The Senate agreed to the title of the bill.
Senator Albert asked and was granted unanimous consent to make a statement and moved that the statement be printed in the Journal.
The motion prevailed.
Senator Albert’s statement is as follows:
This amendment will keep Michigan’s partial-birth abortion ban on the books. The Democrats’ repeal of partial-birth abortion is an issue that has perplexed me since these bills were first introduced. In the first version of these bills, the House bill did repeal Michigan’s partial-birth abortion ban; then a Senate version was introduced and we voted on that bill in this chamber, that did not repeal the partial-birth abortion ban. Now, here we are again, and this time for what is the final bill going to the Governor’s desk to become law, is a repeal of Michigan’s partial-birth abortion ban.
I’m struggling greatly to understand why this law is being repealed and why Democrats have gone back and forth on this ban. At first I thought it might be because the infant protection act is still in state law and that seems to be a duplicative law to the partial-birth abortion ban. However, after looking more into it, the infant protection act was struck down in a court case and is now unenforceable. There is a federal law prohibiting partial-birth abortion, but eliminating the state law and leaving only federal law in place creates issues. First off, the federal government could change their law and remove any ban of partial-birth abortion whatsoever. Additionally, relying only on federal law monumentally weakens enforcement. No state can be forced to enforce federal law, so if a partial-birth abortion in this state were to be performed and this state law is not on the books, we might very well have to rely on a federal prosecutor to elect to take the case. I do not understand what the policy objective is here. I would greatly appreciate it if someone could explain to the people of Michigan why repealing our state’s ban on partial-birth abortion is necessary. One may argue that this procedure rarely happens, but that does not mean that we should not have a law prohibiting it. Many of our state laws criminalize conduct that rarely happens. That is the whole point. Making rare-but-reprehensible conduct illegal is part of why we have criminal laws in the first place.
I cannot fathom anyone saying this procedure should be allowable. This is a procedure where a child is delivered, so part of their body is out of the womb, and their brains are sucked out and its head is crushed. Repealing this law is entirely unjustified and barbaric. I encourage my colleagues to support my amendment to ensure Michigan’s partial-birth abortion ban remains in state law.
The following bill was read a third time:
House Bill No. 4951, entitled
A bill to amend 1927 PA 175, entitled “The code of criminal procedure,” by amending section 10d of chapter II, sections 1a and 3 of chapter IV, section 6e of chapter V, section 4a of chapter IX, and sections 13k, 16d, and 16p of chapter XVII (MCL 762.10d, 764.1a, 764.3, 765.6e, 769.4a, 777.13k, 777.16d, and 777.16p), section 10d of chapter II, section 3 of chapter IV, and section 6e of chapter V as added and section 1a of chapter IV as amended by 2020 PA 394, section 4a of chapter IX as amended by 2019 PA 115, section 13k of chapter XVII as amended by 2018 PA 587, section 16d of chapter XVII as amended by 2023 PA 59, and section 16p of chapter XVII as amended by 2008 PA 467.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows: