had to raise hell in my office. That shouldn’t have to happen; that a person has to be in elective office to get back that money. Treasury should be on the job getting this money back to these people as fast as possible and it shouldn’t just be veterans who are taken care of with this, but we should extend this to all citizens.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 389, entitled
A bill to amend 1995 PA 29, entitled “Uniform unclaimed property act,” by amending sections 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, 15, 17, and 18 (MCL 567.225, 567.226, 567.227, 567.228, 567.233, 567.235, 567.237, and 567.238), sections 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, 15, and 17 as amended by 2010 PA 197 and section 18 as amended by 2020 PA 79, and by adding section 17a.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Excused—0
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: Moss
The Senate agreed to the title of the bill.
Senator Singh moved that the Senate proceed to consideration of the following bill:
House Bill No. 4573
The motion prevailed.
The following bill was read a third time:
House Bill No. 4573, entitled
A bill to amend 1966 PA 331, entitled “Community college act of 1966,” by amending sections 161, 162, and 164 (MCL 389.161, 389.162, and 389.164), sections 161 and 162 as amended by 2015 PA 130 and section 164 as amended by 2018 PA 376.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: Moss
Senator Singh moved that the bill be given immediate effect.
The motion prevailed, 2/3 of the members serving voting therefor.
Pursuant to Joint Rule 20, the full title of the act shall be inserted to read as follows:
“An act to revise and consolidate the laws relating to community colleges; to provide for the creation of community college districts; to provide a charter for such districts; to provide for the government, control and administration of such districts; to provide for the election of a board of trustees; to define the powers and duties of the board of trustees; to provide for the assessment, levy, collection and return of taxes therefor; to authorize community college districts to operate a new jobs training program, enter into certain training agreements, and issue bonds to finance the training program; to prescribe penalties and provide remedies; and to repeal acts and parts of acts,”
The Senate agreed to the full title.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 27, entitled
A bill to amend 1956 PA 218, entitled “The insurance code of 1956,” (MCL 500.100 to 500.8302) by adding section 3406hh.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


result: failed

context_text:
The question being on the passage of the bill,
Senator Hoitenga offered the following amendments:
1. Amend page 2, line 7, after “to” by striking out “ an individual ” and inserting “a woman”.
2. Amend page 2, line 8, after “because” by striking out “ the individual ” and inserting “she”.
3. Amend page 2, line 16, after “denied” by striking out “ an individual ” and inserting “a woman”.
4. Amend page 2, line 16, after “because” by striking out “ the individual ” and inserting “she”.
5. Amend page 2, line 18, after “That” by striking out “ an individual’s ” and inserting “a woman’s”.
6. Amend page 2, line 20, after “because” by striking out “ the individual ” and inserting “she”.
The question being on the adoption of the amendments,
Senator Lauwers requested the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered, 1/5 of the members present voting therefor.
The amendments were not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Damoose Lauwers
Nays—20
Anthony Chang Klinefelt Polehanki
Bayer Cherry McCann Santana
Brinks Geiss McDonald Rivet Shink
Camilleri Hertel McMorrow Singh
Cavanagh Irwin Moss Wojno
Excused—0
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: Moss
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
The Senate agreed to the title of the bill.
Senators Hoitenga and Irwin asked and were granted unanimous consent to make statements and moved that the statements be printed in the Journal.
The motion prevailed.
Senator Hoitenga’s statement is as follows:
Mr. President, I must admit this is not an amendment I ever thought I’d have to offer in this Legislature. As far as I’m aware, women—specifically mothers—are the only people who can breastfeed or pump milk. Yet, for some reason, this bill removes the words “woman” and “she” and changes these proper terms to “individual.” My amendment will simply specify that this bill related to producing breast milk respectfully applies to women. Thank you, and I ask for your “yes” vote.
Senator Irwin’s statement is as follows:
I want to ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment because this legislation is about supporting moms and babies, not about some twisted culture war.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 410, entitled
A bill to amend 1961 PA 236, entitled “Revised judicature act of 1961,” by amending section 2946 (MCL 600.2946), as amended by 1995 PA 249.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
The bill was read a first and second time by title and referred to the Committee on Oversight.
By unanimous consent the Senate returned to the order of
Messages from the House
Senate Bill No. 55, entitled
A bill to amend 1893 PA 206, entitled “The general property tax act,” by amending sections 7u and 53b (MCL 211.7u and 211.53b), section 7u as amended by 2020 PA 253 and section 53b as amended by 2022 PA 141.
The House of Representatives has substituted (H-1) the bill.
The House of Representatives has passed the bill as substituted (H-1), ordered that it be given immediate effect and pursuant to Joint Rule 20, inserted the full title.
Pending the order that, under rule 3.202, the bill be laid over one day,
Senator Singh moved that the rule be suspended.
The motion prevailed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor.
The question being on concurring in the substitute made to the bill by the House,
The substitute was concurred in, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Senate Bill No. 227
The motion prevailed.
The following bill was announced:
Senate Bill No. 227, entitled
A bill to amend 1973 PA 116, entitled “An act to provide for the protection of children through the licensing and regulation of child care organizations; to provide for the establishment of standards of care for child care organizations; to prescribe powers and duties of certain departments of this state and adoption facilitators; to provide penalties; and to repeal acts and parts of acts,” by amending sections 1, 2b, and 2c (MCL 722.111, 722.112b, and 722.112c), section 1 as amended by 2022 PA 208, section 2b as amended by 2007 PA 217, and section 2c as amended by 2017 PA 257.
(This bill was read a third time on Wednesday, October 18 and consideration postponed. See Senate Journal No. 90, p. 2105.)
The question being on the passage of the bill,
Senator Lauwers offered the following substitute:
Substitute (S-2).
The substitute was adopted, a majority of the members serving voting therefor.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: Moss
The Senate agreed to the title of the bill.
The following bill was read a third time:
House Bill No. 4420, entitled
A bill to amend 1927 PA 175, entitled “The code of criminal procedure,” (MCL 760.1 to 777.69) by adding section 21b to chapter XVI.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
Senator Theis offered the following amendment:
1. Amend page 1, line 2, after “ may ” by inserting a comma and “ with consent of the victim, ”.
The amendment was not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Senator Theis, under her constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the passage of House Bill No. 4420.
Senator Theis’ statement is as follows:
I am beyond offended that this body believes that a woman who has been sexually assaulted—that her information should be released without her permission. That amendment simply asked that the police ask for her permission before they release it. So many members of this body voted against getting a woman’s permission before her most-personal information is released to strangers. Shame on you.
Senator Theis asked and was granted unanimous consent to make a statement and moved that the statement be printed in the Journal.
The motion prevailed.
Senator Theis’ statement is as follows:
All my amendment does is require the permission of the victim before her personal information is released.
The following bill was read a third time:
House Bill No. 4421, entitled
A bill to amend 1985 PA 87, entitled “William Van Regenmorter crime victim’s rights act,” by amending sections 8, 38, and 68 (MCL 780.758, 780.788, and 780.818), as amended by 2012 PA 457.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
House Bill No. 4422, entitled
A bill to amend 1985 PA 87, entitled “William Van Regenmorter crime victim’s rights act,” by amending sections 61 and 61a (MCL 780.811 and 780.811a), section 61 as amended by 2018 PA 370 and section 61a as amended by 2005 PA 184.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
Senator Lindsey offered the following amendments:
1. Amend page 2, line 6, by striking out all of subparagraph ( iii ) and renumbering the remaining subparagraphs.
2. Amend page 4, line 16, by striking out “ ( xxi ) ” and inserting “ ( xx ) ”.
3. Amend page 4, line 18, after “to” by striking out “ ( xxii ) ” and inserting “ ( xxi ) ”.
4. Amend page 7, line 20, by striking out “ 61(1)(a)( xix ), ( xx ), or ( xxi ), ” and inserting “ 61(1)(a)( xviii ), ( xix ), or ( xx ), ”.
5. Amend page 7, line 22, by striking out “ 61(1)(a)( xix ), ( xx ), or ( xxi ), ” and inserting “ 61(1)(a)( xviii ), ( xix ), or ( xx ), ”.
The amendments were not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Pursuant to Joint Rule 20, the full title of the act shall be inserted to read as follows:
“An act to establish the rights of victims of crime and juvenile offenses; to provide for certain procedures; to establish certain immunities and duties; to limit convicted criminals from deriving profit under certain circumstances; to prohibit certain conduct of employers or employers’ agents toward victims; and to provide for penalties and remedies,”
The Senate agreed to the full title.
Senator Lindsey asked and was granted unanimous consent to make a statement and moved that the statement be printed in the Journal.
The motion prevailed.
Senator Lindsey’s statement is as follows:
I like the idea of this bill. It basically expands some of the misdemeanors that would help victims qualify for certain privileges under the law, but there is one of them that stands out compared to everything else. It’s this idea that certain government employees—if they’re threatened or feel threatened—are going to get a special victim status under this law. My amendment is striking simply that portion; the rest of it would be expanded as the original bill was written. I urge a “yes” vote.
The following bill was read a third time:
House Bill No. 4423, entitled
A bill to amend 1985 PA 87, entitled “William Van Regenmorter crime victim’s rights act,” by amending sections 15, 43, and 75 (MCL 780.765, 780.793, and 780.825), as amended by 2018 PA 153.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Nays—0
Excused—0
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: Moss
Pursuant to Joint Rule 20, the full title of the act shall be inserted to read as follows:
“An act to establish the rights of victims of crime and juvenile offenses; to provide for certain procedures; to establish certain immunities and duties; to limit convicted criminals from deriving profit under certain circumstances; to prohibit certain conduct of employers or employers’ agents toward victims; and to provide for penalties and remedies,”
The Senate agreed to the full title.
The following bill was read a third time:
House Bill No. 4516, entitled
A bill to amend 1978 PA 389, entitled “An act to provide for the prevention and treatment of domestic and sexual violence; to develop and establish policies, procedures, and standards for providing domestic and sexual violence assistance programs and services; to declare the powers and duties of the Michigan domestic and sexual violence prevention and treatment board; to establish a domestic violence prevention and treatment fund and provide for its use; to provide for the powers and duties of certain state governmental officers and entities; to prescribe immunities and liabilities of certain persons and officials; and to prescribe penalties for violations of this act,” by amending section 1 (MCL 400.1501), as amended by 2018 PA 281.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Chang Johnson Outman Wojno
Cherry Klinefelt
Nays—0
Excused—0
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: Moss
The Senate agreed to the title of the bill.
The following bill was read a third time:
House Bill No. 4561, entitled
A bill to amend 1998 PA 58, entitled “Michigan liquor control code of 1998,” by amending section 609h (MCL 436.1609h), as added by 2022 PA 225.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Senator Singh moved that the following bill be given immediate effect:
House Bill No. 4561
The motion prevailed, 2/3 of the members serving voting therefor.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 175, entitled
A bill to amend 1893 PA 206, entitled “The general property tax act,” by amending section 27b (MCL 211.27b), as amended by 2012 PA 382.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
Senator Lindsey offered the following amendment:
1. Amend page 5, line 6, after “ property ” by striking out the balance of the bill and inserting a period.
The amendment was not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Bumstead Johnson Nesbitt Victory
Daley Lauwers Outman Webber
Damoose
Excused—0
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: Geiss
The Senate agreed to the title of the bill.
The following bill was read a third time:
House Bill No. 4376, entitled
A bill to amend 1956 PA 218, entitled “The insurance code of 1956,” by amending section 1207 (MCL 500.1207), as amended by 2018 PA 449.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Pursuant to Joint Rule 20, the full title of the act shall be inserted to read as follows:
“An act to revise, consolidate, and classify the laws relating to the insurance and surety business; to regulate the incorporation or formation of domestic insurance and surety companies and associations and the admission of foreign and alien companies and associations; to provide their rights, powers, and immunities and to prescribe the conditions on which companies and associations organized, existing, or authorized under this act may exercise their powers; to provide the rights, powers, and immunities and to prescribe the conditions on which other persons, firms, corporations, associations, risk retention groups, and purchasing groups engaged in an insurance or surety business may exercise their powers; to provide for the imposition of a privilege fee on domestic insurance companies and associations and the state accident fund; to provide for the imposition of a tax on the business of foreign and alien companies and associations; to provide for the imposition of a tax on risk retention groups and purchasing groups; to provide for the imposition of a tax on the business of surplus line agents; to provide for the imposition of regulatory fees on certain insurers; to provide for assessment fees on certain health maintenance organizations; to modify tort liability arising out of certain accidents; to provide for limited actions with respect to that modified tort liability and to prescribe certain procedures for maintaining those actions; to require security for losses arising out of certain accidents; to provide for the continued availability and affordability of automobile insurance and homeowners insurance in this state and to facilitate the purchase of that insurance by all residents of this state at fair and reasonable rates; to provide for certain reporting with respect to insurance and with respect to certain claims against uninsured or self-insured persons; to prescribe duties for certain state departments and officers with respect to that reporting; to provide for certain assessments; to establish and continue certain state insurance funds; to modify and clarify the status, rights, powers, duties, and operations of the nonprofit malpractice insurance fund; to provide for the departmental supervision and regulation of the insurance and surety business within this state; to provide for regulation over worker’s compensation self-insurers; to provide for the conservation, rehabilitation, or liquidation of unsound or insolvent insurers; to provide for the protection of policyholders, claimants, and creditors of unsound or insolvent insurers; to provide for associations of insurers to protect policyholders and claimants in the event of insurer insolvencies; to prescribe educational requirements for insurance agents and solicitors; to provide for the regulation of multiple employer welfare arrangements; to create an automobile theft prevention authority to reduce the number of automobile thefts in this state; to prescribe the powers and duties of the automobile theft prevention authority; to provide certain powers and duties upon certain officials, departments, and authorities of this state; to provide for an appropriation; to repeal acts and parts of acts; and to provide penalties for the violation of this act,”
The Senate agreed to the full title.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 328, entitled
A bill to require certain standards for smoke alarm and certain other devices; to prohibit certain conduct and prescribe civil sanctions; to authorize the promulgation of rules; and to provide for the powers and duties of certain state governmental officers and entities.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
Senator Hertel offered the following substitute:
Substitute (S-2).
