- Chamber
- senate
- Context text
- I appreciate that our colleague mentioned he would appreciate an explanation as to why repealing this language is necessary, and I’m glad to be able to stand here to fulfill that request. Quote—partial-birth abortion is not a medical term at all. It was created by the National Right to Life Council in 1995 in the wake of a newly-developed procedure—the D&E—which is the most commonly used procedure in a later abortion. Now, to be clear, in the state of Michigan in 2021, in a state of 10 million people, there were exactly two abortions performed after 28 weeks. When I was pregnant, I had a really terrifying moment very early on in my pregnancy. Just a few weeks after finding out I was pregnant, I was bleeding—a lot. I called my OB/GYN and they immediately told me to go to the emergency room. Even though I was only a few weeks pregnant, I was devastated. I was terrified that I might lose this pregnancy. It surprised me how deeply I felt in that moment given that it was so new to me. I can only imagine how devastating it is taking the feeling I felt just a few weeks in magnified by months. Not being weeks pregnant, but months pregnant, and finding out that something has gone horribly, horribly wrong.
In 2019 this body attempted to push forward a ban on D&E procedures and in 2019 I brought forward the story of constituents of mine—Michal and Jordan—who came to Lansing and met with many legislators one-on-one to share their own story. They had been married for about a year, they got pregnant, they wanted to be pregnant, they were so looking forward to bringing a child into the world. Everything was going well—every appointment, every check-in—until the 20-week appointment revealed something absolutely devastating. The collagen simply was not developing, and their doctors advised them that if they decided to proceed with the pregnancy, that the fetus very likely would not survive and that if it did, their baby might only live a few days and only know a life of suffering—that a sneeze might break a rib, that any movement, any breath would be nothing but pain and agony. They made a decision that I don’t think any of us could ever imagine. We heard the previous speaker speak about the gore of the procedure in a way that really dehumanizes and demonizes the people who suddenly find themselves having to make a decision that they never anticipated they might have to make. Michal and Jordan shared with me how every day from that point forward made it significantly worse, that their doctors knowing that Michigan’s law as written—the partial-birth abortion language—was so vague, so contradictory to even what is in federal law—they said their doctors were afraid to move forward in scheduling the procedure, that they might be arrested, that they might be demonized. They shared a story with me that Michigan’s law required they receive counseling and education and they were presented with images of healthy pregnancies. Michal told me how needlessly cruel that was because she was forced to view pictures of the pregnancy she wanted, not the pregnancy she had.
As the previous speaker mentioned, there is already federal language related to limitations on this procedure. Michigan’s go beyond that and are vague and confusing and might prohibit a doctor from using their best judgement to provide life-saving surgery even in the case of a miscarriage, so in repealing Michigan’s language we default to the federal language and we lead with compassion for the two people in this state who found themselves facing a decision that, God-willing, none of us in this room will ever have to experience. That after you’ve already carried a pregnancy for months, after you’ve picked out a name, after you’ve sent cards to your family introducing your soon-to-be new member of the family, after you’ve painted their room, after you’ve picked out furniture, that the pregnancy is not compatible with life.
In the interest of compassion, I ask for a “no” vote on this amendment.
Senator Brinks’ statement is as follows:
I have spoken to protect abortion rights from the other side of this chamber a few years ago, and now I am speaking to it again from a position where I can finally respond in accordance with the voters’ will. This amendment flies in the face of what voters called for last November. The law you’re trying to protect is not just poorly written and ambiguous, it is designed to cause confusion and shock, and is worthy of being repealed.
There’s been some grotesque language thrown around today, and it bears repeating that nearly 99 percent of abortions occur before 21 weeks, but when they are needed later in pregnancy, it is often in very complex circumstances, as the previous speaker mentioned. The kinds of situations where a woman and her doctor may need every medical option available. In fact, abortions later in pregnancy often involve rare, severe fetal abnormalities and serious risks to womens’ health. The current law punishes people, including moms and dads who are faced with the most unbearable and heartbreaking situations that a person can experience, by adding untold suffering to this tragedy. I cannot let us proceed with this vote without reminding you of who would be hurt by a “yes” vote on this amendment.
People like Christy. Christy was pregnant with her second child, a planned and wanted pregnancy. After a 20-week ultrasound, they found out their daughter would be born with a complication called congenital diaphragmatic hernia, and would suffocate at birth. As an act of compassion, they made a difficult decision of ending the pregnancy at 21 weeks.
Consider Julie. Julie’s doctor told her and her husband that their son’s brain had a serious abnormality, a diagnosis they confirmed with tests, more ultrasounds, and an MRI. If the baby survived, he would never speak, walk, or have a conscious thought, based on what had developed in his brain. As an act of compassion, Julie and her husband decided to terminate the pregnancy and the soonest that they could get an appointment was at 21 weeks.
We heard similar stories from Kate and Chelsea and Danielle, and I don’t have to repeat every single one of them, but so many more hopeful parents who had to make painful but compassionate decisions. People just like Kate, Chelsea, Danielle, Christy, Julie—they may be at your Thanksgiving table. They sit next to you in church, and in line with you at the grocery store. You may not know their stories, because they are just too painful to speak out loud, and frankly, many fear judgment from those unwilling to put themselves in their shoes. I cannot imagine facing those decisions as a mother. I cannot comprehend the pain that they must have experienced. What I can understand, to the depths of my heart, is the desire to spare my children the kind of suffering that these conditions cause. I urge you to really think about these stories before you cast your vote. I urge you to support parents who are faced with incredibly complex and heart-wrenching decisions, and to affirm their right to do so, free from the fear of unnecessary medical complications, and even maternal death. As an act of compassion, I urge you to vote “no” on this amendment.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:
- Excused
- 1
- Motion text
- The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:
- Nays
- 17
- Not voting
- 0
- Result
- passed
- Vote date
- 2023-11-07
- Vote number
- 663
- Yeas
- 20