The substitute was adopted, a majority of the members serving voting therefor.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Senate Bill No. 474, entitled
A bill to amend 1978 PA 368, entitled “Public health code,” by amending sections 2690, 2803, 2848, 2854, 9141, 10102, 16221, 16226, 16245, 16299, and 20115 (MCL 333.2690, 333.2803, 333.2848, 333.2854, 333.9141, 333.10102, 333.16221, 333.16226, 333.16245, 333.16299, and 333.20115), section 2690 as amended by 2016 PA 386, section 2803 as amended by 2020 PA 54, sections 2848 and 20115 as amended and section 2854 as added by 2012 PA 499, section 9141 as added by 2004 PA 501, section 10102 as amended by 2008 PA 39, section 16221 as amended by 2023 PA 47, section 16226 as amended by 2023 PA 48, section 16245 as amended by 2014 PA 413, and section 16299 as amended by 2020 PA 375; and to repeal acts and parts of acts.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
Senator Damoose offered the following amendments:
1. Amend page 30, line 25, after “2837,” by striking out the balance of the line through “17015a,” on line 26.
2. Amend page 30, line 26, after “17017,” by striking out “17515,”.
3. Amend page 30, line 27, after “333.2837,” by striking out the balance of the line through “333.17015a,” on line 28.
4. Amend page 30, line 28, after “333.17017,” by striking out “333.17515,”.
The question being on the adoption of the amendments,
Senator Lauwers requested the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered, 1/5 of the members present voting therefor.
The amendments were not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: Moss
Senator Hoitenga offered the following amendments:
1. Amend page 28, line 11, by removing section 20115 from the bill.
2. Amend page 30, line 26, after “17515,” by inserting “and”.
3. Amend page 30, line 26 after “17517” by striking out the comma and “and 22224”.
4. Amend page 30, line 28, after “333.17515,” by inserting “and”.
5. Amend page 30, line 28, after “333.17517,” by striking out the balance of the line through “333.22224,” on line 29.
The question being on the adoption of the amendments,
Senator Lauwers requested the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered, 1/5 of the members present voting therefor.
The amendments were not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Camilleri Hertel McMorrow Singh
Cavanagh Irwin Moss Wojno
Excused—0
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: Moss
Senator Lindsey offered the following amendments:
1. Amend page 30, line 25, after “2835,” by striking out “2836,”.
2. Amend page 30, line 27, after “333.2835,” by striking out “333.2836,”.
The question being on the adoption of the amendments,
Senator Lauwers requested the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered, 1/5 of the members present voting therefor.
The amendments were not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Brinks Geiss McDonald Rivet Shink
Camilleri Hertel McMorrow Singh
Cavanagh Irwin Moss Wojno
Excused—0
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: Moss
Senator Albert offered the following substitute:
Substitute (S-5).
The question being on the adoption of the substitute,
Senator Lauwers requested the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered, 1/5 of the members present voting therefor.
The substitute was not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Damoose Lauwers
Nays—20
Anthony Chang Klinefelt Polehanki
Bayer Cherry McCann Santana
Brinks Geiss McDonald Rivet Shink
Camilleri Hertel McMorrow Singh
Cavanagh Irwin Moss Wojno
Excused—0
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: Moss
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Pub ord
H
Cohabitation of divorced parties
4”.
2. Amend page 5, line 5, by striking out all of enacting section 1 and inserting:
“Enacting section 1. This amendatory act does not take effect unless all of the following bills of the 102nd Legislature are enacted into law:
(a) Senate Bill No. 108.
(b) Senate Bill No. 474.”.
The question being on the adoption of the amendments,
Senator Lauwers requested the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered, 1/5 of the members present voting therefor.
The amendments were not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor, as follows:


motion_text: The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: Moss
The Senate agreed to the title of the bill.
Senator Webber asked and was granted unanimous consent to make a statement and moved that the statement be printed in the Journal.
The motion prevailed.
Senator Webber’s statement is as follows:
Mr. President, this amendment would protect babies with Down syndrome. Every life is precious and should be treated as such. Individuals with Down syndrome enrich our society and add value to our state. They should have a right to live and thrive just like anyone else. My amendment would prevent medical professionals from performing an abortion post-fetal viability because the baby may have Down syndrome. I ask for support for this amendment.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 476, entitled
A bill to amend 2002 PA 687, entitled “Born alive infant protection act,” by amending section 1 (MCL 333.1071).
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Senator Theis offered the following amendments:
1. Amend page 1, line 1, after “(1)” by striking out “An” and inserting “ To be eligible for a grant described in section 4, an ”.
2. Amend page 1, line 1, after “education” by striking out “may” and inserting “ must ”.
3. Amend page 1, line 2, after “operate” by inserting “ or agree to establish and operate ”.
4. Amend page 1, line 2, after “office” by striking out the period and the balance of the line through “meet” on line 3 and inserting “ that meets ”.
5. Amend page 2, line 15, after “information.” by inserting “An office shall not provide referrals for abortion services.”.
6. Amend page 2, following line 27, by inserting:
“Enacting section 1. This amendatory act does not take effect unless Senate Bill No. 118 of the 102nd Legislature is enacted into law.”.
The question being on the adoption of the amendments,
Senator Lauwers requested the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered, 1/5 of the members present voting therefor.
The amendments were not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
As Proposal 3 was being championed as a ballot question, our citizens were assured that this was just going to take us back to a pre- Roe -overturning position. Opponents said there would never be late-term abortions unless it was an emergency, yet late-term abortions aren’t even being discouraged by our leadership at the state or federal level. They said there would be no way that protections and oversight for facilities would be removed, yet this body just did that today. They said there would be no issue with women being informed of the risks, yet this body today again made that no longer a requirement.
This is something by the way that is required of other elective procedures, and it should be. People going in for elective procedures should know what the risks are. Each one of these has been affirmatively voted against as amendments today. While it is true that our population voted for Proposal 3, it is obvious that the proponents were not being honest about what would be the reality of our state once this was adopted. The bills we’re passing today show that it was entirely disingenuous.
As someone who stands here because Roe was not yet decided, as someone who stands here having chosen life, even when it was inconvenient, as someone who stands here as the grandmother of a child also born out of wedlock, I pray that you reconsider your positions, understand the meanings to families. I’ve spoken to mothers who were pregnant before Roe was put in place and they wonder what their choice would have been, and they honestly live with guilt because they wonder. I’ve spoken to women who did make that choice and who regret it every day, and they wonder what their child would look like. I stand here as someone who has a family because the right choices were made.
Senator Theis asked and was granted unanimous consent to make a statement and moved that the statement be printed in the Journal.
The motion prevailed.
Senator Theis’ statement is as follows:
My amendment would support adoption services and protect maternal health. Every human life is a gift from God and has dignity and value worth protecting. If Democrats are serious about growing our state’s population, then we should be providing families with the support and resources they need to raise a family. Let’s provide women with that support and those resources, the things that they need to keep the mother and child safe during and after the pregnancy. We need to promote adoption services in our state as well, and I ask for support on my amendment.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 529, entitled
A bill to amend 1954 PA 116, entitled “Michigan election law,” by amending sections 46, 47, 581, 795c, 822, 841, 842, and 846 (MCL 168.46, 168.47, 168.581, 168.795c, 168.822, 168.841, 168.842, and 168.846), section 46 as amended by 2002 PA 431, section 795c as amended by 2015 PA 268, section 822 as amended by 2018 PA 614, section 841 as amended by 2015 PA 197, and section 842 as amended by 2018 PA 382, and by adding section 814.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: Geiss
The Senate agreed to the title of the bill.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 395, entitled
A bill to amend 1976 PA 451, entitled “The revised school code,” by amending sections 1230b, 1249, 1249a, 1249b, and 1280f (MCL 380.1230b, 380.1249, 380.1249a, 380.1249b, and 380.1280f), section 1230b as added by 1996 PA 189, section 1249 as amended by 2019 PA 6, section 1249a as amended by 2015 PA 173, section 1249b as amended by 2019 PA 5, and section 1280f as amended by 2023 PA 7; and to repeal acts and parts of acts.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
Senator McDonald Rivet offered the following substitute:
Substitute (S-5).
The substitute was adopted, a majority of the members serving voting therefor.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
The motion prevailed.
Senator McDonald Rivet’s statement is as follows:
I was hoping to stand up here and say good afternoon, but let me now switch that to good evening.
This substitute makes some good changes to the bill. The first is that it adds student growth to the evaluation process, up to 20 percent of the whole. The source of the growth data is locally negotiated and subject to local agreement. It prohibits the use of the MME exams which have been widely understood to be the wrong measure of student growth for these purposes. It adds due process in an appeal process, including mediation. And, lastly, clarifies a section of the bill that the 90-day window refers to kindergarten teachers only.
Senator Damoose’s statement is as follows:
I think we all need to take a step back and take a real hard look at where we are in terms of education in the state of Michigan. I’m proud that we’re providing more resources to our schools than ever before in history, but that’s only part of the solution. Any honest assessment will also take into consideration that our schools are ranked 42nd in fourth-grade reading. We’re beating only eight other states. We must take a look at the fact that we are ranked 36th in math. We’re 10th lowest in SAT scores. With results like that, now is not the time to consider relaxing our standards or weakening our evaluations. Imagine, in the face of such dismal performance, we just got rid of A-F school rankings. Let’s not also get rid of meaningful teacher evaluations on top of all of this. Teaching is not like most careers. Most other industries are simple. You perform well, you get to keep your job. You don’t perform, often you are given the chance to improve. You don’t improve, you are gone. I would have expected nothing less in my business. If I didn’t do the job and perform at a high level, my clients would leave. But the whole system of education is different.
We’ve made it so hard to take action when there is a poor-performing or mediocre teacher. Let’s be clear, schools don’t want to fire teachers — they can barely find enough as it is—but, getting rid of even the mechanisms for evaluating and measuring a teacher’s performance, and helping them improve, seems to fly in the face of all of our efforts to improve our schools. Maybe someday, maybe when we are ranked in the top ten nationwide, we can get rid of standards and evaluations, but right now we need every tool we can find to measure, encourage, and enforce high standards, and drive more performance for our schools. And that’s why I encourage all of my colleagues to join me in voting “no” on this bill.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 396, entitled
A bill to amend 1937 (Ex Sess) PA 4, entitled “An act relative to continuing tenure of office of certificated teachers in public educational institutions; to provide for probationary periods; to regulate discharges or demotions; to provide for resignations and leaves of absence; to create a state tenure commission and to prescribe the powers and duties thereof; and to prescribe penalties for violation of the provisions of this act,” by amending section 4 of article I, sections 2a and 3b of article II, and section 3 of article III (MCL 38.74, 38.82a, 38.83b, and 38.93), section 4 of article I as amended by 2011 PA 100 and sections 2a and 3b of article II as added and section 3 of article III as amended by 2011 PA 101.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
If you believe that student progress is important, then student progress must be a part of evaluating teachers. And if you believe that student progress is important, I urge you to vote “no” on these bills.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 530, entitled
A bill to amend 1956 PA 218, entitled “The insurance code of 1956,” by amending section 3157 (MCL 500.3157), as amended by 2019 PA 21.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
Senator Theis offered the following amendment:
1. Amend page 22, following line 15, by inserting:
“Enacting section 2. This amendatory act does not take effect unless the department of insurance and financial services determines that premium rates for personal protection insurance coverage for automobile insurance policies will not increase as a result of the changes made by this amendatory act.”.
The question being on the adoption of the amendment,
Senator Lauwers requested the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered, 1/5 of the members present voting therefor.
The amendment was not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Not Voting—1
Runestad
In The Chair: Geiss
Protests
Senators Moss, Cavanagh, McMorrow, Anthony, Wojno and Shink, under their constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against adoption of the amendment offered by Senator Theis to Senate Bill No. 530.
Senator Moss moved that the statement he made during the discussion of the amendment be printed as his reasons for voting “no.”
The motion prevailed.
Senator Moss’ statement, in which Senators Cavanagh, McMorrow, Anthony, Wojno and Shink concurred, is as follows:
I’ve listened to this in committee, I’ve listened to this here, about how, somehow, we’re going to increase rates due to restoring health care in this bill package, and that’s kind of what this amendment seeks to address. We were promised that rates would be reduced as a result of the 2019 law, but I’m still having constituents in my district tell me that their rates increased. In committee, the insurance industry came before us and I asked them, Why is this happening, even though rate relief was promised in the 2019 law? Well, they said, Yeah, your PIP line might have gone down, but other aspects of your bill have increased due to various factors including supply chain, inflation, whatever. So rates are higher now anyways, so the heart of the bill is to restore access to health care, and that is something that I have championed for a very long time, so all this talk about rate relief, we can get real rate relief if we better target the items that are increasing our rates and rein in some of these industry costs.
I don’t think that this amendment achieves anything regarding rate relief, in an attempt to restore health care, if, God forbid, anyone of us should be in a car accident. I urge a “no” vote.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
No one pictures their life after a catastrophic car accident. No Michigander plans life where they are no longer able to walk, to work, to take care of themselves on their own, but too many Michiganders, their families, and our own constituents know this reality. These bills will ensure that every Michigan driver, whether they have already been in an accident or have chosen full coverage to protect themselves in the future, have access and availability to the care and benefits that they pay for. I do not believe any reform should ever be at the cost of accessing medically-necessary care to auto accident survivors that is necessary for survival. I am excited we were able to work with stakeholders, colleagues, families, and survivors themselves to address the most urgent need of the availability of care, while not impacting cost-saving features of the current insurance law.
These bills still allow for fraud authority, utilization review, choice of lower cost personal injury protection, and still giving insurers the ability to deny any claim in the process to deem being unreasonable. Surprise, surprise. After the reform, Michigan is still experiencing one of the highest paying premiums in the nation. This package provides our residents the care that they need and provide the care that they are paying for. I am hopeful for ongoing discussions and looking forward to, after the speakers today, their support to other options regarding finally solving the exuberant cost experienced by Michigan drivers through cracking down on discriminatory practices that do not create an artificial narrative where affordability is entirely determined by the access of care for all drivers in Michigan. But first, we need to address the most urgent issue for current and future auto accident survivors that need us as legislators to stand up for one of our most-vulnerable populations feeling real life and death consequences from this crisis of care.
I’m proud to have worked on a constructive, bipartisan solution that will benefit every Michigan driver, all seven million, and save lives. I urge a “yes” vote on these bills.
Senator Brinks’ statement is as follows:
A major responsibility that we are tasked with here is not just passing laws but also having the courage to revisit laws that need improving. Many of you were here when the first iteration of no-fault reform was passed in 2019. I voted “no” largely because of the concerns that will now be addressed in this legislation. For me, it is about what we can do to ensure that people who are disabled by catastrophic accidents are simply able to live with dignity.
I’d like to thank the Senators from the 6th, 21st, and 7th districts, along with a number of members in this chamber and issue stakeholders who have provided valuable insight and spoke eloquently in favor of this legislation. By passing these bills, we can better serve the people of our state, especially those who have been in life-changing accidents, their families, and their caregivers.
I thank you, and I urge a “yes” vote.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 531, entitled
A bill to amend 1956 PA 218, entitled “The insurance code of 1956,” by amending section 2111f (MCL 500.2111f), as added by 2019 PA 22.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Daley Lauwers Santana Webber
Hauck Lindsey
Excused—0
Not Voting—1
Runestad
In The Chair: Geiss
The Senate agreed to the title of the bill.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 575, entitled
A bill to amend 1956 PA 218, entitled “The insurance code of 1956,” by amending section 3107c (MCL 500.3107c), as added by 2019 PA 22.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Not Voting—1
Runestad
In The Chair: Geiss
The Senate agreed to the title of the bill.
Protests
Senator Santana under her constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the passage of Senate Bill Nos. 530, 531, and 575 and moved that she be permitted to submit, in writing, her reasons for voting “no” for inclusion in a subsequent Journal.
The motion prevailed.
The following bill was read a third time:
House Bill No. 4998, entitled
A bill to amend 1939 PA 141, entitled “Grain dealers act,” by amending section 7 (MCL 285.67), as amended by 2004 PA 274.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
The motion prevailed, 2/3 of the members serving voting therefor.
Pursuant to Joint Rule 20, the full title of the act shall be inserted to read as follows:
“An act to regulate the storage, warehousing, buying, and selling of farm produce within this state; to provide for the licensing, regulation, and bonding of grain dealers; to provide for warehouse receipts, acknowledgment forms, and price later agreements and their use and priority; to provide for the creation of security interests; to provide for certain powers and duties of the department of agriculture and its director; to impose certain duties on insurance companies and sureties; and to provide administrative remedies and penalties for the violation of this act,”
The Senate agreed to the full title.
Senator Singh moved that the Senate proceed to consideration of the following bill:
Senate Bill No. 466
The motion prevailed.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 466, entitled
A bill to amend 1978 PA 368, entitled “Public health code,” by amending section 12606a (MCL 333.12606a), as amended by 2022 PA 168.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: Geiss
The Senate agreed to the title of the bill.
Protest
Senator McBroom, under his constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the passage of Senate Bill No. 466.
Senator McBroom’s statement is as follows:
This bill should have been considered a local act and not a general act. When reading the provisions of it, it’s very clear that it doesn’t even mask its intentions as being a local act in the normal way that we would usually mask something like that. It is, I believe, an unconstitutional act in that regard and therefore I voted “no.”
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 518, entitled
A bill to amend 1976 PA 451, entitled “The revised school code,” by amending section 1531i (MCL 380.1531i), as amended by 2020 PA 316.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Chang Johnson Outman Wojno
Cherry Klinefelt
Nays—0
Excused—0
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: Geiss
The Senate agreed to the title of the bill.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 533, entitled
A bill to amend 1949 PA 300, entitled “Michigan vehicle code,” by amending sections 217, 222, and 233a (MCL 257.217, 257.222, and 257.233a), sections 217 and 233a as amended by 2022 PA 224 and section 222 as amended by 2014 PA 290.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Substitute (S-1).
The Senate agreed to the substitute recommended by the Committee of the Whole, and the bill as substituted was placed on the order of Third Reading of Bills.
By unanimous consent the Senate returned to the order of
Third Reading of Bills
Senator Singh moved that the Senate proceed to consideration of the following bill:
House Bill No. 4273
The motion prevailed.
The following bill was read a third time:
House Bill No. 4273, entitled
A bill to amend 1917 PA 167, entitled “Housing law of Michigan,” by amending section 132 (MCL 125.532), as amended by 2000 PA 479.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: Moss
Senator Singh moved that the bill be given immediate effect.
The motion did not prevail, 2/3 of the members serving not voting therefor.
Pursuant to Joint Rule 20, the full title of the act shall be inserted to read as follows:
“An act to promote the health, safety and welfare of the people by regulating the maintenance, alteration, health, safety, and improvement of dwellings; to define the classes of dwellings affected by the act, and to establish administrative requirements; to prescribe procedures for the maintenance, improvement, or demolition of certain commercial buildings; to establish remedies; to provide for enforcement; to provide for the demolition of certain dwellings; and to fix penalties for the violation of this act,”
The Senate agreed to the full title.
The following bill was read a third time:
House Bill No. 4567, entitled
A bill to amend 1954 PA 116, entitled “Michigan election law,” by amending section 497 (MCL 168.497), as amended by 2018 PA 603.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
The following bill was read a third time:
House Bill No. 4568, entitled
A bill to amend 1954 PA 116, entitled “Michigan election law,” by amending section 931 (MCL 168.931), as amended by 1996 PA 583.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
Senator Daley offered the following amendment:
1. Amend page 5, following line 29, by inserting:
“ (4) An individual who uses a vehicle for hire to transport electors to or from a polling place or early voting site must not have any political party or candidate branding or electioneering materials displayed in or on the vehicle. An individual who violates this subsection is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than $2,000.00. ” and renumbering the remaining subsection.
The Assistant President pro tempore, Senator Geiss, assumed the Chair.
The question being on the adoption of the amendment,
Senator Lauwers requested the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered, 1/5 of the members present voting therefor.
The amendment was not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Camilleri Hertel McMorrow Singh
Cavanagh Irwin Moss Wojno
Excused—0
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: Geiss
Senator Theis offered the following amendment:
1. Amend page 5, following line 29, by inserting:
“ (4) An individual who uses a vehicle for hire to transport electors to or from a polling place or early voting site, or any individual who occupies that vehicle for hire, must not intimidate any elector by asking or requiring the elector to disclose the elector’s party affiliation, candidate preference, past election history, or voter registration status. An individual who violates this subsection is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than $2,000.00. ” and renumbering the remaining subsection.
The question being on the adoption of the amendment,
Senator Lauwers requested the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered, 1/5 of the members present voting therefor.
The amendment was not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Senator McBroom offered the following amendment:
1. Amend page 5, following line 29, by inserting:
“ (4) An individual who uses a vehicle for hire to transport electors to or from a polling place or early voting site, or any individual who occupies that vehicle for hire, must not do any of the following:
(a) Intimidate the driver or an occupant in that vehicle.
(b) Electioneer for a current candidate or issue.
(c) Wear clothing or materials to promote or disparage any current candidate or issue.
(d) Distribute or sell electioneering, promotional, or disparaging materials.
(5) An individual who violates subsection (4) is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than $2,000.00. ” and renumbering the remaining subsection.
The question being on the adoption of the amendment,
Senator Lauwers requested the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered, 1/5 of the members present voting therefor.
The amendment was not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Damoose Lauwers
Nays—20
Anthony Chang Klinefelt Polehanki
Bayer Cherry McCann Santana
Brinks Geiss McDonald Rivet Shink
Camilleri Hertel McMorrow Singh
Cavanagh Irwin Moss Wojno
Excused—0
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: Geiss
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Now, I recognize the realities of how this has gone, and how Republicans have looked at this particular issue for a long time is that this is something that the other side of the aisle tends to be much more organized with and since they have the higher population areas, typically it’s more economical to provide this kind of transportation in areas where their voters reside. So Republicans have traditionally fought against this over those issues. But I think we also recognize that the sword often cuts both ways when it comes to election policies and election decisions, and that we should be trying to look at these as dispassionately and as objectively as possible. How do we maintain fair elections and elections where the voters are not intimidated and where neither party can somehow just be unshackled to go to a ridiculous extreme? That’s why I have tried to bring forward in the debate on this issue this reasonable amendment, I think, to say intimidation is wrong and electioneering is wrong.
It is not that farfetched to believe that somebody like Mike Lindell or another person who’s very wealthy on the conservative side of the equation could be sponsoring hundreds, if not thousands of buses with huge labels and banners on them and free materials to give away to people who will take a ride and listen to their speech on the way to the polling place. I don’t think that’s what anybody here is honestly desiring to create or wants to see happen. So, to set up these as much more neutral in appearances, I’ve never said that it can’t say who sponsored the bus or anything like that, we didn’t include that in any of this language. We are just saying intimidation is wrong, and the posing of a whole bunch of materials and other signage or individuals in the transport who would be leveraging on those who need a ride to the polls, which is what this is all about.
We are talking about populations who can’t get to the polls unless we provide them with this means of transportation. That’s why the sponsors are pushing this so hard. Because apparently we have a population who, one, cant get there on their own and, two, can’t access the polls through the other means that are now provided to them through mail options. So this is their way to the polls, and yet now they’re going to have to subject themselves to potentially ridiculous intimidation and foolishness by some of the worst that all of us have seen from both sides of the aisle over the last several cycles. So I recommend a “yes” vote.
Senator Moss’ second statement is as follows:
I truly appreciate the dialogue on this issue, both on the floor and that we had in committee, but I think a lot of it overthinks what we’re trying to achieve here. Again, you cannot give a ride to someone who isn’t willing to take the ride, it is the choice of the voter. To have these concerns about electioneering or even a candidate on the bus or mode of transportation to the polls—if I was a Republican, and a Democratic candidate offered me a ride to the poll, I would take that ride to vote against that candidate. So I think there’s a lot of overthinking here about the impact and effect of what happens on the ride to the poll.
You are going to go to the poll and make your choice in the privacy of the voting booth. The mode of transportation, if it’s not accessible, is important. Here in the state of Michigan, we are alone—nearly alone in the country that Lyft and Uber couldn’t provide discounted rides for folks to the polls. So I don’t have this alarming concern that so much electioneering is going to happen between the pickup and the dropoff from a voter perspective when they are willing to take that ride and exercise their right to vote in the privacy of the voting booth. I’d like my remarks printed in the Journal and I oppose this amendment.
The President pro tempore, Senator Moss, resumed the Chair.
The following bill was read a third time:
House Bill No. 4644, entitled
A bill to adopt the uniform power of attorney act; and to repeal acts and parts of acts.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Chang Johnson Outman Wojno
Cherry Klinefelt
Nays—0
Excused—0
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: Moss
The Senate agreed to the title of the bill.
The following bill was read a third time:
House Bill No. 4645, entitled
A bill to amend 1994 PA 451, entitled “Natural resources and environmental protection act,” by amending section 20101b (MCL 324.20101b), as amended by 2000 PA 368.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Nays—0
Excused—0
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: Moss
Pursuant to Joint Rule 20, the full title of the act shall be inserted to read as follows:
“An act to protect the environment and natural resources of the state; to codify, revise, consolidate, and classify laws relating to the environment and natural resources of the state; to regulate the discharge of certain substances into the environment; to regulate the use of certain lands, waters, and other natural resources of the state; to protect the people’s right to hunt and fish; to prescribe the powers and duties of certain state and local agencies and officials; to provide for certain charges, fees, assessments, and donations; to provide certain appropriations; to prescribe penalties and provide remedies; and to repeal acts and parts of acts,”
The Senate agreed to the full title.
The following bill was read a third time:
House Bill No. 4646, entitled
A bill to amend 1978 PA 368, entitled “Public health code,” by amending sections 10121 and 10301 (MCL 333.10121 and 333.10301), section 10121 as added by 2008 PA 39 and section 10301 as added by 2012 PA 179.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
11:45 a.m.
The Senate was called to order by the Assistant President pro tempore, Senator Geiss.
By unanimous consent the Senate returned to the order of
Third Reading of Bills
Senator Singh moved that the Senate proceed to consideration of the following bill:
House Bill No. 4926
The motion prevailed.
The following bill was read a third time:
House Bill No. 4926, entitled
A bill to amend 1893 PA 206, entitled “The general property tax act,” by amending section 14a (MCL 211.14a), as amended by 2022 PA 240.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
In The Chair: Geiss
Pursuant to Joint Rule 20, the full title of the act shall be inserted to read as follows:
“An act to provide for the assessment of rights and interests, including leasehold interests, in property and the levy and collection of taxes on property, and for the collection of taxes levied; making those taxes a lien on the property taxed, establishing and continuing the lien, providing for the sale or forfeiture and conveyance of property delinquent for taxes, and for the inspection and disposition of lands bid off to the state and not redeemed or purchased; to provide for the establishment of a delinquent tax revolving fund and the borrowing of money by counties and the issuance of notes; to define and limit the jurisdiction of the courts in proceedings in connection with property delinquent for taxes; to limit the time within which actions may be brought; to prescribe certain limitations with respect to rates of taxation; to prescribe certain powers and duties of certain officers, departments, agencies, and political subdivisions of this state; to provide for certain reimbursements of certain expenses incurred by units of local government; to provide penalties for the violation of this act; and to repeal acts and parts of acts,”
The Senate agreed to the full title.
Senator Singh moved that the Senate proceed to consideration of the following bill:
Senate Bill No. 449
The motion prevailed.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 449, entitled
A bill to amend 1939 PA 280, entitled “The social welfare act,” (MCL 400.1 to 400.119b) by adding section 108b.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Chang Johnson Outman Wojno
Cherry Klinefelt
Nays—0
Excused—0
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: Geiss
The Senate agreed to the title of the bill.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 450, entitled
A bill to amend 1939 PA 280, entitled “The social welfare act,” (MCL 400.1 to 400.119b) by adding section 108a.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Chang Johnson Outman Wojno
Cherry Klinefelt
Nays—0
Excused—0
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: Geiss
The Senate agreed to the title of the bill.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 592, entitled
A bill to amend 2022 PA 85, entitled “Opioid liability litigation act,” by amending sections 2 and 3 (MCL 691.1672 and 691.1673).
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
During the recess, Senators Camilleri and Cavanagh entered the Senate Chamber.
Messages from the House
Senate Bill No. 174, entitled
A bill to amend 1979 PA 94, entitled “The state school aid act of 1979,” by amending sections 11, 17b, 201, 206, 236, and 241 (MCL 388.1611, 388.1617b, 388.1801, 388.1806, 388.1836, and 388.1841), sections 11 and 236 as amended by 2022 PA 212, section 17b as amended by 2007 PA 137, and sections 201, 206, and 241 as amended by 2022 PA 144.
The House of Representatives has substituted (H-3) the bill.
The House of Representatives has passed the bill as substituted (H-3), ordered that it be given immediate effect and amended the title to read as follows:
A bill to amend 1979 PA 94, entitled “An act to make appropriations to aid in the support of the public schools, the intermediate school districts, community colleges, and public universities of the state; to make appropriations for certain other purposes relating to education; to provide for the disbursement of the appropriations; to authorize the issuance of certain bonds and provide for the security of those bonds; to prescribe the powers and duties of certain state departments, the state board of education, and certain other boards and officials; to create certain funds and provide for their expenditure; to prescribe penalties; and to repeal acts and parts of acts,” by amending sections 11, 17b, 201, and 236 (MCL 388.1611, 388.1617b, 388.1801, and 388.1836), sections 11, 201, and 236 as amended by 2023 PA 103 and section 17b as amended by 2007 PA 137.
Pending the order that, under rule 3.202, the bill be laid over one day,
Senator Singh moved that the rule be suspended.
The motion prevailed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor.
The question being on concurring in the substitute made to the bill by the House,
The substitute was not concurred in, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
(3) As used in this section:
(a) “Attending health care professional” means an individual who is licensed to engage in the practice of medicine or the practice of osteopathic medicine and surgery under article 15 of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.16101 to 333.18838.
(b) “Extraordinary medical measures” means interventions, therapies, and professional services that are not commonly rendered or recognized throughout this state’s neonatal intensive care inpatient facilities as supporting premature births.
(c) “Fetal viability” means the point in pregnancy when, in the professional judgment of an attending health care professional and based on the particular facts of the case, there is a significant likelihood of the fetus’s sustained survival outside the uterus without the application of extraordinary medical measures. Fetal viability is at minimum a gestational age of 21 weeks and 1 day but may be fewer than 21 weeks and 1 day with medical advancements.
(d) “Medical emergency” means a condition that, on the basis of the attending health care professional’s good-faith clinical judgment, so complicates the medical condition of a pregnant individual as to necessitate the immediate abortion of the pregnant individual’s pregnancy to avert the pregnant individual’s death or for which a delay will create serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function.
(e) “Mental health” means that a pregnant individual has been deemed by an attending health care professional to be an imminent and life-threatening danger to the pregnant individual with no alternative care available.
(f) “Physical health” means a life-threatening or lifelong debilitating and chronic medical condition.”.
5. Amend page 3, line 27, after “1.” by striking out the balance of enacting section 1 and inserting “The legal birth definition act, 2004 PA 135, MCL 333.1081 to 333.1085, is repealed.”.
The question being on the adoption of the amendments,
Senator Lauwers requested the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered, 1/5 of the members present voting therefor.
The amendments were not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Cavanagh Irwin Moss Wojno
Excused—0
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: President
Protests
Senators Geiss, Moss, McMorrow, Chang, Shink, Polehanki, Cavanagh, Santana, McCann, Hertel and Anthony, under their constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the adoption of the amendments offered by Senator Albert to Senate Bill No. 593.
Senator Geiss moved that the statement she made during the discussion of the amendments be printed as her reasons for voting “no.”
The motion prevailed.
Senator Geiss’ statement, in which Senators Moss, McMorrow, Chang, Shink, Polehanki, Cavanagh, Santana, McCann, Hertel and Anthony concurred, is as follows:
I rise to urge my colleagues to vote “no” on this amendment that is neither based in obstetric medicine or reality. This amendment disrupts again the health care provider-patient relationship. It would hamstring doctors from making the medical decisions they need to make based upon their expertise, and it would return this state to a position of criminalizing the health care providers who perform abortions. The amendment itself is in fact contradictory in its phrasing of what would and would not be permissible depending upon when one does or does not determine gestational age and viability. In short, the amendment is too confusing, too extreme. Let’s leave medical decisions to the medical professionals and not to legislators who have none of the following: the ability to practice obstetric medicine or midwifery or a uterus. I urge a “no” vote on this amendment to Senate Bill No. 593.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Senator Albert’s statement is as follows:
Proposal 3 has language noting that the state may regulate abortion after fetal viability has been reached as long as the abortion is not medically necessary to protect the mother. When this bill received a hearing in committee, the bill sponsor stated it affirms the state can regulate the provision of abortion care after fetal viability with a list of qualifiers and exemptions that are outlined in the State Constitution. I am offering this amendment in the spirit of ensuring this provision is upheld and that life after fetal viability has been reached is supported.
This amendment would require that, except in the case of a medical emergency, an attending health care professional must perform an examination to determine the probable gestational age of the unborn child. If the gestational age is after fetal viability—which is defined at 21 weeks and one day, or earlier with medical advancements—an abortion could not be performed unless it was medically necessary for the mother. The exact language is that the abortion shall not be performed unless medically indicated to protect the life or physical health or mental health of the pregnant individual, which mirrors the language in the State Constitution.
In addition to regulating abortion post-fetal viability, it is critical we define other terms like extraordinary medical measures, attending health care professional, medical emergency, mental health, and physical health. If these terms are left undefined, then they are subjective and they lead to differing applications of the law throughout our state. This amendment is necessary to truly regulate abortions post-fetal viability in our state.
The bill as written, based on the laws it repeals and its lack of important definitions, results in Michigan not having any laws on the books to regulate late-term abortions. The bill as written says the state may regulate the provision of abortion care after fetal viability, but does not take any meaningful steps to actually regulate it, and that is what my amendment is looking to rectify.
I will ask the necessary question related to this bill: Are the Democrats truly going to elect to regulate abortion post-fetal viability as our Constitution allows, or will they take the extreme position that abortion will be permissible up to the moment a child leaves the womb? Please take this opportunity to tell the state of Michigan what limitations on abortion you do support so we can ensure those limitations go into state law. A step in that direction would be supporting this amendment. We should not be allowing abortion of babies that have reached the age when they could survive outside the womb.
The following bill was read a third time:
House Bill No. 4520, entitled
A bill to amend 1931 PA 328, entitled “The Michigan penal code,” by amending sections 81 and 81a (MCL 750.81 and 750.81a), section 81 as amended by 2016 PA 87 and section 81a as amended by 2012 PA 366.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The President pro tempore, Senator Moss, assumed the Chair.
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
The motion prevailed.
Senator Runestad’s statement is as follows:
This issue is personal to me because I have a sister and daughter-in-law who both were nurses. They have left the profession. In both cases, they didn’t want to leave. It was things they saw while they were in the profession. In one case, the understaffing that required her to work enormous numbers of hours beyond her capacity she felt to do the job properly, along with being attacked—physically attacked—by patients. In the other case, it was, again, understaffing issues that she felt as a supervisor of nurses that she couldn’t in good conscience continue doing the job.
These bills I don’t believe at all solve the problem. The bill is applying only to individuals with the patients. So, family members, visitors, but not to the patient, and every case my sister-in-law outlined, it was the patient. Ostensibly, the rationale why they didn’t want to include the patient could be high, drunk, schizophrenic, or a number of issues. That certainly could apply to the person there with them, yet they would still pay that penalty but not the patient. The patient oftentimes might just be a nasty drunk. Should the nasty drunk be allowed to abuse the patient and not have these additional penalties? To me none of that makes any sense. Eighty percent of the assaults from what we saw in committee are by the patient. Only 10 to 12 percent are by the family members, and who knows if they are in their right mind. To me, this does not at all help the situation, posting that you can be charged with an extra assault. If you’re going to be charged with assault, most people know that. I don’t think this is going to make a dime’s worth of difference.
Where does all this end? We just increased penalties for insulting a DHHS employee. I saw a video of a teacher in Flint get a chair bashed over her head, breaking the chair. This kind of stuff happens in schools. Are we going to increase it in the schools? It happens to firefighters, poll workers, waitresses, legislators, when are we going to end all these carveouts? The root of the problem as I see it is understaffing. If there were individuals in the room when this was occurring who could help the nurses, that they can get help in these situations, wouldn’t help. Very often when talking to these individuals, the hospitals rarely ever report these. They don’t want the bad news of, Oh geez, we’ve had the assaults. A lot of prosecutors don’t want to deal with these. I don’t think this is going to help at all with what the real needs are—increasing staffing, making these hospitals report these cases would make a big difference. I will be voting “no” on these two bills.
Senator Singh moved that rule 3.902 be suspended to allow the guest of Senator Chang admittance to the Senate floor.
The motion prevailed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor.
The following bill was read a third time:
House Bill No. 4521, entitled
A bill to amend 1931 PA 328, entitled “The Michigan penal code,” by amending section 82 (MCL 750.82), as amended by 1994 PA 158.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows: