No. 32

STATE OF MICHIGAN

JOURNAL

OF THE

House of Representatives

92nd Legislature


REGULAR SESSION OF 2004


 

House Chamber, Lansing, Wednesday, April 21, 2004.

 

1:00 p.m.

 

The House was called to order by the Speaker Pro Tempore.

 

The roll was called by the Clerk of the House of Representatives, who announced that a quorum was present.

 
Accavitti--presentGarfield--presentMeisner--presentSheen--present
Acciavatti--presentGieleghem--presentMeyer--presentSheltrown--present
Adamini--presentGillard--presentMiddaugh--presentShulman--present
Amos--presentGleason--presentMilosch--presentSmith--present
Anderson--presentHager--presentMinore--presentSpade--present
Bieda--presentHardman--presentMoolenaar--presentStahl--present
Bisbee--presentHart--presentMortimer--presentStakoe--present
Bradstreet--presentHood--presentMurphy--presentStallworth--excused
Brandenburg--presentHoogendyk--presentNewell--presentSteil--present
Brown--presentHopgood--presentNitz--presentStewart--present
Byrum--presentHowell--presentNofs--presentTabor--present
Casperson--presentHuizenga--presentO'Neil--presentTaub--present
Caswell--presentHummel--presentPalmer--presentTobocman--present
Caul--presentHune--presentPalsrok--presentVagnozzi--present
Cheeks--excusedHunter--presentPappageorge--presentVan Regenmorter--present
Clack--presentJamnick--presentPastor--presentVander Veen--present
Condino--presentJohnson, Rick--presentPhillips--presentVoorhees--present
Daniels--excusedJohnson, Ruth--presentPlakas--presentWalker--present
Dennis--presentJulian--presentPumford--presentWard--present
DeRoche--presentKoetje--presentReeves--presentWaters--present
DeRossett--presentKolb--presentRichardville--presentWenke--present
Drolet--presentKooiman--presentRivet--presentWhitmer--present
Ehardt--e/d/sLaJoy--presentRobertson--presentWilliams--present
Elkins--presentLaSata--presentRocca--presentWojno--present
Emmons--presentLaw--presentSak--presentWoodward--present
Farhat--presentLipsey--presentShackleton--presentWoronchak--present
Farrah--presentMcConico--presentShaffer--presentZelenko--present

Gaffney--present

 

 

e/d/s = entered during session

Rep. Judy Emmons, from the 70th District, offered the following invocation:

 

"Heavenly Father, we thank You for this glorious day and for the privileges that we enjoy. Always remind us of the responsibilities that are tied to those very privileges. We thank You for the opportunity, those of us who are serving in this body, and for the honor, and the responsibility that goes with that. Help us to be ever mindful that we need to keep Your will and Your wishes in the forefront, as we deliberate and make decisions that effect all of our constituents and the citizens in the state of Michigan. We would ask that You be with us, ask that You protect those who are out there in our great state, working doing the jobs that You provide, and make possible all things through You. We ask these things in the name of Jesus. Amen."

 

 

______

 

 

Rep. Waters moved that Reps. Daniels and Stallworth be excused from this week's session.

The motion prevailed.

 

 

Second Reading of Bills

 

 

House Bill No. 4468, entitled

A bill to amend 1931 PA 328, entitled "The Michigan penal code," by amending section 136b (MCL 750.136b), as amended by 1999 PA 273.

(The bill was read a second time, committee substitute (H-2) offered and bill postponed temporarily on April 1, see House Journal No. 30, p. 623.)

The question being on the adoption of the proposed substitute (H-2) previously recommended by the Committee on Criminal Justice,

The substitute (H-2) was adopted, a majority of the members serving voting therefor.

Rep. Van Regenmorter moved that the bill be placed on the order of Third Reading of Bills.

The motion prevailed.

Rep. Richardville moved that the bill be placed on its immediate passage.

The motion prevailed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor.

 

 

______

 

 

Rep. Nitz moved that Rep. Sheen be excused temporarily from today's session.

The motion prevailed.

 

By unanimous consent the House returned to the order of

Third Reading of Bills

 

 

House Bill No. 4468, entitled

A bill to amend 1931 PA 328, entitled "The Michigan penal code," by amending section 136b (MCL 750.136b), as amended by 1999 PA 273.

Was read a third time and passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, by yeas and nays, as follows:

 

 

Roll Call No. 253 Yeas--104

 

 
AccavittiGieleghemMeisnerShaffer
AcciavattiGillardMeyerSheltrown
AdaminiGleasonMiddaughShulman
AmosHagerMiloschSmith
AndersonHardmanMinoreSpade
BiedaHartMoolenaarStahl
BisbeeHoodMortimerStakoe
BradstreetHoogendykMurphySteil
BrandenburgHopgoodNewellStewart
BrownHowellNitzTabor
ByrumHuizengaNofsTaub
CaspersonHummelO'NeilTobocman
CaswellHunePalmerVagnozzi
CaulHunterPalsrokVan Regenmorter
ClackJamnickPappageorgeVander Veen
CondinoJohnson, RickPastorVoorhees
DennisJohnson, RuthPhillipsWalker
DeRocheJulianPlakasWard
DeRossettKoetjePumfordWaters
DroletKolbReevesWenke
ElkinsKooimanRichardvilleWhitmer
EmmonsLaJoyRivetWilliams
FarhatLaSataRobertsonWojno
FarrahLawRoccaWoodward
GaffneyLipseySakWoronchak
GarfieldMcConicoShackletonZelenko

 

 

Nays--0

 

 

In The Chair: Julian

 

 

The House agreed to the title of the bill.

Rep. Richardville moved that the bill be given immediate effect.

The motion prevailed, 2/3 of the members serving voting therefor.

 

 

Notices

 

 

Rep. Sheltrown, under Rule 33, made the following statement:

"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

I was absent from the Chamber when the vote was taken on Roll Call Nos. 216-217 and 219-244. Had I been present, I would have voted 'yea' on Roll Call Nos. 216-217, 219-225, 227-230, 233-238, 240-242 and 244 and 'nay' on Roll Call Nos. 226, 231-232, 239 and 243."

 

By unanimous consent the House returned to the order of

Second Reading of Bills

 

 

House Bill No. 4584, entitled

A bill to amend 1927 PA 175, entitled "The code of criminal procedure," by amending section 16g of chapter XVII (MCL 777.16g), as amended by 2002 PA 630.

Was read a second time, and the question being on the adoption of the proposed substitute (H-2) previously recommended by the Committee on Criminal Justice,

The substitute (H-2) was adopted, a majority of the members serving voting therefor.

Rep. Sak moved that the bill be placed on the order of Third Reading of Bills.

The motion prevailed.

Rep. Richardville moved that the bill be placed on its immediate passage.

The motion prevailed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor.

By unanimous consent the House returned to the order of

Third Reading of Bills

 

 

House Bill No. 4584, entitled

A bill to amend 1927 PA 175, entitled "The code of criminal procedure," by amending section 16g of chapter XVII (MCL 777.16g), as amended by 2002 PA 630.

Was read a third time and passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, by yeas and nays, as follows:

 

 

Roll Call No. 254 Yeas--104

 

 
AccavittiGieleghemMeisnerShaffer
AcciavattiGillardMeyerSheltrown
AdaminiGleasonMiddaughShulman
AmosHagerMiloschSmith
AndersonHardmanMinoreSpade
BiedaHartMoolenaarStahl
BisbeeHoodMortimerStakoe
BradstreetHoogendykMurphySteil
BrandenburgHopgoodNewellStewart
BrownHowellNitzTabor
ByrumHuizengaNofsTaub
CaspersonHummelO'NeilTobocman
CaswellHunePalmerVagnozzi
CaulHunterPalsrokVan Regenmorter
ClackJamnickPappageorgeVander Veen
CondinoJohnson, RickPastorVoorhees
DennisJohnson, RuthPhillipsWalker
DeRocheJulianPlakasWard
DeRossettKoetjePumfordWaters
DroletKolbReevesWenke
ElkinsKooimanRichardvilleWhitmer
EmmonsLaJoyRivetWilliams
FarhatLaSataRobertsonWojno
FarrahLawRoccaWoodward
GaffneyLipseySakWoronchak
GarfieldMcConicoShackletonZelenko

 

 

Nays--1

 

 

Sheen

 

 

In The Chair: Julian

 

 

The House agreed to the title of the bill.

Rep. Richardville moved that the bill be given immediate effect.

The motion prevailed, 2/3 of the members serving voting therefor.

 

 

______

 

 

Rep. Ehardt entered the House Chambers.

Second Reading of Bills

 

 

House Bill No. 5278, entitled

A bill to amend 1956 PA 218, entitled "The insurance code of 1956," (MCL 500.100 to 500.8302) by adding section 3406r.

Was read a second time, and the question being on the adoption of the proposed substitute (H-2) previously recommended by the Committee on Health Policy,

The substitute (H-2) was adopted, a majority of the members serving voting therefor.

 

Rep. Hummel moved to amend the bill as follows:

1. Amend page 1, line 3, after "on" by striking out "professional,".

The motion prevailed and the amendment was adopted, a majority of the members serving voting therefor.

Rep. Hummel moved that the bill be placed on the order of Third Reading of Bills.

The motion prevailed.

Rep. Richardville moved that the bill be placed on its immediate passage.

The motion prevailed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor.

 

 

______

 

 

Rep. Nitz moved that Rep. DeRossett be excused temporarily from today's session.

The motion prevailed.

 

Rep. Hune moved that Rep. DeRoche be excused temporarily from today's session.

The motion prevailed.

 

Rep. Caswell moved that Reps. Bisbee and Drolet be excused temporarily from today's session.

The motion prevailed.

 

By unanimous consent the House returned to the order of

Third Reading of Bills

 

 

House Bill No. 5278, entitled

A bill to amend 1956 PA 218, entitled "The insurance code of 1956," (MCL 500.100 to 500.8302) by adding section 3406r.

Was read a third time and passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, by yeas and nays, as follows:

 

 

Roll Call No. 255 Yeas--66

 

 
AcciavattiHowellNitzSheltrown
AmosHuizengaNofsShulman
BradstreetHummelO'NeilSpade
BrandenburgHunePalmerStahl
BrownJohnson, RickPalsrokStakoe
CaspersonJohnson, RuthPappageorgeSteil
CaswellJulianPastorStewart
CaulKoetjePumfordTabor
EhardtKooimanRichardvilleTaub
EmmonsLaJoyRivetVan Regenmorter
FarhatLaSataRobertsonVander Veen
GaffneyMeyerRoccaVoorhees
GarfieldMiddaughSakWalker
GleasonMiloschShackletonWard
HagerMoolenaarShafferWenke
HartMortimerSheenWoronchak

Hoogendyk Newell

 

 

Nays--36

 

 
AccavittiFarrahLawSmith
AdaminiGieleghemLipseyTobocman
AndersonGillardMcConicoVagnozzi
BiedaHardmanMeisnerWaters
ByrumHoodMinoreWhitmer
ClackHopgoodMurphyWilliams
CondinoHunterPhillipsWojno
DennisJamnickPlakasWoodward
ElkinsKolbReevesZelenko

 

 

In The Chair: Julian

 

 

The House agreed to the title of the bill.

Rep. Richardville moved that the bill be given immediate effect.

The motion prevailed, 2/3 of the members serving voting therefor.

 

 

______

 

 

Rep. Bieda, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:

"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

I voted against HB 5277 and 5278 because these organizations already can decide not to offer a particular service, or coverage for a particular service, and that this legislation is not needed."

 

Reps. Hopgood, Waters, Jamnick, Law, Anderson and Zelenko, having reserved the right to explain their protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:

"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

I voted 'No' on House Bills 5006, 5276, 5277, and 5278 because these bills would hinder access to health care services in Michigan, particularly in rural areas. These bills allow individual health care providers' interests to trump patient care. These bills also do not require health care providers to refer or counsel patients on their full health care options if the health care provider conscientiously objects to one of the possible treatments or procedures. The Michigan State Medical Society has stated that protecting a health care provider from referring a patient to potential medical procedures or counseling them on all possible treatments violates a doctor's code of ethics in caring for their patient. A patient needs to know all possible treatments available to them, regardless of whether that physician can or will provide them, in order to make informed decisions about their care. These bills also ignore current accreditation rules requiring hospitals to have procedures in place to accommodate employees' conscientious objections through the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JACHO) standards.

People in Michigan who choose to be health care providers should not be able to restrict the services available to those they are licensed to care for."

 

Rep. Kolb, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:

"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

I voted 'No' on House Bills 5006, and the other bills in this legislative package (5276, 5277, and 5278) because these bills would hinder access to health care services in Michigan. This bill and the other bills allow health care provides (and insurers) to refuse to provide health care, to people in need, that violates the health provider's ethical, moral or religious principals. This legislation would allow individual health care providers' interests to trump patient care. I oppose this legislation and worry that its passage into law would hinder access to health care services, especially in rural areas. This legislation also does not require health care providers to refer or counsel patients on their full health care options if the health care provider conscientiously objects to one of the possible treatments or procedures. The Michigan State Medical Society has stated that protecting a health care provider from referring a patient to potential medical procedures or counseling them on all possible treatments violates a doctor's code of ethics in caring for their patient. A patient needs to know all possible treatments available to them, regardless of whether that physician can or will provide them, in order to make informed decisions about their care. Current accreditation rules already require hospitals to have procedures in place to accommodate employees' conscientious objections through the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JACHO) standards.

People in Michigan who choose to be health care providers should not be able to restrict the services available to those they are licensed to care for. This bill allows health care providers to deny needed health care services to any individual not currently protected from discrimination under the state's Elliot-Larsen civil rights act. Thus, a health provider could refuse health care to an individual based upon a patient's actual or perceived sexual orientation. I adamantly oppose this legislation and believe that this is a very dangerous path for Michigan to travel down."

 

 

______

 

 

Rep. Drolet, under Rule 33, made the following statement:

"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

I was absent from the Chamber when the vote was taken on Roll Call No. 255. Had I been present, I would have voted 'yea'."

 

Rep. DeRoche, under Rule 33, made the following statement:

"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

I was absent from the Chamber when the vote was taken on Roll Call No. 255. Had I been present, I would have voted 'yea'."

 

 

Second Reading of Bills

 

 

House Bill No. 5277, entitled

A bill to amend 1980 PA 350, entitled "The nonprofit health care corporation reform act," (MCL 550.1101 to 550.1704) by adding section 409a.

Was read a second time, and the question being on the adoption of the proposed substitute (H-2) previously recommended by the Committee on Health Policy,

The substitute (H-2) was adopted, a majority of the members serving voting therefor.

 

Rep. Hummel moved to amend the bill as follows:

1. Amend page 1, line 3, after "on" by striking out "professional,".

The motion prevailed and the amendment was adopted, a majority of the members serving voting therefor.

Rep. Hummel moved that the bill be placed on the order of Third Reading of Bills.

The motion prevailed.

Rep. Richardville moved that the bill be placed on its immediate passage.

The motion prevailed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor.

 

By unanimous consent the House returned to the order of

Third Reading of Bills

 

 

House Bill No. 5277, entitled

A bill to amend 1980 PA 350, entitled "The nonprofit health care corporation reform act," (MCL 550.1101 to 550.1704) by adding section 409a.

Was read a third time and passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, by yeas and nays, as follows:

 

 

Roll Call No. 256 Yeas--69

 

 
AcciavattiHoogendykNewellSheen
AmosHowellNitzSheltrown
BradstreetHuizengaNofsShulman
BrandenburgHummelO'NeilSpade
BrownHunePalmerStahl
CaspersonJohnson, RickPalsrokStakoe
CaswellJohnson, RuthPappageorgeSteil
CaulJulianPastorStewart
DeRocheKoetjePhillipsTabor
DroletKooimanPumfordTaub
EhardtLaJoyRichardvilleVan Regenmorter
EmmonsLaSataRivetVander Veen
FarhatMeyerRobertsonVoorhees
GaffneyMiddaughRoccaWalker
GarfieldMiloschSakWard
GleasonMoolenaarShackletonWenke
HagerMortimerShafferWoronchak

Hart

 

 

Nays--35

 

 
AccavittiFarrahLawTobocman
AdaminiGieleghemLipseyVagnozzi
AndersonGillardMcConicoWaters
BiedaHardmanMeisnerWhitmer
ByrumHoodMinoreWilliams
ClackHopgoodMurphyWojno
CondinoHunterPlakasWoodward
DennisJamnickReevesZelenko
ElkinsKolbSmith

 

 

In The Chair: Julian

 

 

The House agreed to the title of the bill.

Rep. Richardville moved that the bill be given immediate effect.

The motion prevailed, 2/3 of the members serving voting therefor.

 

 

______

 

 

Rep. Bieda, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:

"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

I voted against HB 5277 and 5278 because these organizations already can decide not to offer a particular service, or coverage for a particular service, and that this legislation is not needed."

 

Reps. Hopgood, Jamnick, Anderson and Law, having reserved the right to explain their protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:

"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

I voted 'No' on House Bills 5006, 5276, 5277, and 5278 because these bills would hinder access to health care services in Michigan, particularly in rural areas. These bills allow individual health care providers' interests to trump patient care. These bills also do not require health care providers to refer or counsel patients on their full health care options if the health care provider conscientiously objects to one of the possible treatments or procedures. The Michigan State Medical Society has stated that protecting a health care provider from referring a patient to potential medical procedures or counseling them on all possible treatments violates a doctor's code of ethics in caring for their patient. A patient needs to know all possible treatments available to them, regardless of whether that physician can or will provide them, in order to make informed decisions about their care. These bills also ignore current accreditation rules requiring hospitals to have procedures in place to accommodate employees' conscientious objections through the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JACHO) standards.

People in Michigan who choose to be health care providers should not be able to restrict the services available to those they are licensed to care for."

 

Rep. Kolb, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:

"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

I voted 'No' on House Bills 5006, and the other bills in this legislative package (5276, 5277, and 5278) because these bills would hinder access to health care services in Michigan. This bill and the other bills allow health care provides (and insurers) to refuse to provide health care, to people in need, that violates the health provider's ethical, moral or religious principals. This legislation would allow individual health care providers' interests to trump patient care. I oppose this legislation and worry that its passage into law would hinder access to health care services, especially in rural areas. This legislation also does not require health care providers to refer or counsel patients on their full health care options if the health care provider conscientiously objects to one of the possible treatments or procedures. The Michigan State Medical Society has stated that protecting a health care provider from referring a patient to potential medical procedures or counseling them on all possible treatments violates a doctor's code of ethics in caring for their patient. A patient needs to know all possible treatments available to them, regardless of whether that physician can or will provide them, in order to make informed decisions about their care. Current accreditation rules already require hospitals to have procedures in place to accommodate employees' conscientious objections through the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JACHO) standards.

People in Michigan who choose to be health care providers should not be able to restrict the services available to those they are licensed to care for. This bill allows health care providers to deny needed health care services to any individual not currently protected from discrimination under the state's Elliot-Larsen civil rights act. Thus, a health provider could refuse health care to an individual based upon a patient's actual or perceived sexual orientation. I adamantly oppose this legislation and believe that this is a very dangerous path for Michigan to travel down."

 

 

Second Reading of Bills

 

 

House Bill No. 5276, entitled

A bill to allow certain health facilities to object to providing or participating in certain procedures under certain circumstances; to provide for protection from certain liability; and to provide for remedies.

Was read a second time, and the question being on the adoption of the proposed substitute (H-2) previously recommended by the Committee on Health Policy,

The substitute (H-2) was adopted, a majority of the members serving voting therefor.

 

Rep. Richardville moved to amend the bill as follows:

1. Amend page 3, line 12, after "on" by striking out "professional,".

The motion prevailed and the amendment was adopted, a majority of the members serving voting therefor.

 

Rep. Condino moved to amend the bill as follows:

1. Amend page 3, following line 24, by inserting:

"(c) In the event of an emergency where a patient's condition, in the reasonable medical judgment of an attending physician or medical director, requires immediate action to avert serious injury, harm, impairment, or death or is such that a delay would create a serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function to that patient.".

The motion prevailed and the amendment was adopted, a majority of the members serving voting therefor.

 

Rep. Bieda moved to amend the bill as follows:

1. Amend page 3, following line 24, by inserting:

"(3) This act does not relieve a health care facility from a duty that exists under another statute or other law pertaining to medical standards of acceptable health care practice and procedures." and renumbering the remaining subsection.

The motion prevailed and the amendment was adopted, a majority of the members serving voting therefor.

Rep. Gleason moved that the bill be placed on the order of Third Reading of Bills.

The motion prevailed.

Rep. Richardville moved that the bill be placed on its immediate passage.

The motion prevailed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor.

By unanimous consent the House returned to the order of

Third Reading of Bills

 

 

House Bill No. 5276, entitled

A bill to allow certain health facilities to object to providing or participating in certain procedures under certain circumstances; and to provide for protection from certain liability; and to provide for remedies.

Was read a third time and passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, by yeas and nays, as follows:

 

 

Roll Call No. 257 Yeas--72

 

 
AcciavattiGleasonMoolenaarSheen
AmosHagerMortimerSheltrown
BiedaHartNewellShulman
BradstreetHoogendykNitzSpade
BrandenburgHowellNofsStahl
BrownHuizengaO'NeilStakoe
CaspersonHummelPalmerSteil
CaswellHunePalsrokStewart
CaulJohnson, RickPappageorgeTabor
CondinoJohnson, RuthPastorTaub
DeRocheJulianPumfordVan Regenmorter
DroletKoetjeRichardvilleVander Veen
EhardtKooimanRivetVoorhees
EmmonsLaJoyRobertsonWalker
FarhatLaSataRoccaWard
GaffneyMeyerSakWenke
GarfieldMiddaughShackletonWojno
GillardMiloschShafferWoronchak

 

 

Nays--32

 

 
AccavittiGieleghemLipseySmith
AdaminiHardmanMcConicoTobocman
AndersonHoodMeisnerVagnozzi
ByrumHopgoodMinoreWaters
ClackHunterMurphyWhitmer
DennisJamnickPhillipsWilliams
ElkinsKolbPlakasWoodward
FarrahLawReevesZelenko

 

 

In The Chair: Julian

 

 

The question being on agreeing to the title of the bill,

Rep. Richardville moved to amend the title to read as follows:

A bill to allow certain health facilities to object to providing or participating in certain procedures under certain circumstances; and to provide for protection from certain liability.

The motion prevailed.

The House agreed to the title as amended.

Rep. Richardville moved that the bill be given immediate effect.

The motion prevailed, 2/3 of the members serving voting therefor.

Reps. Hopgood, Jamnick, Anderson, Law and Zelenko, having reserved the right to explain their protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:

"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

I voted 'No' on House Bills 5006, 5276, 5277, and 5278 because these bills would hinder access to health care services in Michigan, particularly in rural areas. These bills allow individual health care providers' interests to trump patient care. These bills also do not require health care providers to refer or counsel patients on their full health care options if the health care provider conscientiously objects to one of the possible treatments or procedures. The Michigan State Medical Society has stated that protecting a health care provider from referring a patient to potential medical procedures or counseling them on all possible treatments violates a doctor's code of ethics in caring for their patient. A patient needs to know all possible treatments available to them, regardless of whether that physician can or will provide them, in order to make informed decisions about their care. These bills also ignore current accreditation rules requiring hospitals to have procedures in place to accommodate employees' conscientious objections through the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JACHO) standards.

People in Michigan who choose to be health care providers should not be able to restrict the services available to those they are licensed to care for."

 

 

______

 

 

Rep. Waters moved that Rep. Reeves be excused temporarily from today's session.

The motion prevailed.

 

 

Second Reading of Bills

 

 

House Bill No. 5006, entitled

A bill to provide standards for personnel policies to protect the right of conscience of health care providers who conscientiously object to providing or participating in certain health care services under certain circumstances; to provide for protection from certain liability; and to provide for penalties and remedies.

Was read a second time, and the question being on the adoption of the proposed substitute (H-3) previously recommended by the Committee on Health Policy,

The substitute (H-3) was adopted, a majority of the members serving voting therefor.

 

Rep. Richardville moved to amend the bill as follows:

1. Amend page 3, line 25, after "on" by striking out "professional,".

2. Amend page 4, line 9, after "adopts" by striking out "a" and inserting "an".

3. Amend page 4, line 10, by striking out "professional,".

The motion prevailed and the amendments were adopted, a majority of the members serving voting therefor.

 

Rep. Ruth Johnson moved to amend the bill as follows:

1. Amend page 1, line 4, after the first "medication" by striking out "or device".

2. Amend page 1, line 5, by striking out "or device"."

3. Amend page 2, line 12, after "medication" by striking out "or device".

The motion prevailed and the amendments were adopted, a majority of the members serving voting therefor.

 

Rep. Whitmer moved to amend the bill as follows:

1. Amend page 1, following line 6, by inserting:

"(b) "Emergency contraceptive medication or device" means a medication or combination of medications or device approved by the federal drug administration that prevent pregnancy by preventing ovulation or fertilization of an egg that is taken or used after sexual intercourse." and relettering the remaining subdivisions.

2. Amend page 2, line 12, after "device" by inserting "or an emergency contraceptive medication or device".

The question being on the adoption of the amendments offered by Rep. Whitmer,

Rep. Whitmer demanded the yeas and nays.

The demand was supported.

The question being on the adoption of the amendments offered by Rep. Whitmer,

The amendments were not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor, by yeas and nays, as follows:

Roll Call No. 258 Yeas--34

 

 
AccavittiFarrahLawSmith
AdaminiGillardLipseyTobocman
AndersonGleasonMcConicoVagnozzi
BiedaHardmanMeisnerWaters
ByrumHoodMinoreWhitmer
ClackHopgoodMurphyWilliams
CondinoHunterPhillipsWoodward
DennisJamnickPlakasZelenko

Elkins Kolb

 

 

Nays--68

 

 
AcciavattiHartMortimerSheltrown
AmosHoogendykNewellShulman
BradstreetHowellNitzSpade
BrandenburgHuizengaNofsStahl
BrownHummelPalmerStakoe
CaspersonHunePalsrokSteil
CaswellJohnson, RickPappageorgeStewart
CaulJohnson, RuthPastorTabor
DeRocheJulianPumfordTaub
DroletKoetjeRichardvilleVan Regenmorter
EhardtKooimanRivetVander Veen
EmmonsLaJoyRobertsonVoorhees
FarhatLaSataRoccaWalker
GaffneyMeyerSakWard
GarfieldMiddaughShackletonWenke
GieleghemMiloschShafferWojno
HagerMoolenaarSheenWoronchak

 

 

In The Chair: Julian

 

 

Rep. Richardville moved that the bill be placed on the order of Third Reading of Bills.

The motion prevailed.

Rep. Richardville moved that the bill be placed on its immediate passage.

The motion prevailed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor.

 

By unanimous consent the House returned to the order of

Third Reading of Bills

 

 

House Bill No. 5006, entitled

A bill to provide standards for personnel policies to protect the right of conscience of health care providers who conscientiously object to providing or participating in certain health care services under certain circumstances; to provide for protection from certain liability; and to provide for penalties and remedies.

Was read a third time and passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, by yeas and nays, as follows:

 

 

Roll Call No. 259 Yeas--69

 

 
AcciavattiHartMortimerSheen
AmosHoogendykNewellSheltrown
BiedaHowellNitzShulman
BradstreetHuizengaNofsSpade
BrandenburgHummelO'NeilStahl
BrownHunePalmerStakoe
CaspersonJohnson, RickPalsrokSteil
CaswellJohnson, RuthPappageorgeTabor
CaulJulianPastorTaub
DeRocheKoetjePumfordVan Regenmorter
DroletKooimanRichardvilleVander Veen
EhardtLaJoyRivetVoorhees
EmmonsLaSataRobertsonWalker
FarhatMeyerRoccaWard
GaffneyMiddaughSakWenke
GarfieldMiloschShackletonWojno
GleasonMoolenaarShafferWoronchak

Hager

 

 

Nays--35

 

 
AccavittiGieleghemLipseyStewart
AdaminiGillardMcConicoTobocman
AndersonHardmanMeisnerVagnozzi
ByrumHoodMinoreWaters
ClackHopgoodMurphyWhitmer
CondinoHunterPhillipsWilliams
DennisJamnickPlakasWoodward
ElkinsKolbReevesZelenko
FarrahLawSmith

 

 

In The Chair: Julian

 

 

The House agreed to the title of the bill.

Rep. Richardville moved that the bill be given immediate effect.

The motion prevailed, 2/3 of the members serving voting therefor.

Reps. Shulman, Rick Johnson, Tabor, Hager, Ehardt, Julian, Newell, Howell, Shackleton, DeRoche, Stakoe, Hune, Wenke, Emmons, Van Regenmorter, Nitz and Palsrok were named co-sponsors of the bill.

 

 

______

 

 

Rep. Meisner, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:

"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

In order to become a physician, individuals must take the Hippocratic Oath, which lays out the credo of physicians as derived from Hippocrates, the father of medicine. All who take the oath say, among other things, the following: 'I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability.' Nowhere in the oath does it say that physicians shall not treat people whose ethnicity, sexual orientation, or beliefs they may not agree with or approve of. This package of bills would amend the Hippocratic Oath in a way that takes rights away from people in the name of protecting the rights of others. We do not have the moral or professional standing to do either."

 

Reps. Hopgood, Law, Zelenko, Jamnick, Anderson and Waters, having reserved the right to explain their protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:

"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

I voted 'No' on House Bills 5006, 5276, 5277, and 5278 because these bills would hinder access to health care services in Michigan, particularly in rural areas. These bills allow individual health care providers' interests to trump patient care. These bills also do not require health care providers to refer or counsel patients on their full health care options if the health care provider conscientiously objects to one of the possible treatments or procedures. The Michigan State Medical Society has stated that protecting a health care provider from referring a patient to potential medical procedures or counseling them on all possible treatments violates a doctor's code of ethics in caring for their patient. A patient needs to know all possible treatments available to them, regardless of whether that physician can or will provide them, in order to make informed decisions about their care. These bills also ignore current accreditation rules requiring hospitals to have procedures in place to accommodate employees' conscientious objections through the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JACHO) standards.

People in Michigan who choose to be health care providers should not be able to restrict the services available to those they are licensed to care for."

 

Rep. Kolb, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:

"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

I voted 'No' on House Bills 5006, and the other bills in this legislative package (5276, 5277, and 5278) because these bills would hinder access to health care services in Michigan. This bill and the other bills allow health care provides (and insurers) to refuse to provide health care, to people in need, that violates the health provider's ethical, moral or religious principals. This legislation would allow individual health care providers' interests to trump patient care. I oppose this legislation and worry that its passage into law would hinder access to health care services, especially in rural areas. This legislation also does not require health care providers to refer or counsel patients on their full health care options if the health care provider conscientiously objects to one of the possible treatments or procedures. The Michigan State Medical Society has stated that protecting a health care provider from referring a patient to potential medical procedures or counseling them on all possible treatments violates a doctor's code of ethics in caring for their patient. A patient needs to know all possible treatments available to them, regardless of whether that physician can or will provide them, in order to make informed decisions about their care. Current accreditation rules already require hospitals to have procedures in place to accommodate employees' conscientious objections through the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JACHO) standards.

People in Michigan who choose to be health care providers should not be able to restrict the services available to those they are licensed to care for. This bill allows health care providers to deny needed health care services to any individual not currently protected from discrimination under the state's Elliot-Larsen civil rights act. Thus, a health provider could refuse health care to an individual based upon a patient's actual or perceived sexual orientation. I adamantly oppose this legislation and believe that this is a very dangerous path for Michigan to travel down."

 

Rep. Adamini, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:

"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

I voted 'No' on House Bill 5006 because these bills would hinder access to health care services in Michigan, particularly in rural areas. These bills allow individual health care providers' interests to trump patient care. These bills also do not require health care providers to refer or counsel patients on their full health care options if the health care provider conscientiously objects to one of the possible treatments or procedures. The Michigan State Medical Society has stated that protecting a health care provider from referring a patient to potential medical procedures or counseling them on all possible treatments violates a doctor's code of ethics in caring for their patient. A patient needs to know all possible treatments available to them, regardless of whether that physician can or will provide them, in order to make informed decisions about their care. These bills also ignore current accreditation rules requiring hospitals to have procedures in place to accommodate employees' conscientious objections through the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JACHO) standards.

People in Michigan who choose to be health care providers should not be able to restrict the services available to those they are licensed to care for."

 

By unanimous consent the House returned to the order of

Motions and Resolutions

 

 

Rep. Richardville moved that Rule 45(c) be suspended.

The motion prevailed, 3/5 of the members present voting therefor.

 

Rep. Rick Johnson moved that the Committee on Commerce be discharged from further consideration of House Bill No. 5632 and motion postponed for the day on March 23, see House Journal No. 25, p. 473.

(For first notice see House Journal No. 24, p. 461.)

The question being on the motion made previously by Rep. Rick Johnson,

The motion prevailed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor.

The bill was placed on the order of Second Reading of Bills and laid over one day.

Rep. Richardville moved that Rule 45(c) be suspended.

The motion prevailed, 3/5 of the members present voting therefor.

 

Rep. Richardville moved that the Committee on Tax Policy be discharged from further consideration of House Bill No. 5708.

(For first notice see House Journal No. 31, p. 703.)

The question being on the motion made by Rep. Richardville,

The motion prevailed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor.

The bill was placed on the order of Second Reading of Bills and laid over one day.

 

Rep. Richardville moved that Rule 45(c) be suspended.

The motion prevailed, 3/5 of the members present voting therefor.

 

Rep. Richardville moved that the Committee on Regulatory Reform be discharged from further consideration of House Bill No. 4865.

(For first notice see House Journal No. 31, p. 703.)

The question being on the motion made by Rep. Richardville,

The motion prevailed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor.

The bill was placed on the order of Second Reading of Bills and laid over one day.

 

 

Reports of Standing Committees

 

 

The Committee on Energy and Technology, by Rep. Bradstreet, Chair, reported

House Resolution No. 200.

A resolution to urge the Federal Communications Commission to develop and enforce stronger measures to restrict indecency in radio and television broadcasting.

(For text of resolution, see House Journal No. 12, p. 185.)

With the recommendation that the following substitute (H-1) be adopted and that the resolution then be adopted.

Substitute for House Resolution No. 200.

A resolution to urge the Federal Communications Commission to continue its strong enforcement against entities that violate indecency and profanity regulations in radio and television broadcasting.

Whereas, Over the past few years, the number of radio and television broadcasts that seem far beyond any acceptable standard of decency have increased significantly. Some of the individual occurrences are remarkable in the level of crudity and offensiveness. They are, however, very believable to anyone who has channel surfed with a young child nearby or anyone who knows of the "shock jock" mentality that seems pervasive on some radio stations. Incidents during the 2004 Super Bowl Halftime Show, the 2003 Golden Globes awards, and broadcasts of indecent material in connection with the Howard Stern Show and other programs have served to focus national attention on this problem; and

Whereas, The FCC has both statutory authority, under Chapter 18, Section 1464 of the USC, and promulgated regulatory authority, under 73.3999 (47 CFR), to administer sanctions to deal with indecent broadcasting. The commission's recent actions against entities violating such provisions have served warning for future broadcasts; and

Whereas, On April 7, 2004, the FCC imposed a $495,000 fine in connection with the willful broadcasting of indecent material on the Howard Stern Show. This figure represented a maximum statutory $27,500 fine for each of the eighteen total violations. In addition, on March 3, 2004, the FCC overruled an earlier decision that had previously held that isolated or fleeting use of the "F-word" was not indecent. Because of the FCC's reversal, broadcasters are now on clear notice that, in the future, they will be subject to strong enforcement action for any broadcast of the "F-word," such as was broadcast during the 2003 Golden Globe awards. Furthermore, FCC Chairman Michael K. Powell recently testified before Congress to assure lawmakers that the FCC had already launched an extensive investigation of the 2004 Super Bowl Halftime Show that would be thorough and swift; and

Whereas, The FCC's recent enforcement actions responding to the concerns and sentiments of countless citizens who have voiced verbal and written complaints against the broadcasting of indecency and profanity are welcomed and encouraged; now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives, That we urge the Federal Communications Commission to continue to take decisive actions to restrict indecency and profanity in radio and television broadcasting; and be it further

Resolved, That copies of this resolution be transmitted to the Federal Communications Commission.

The resolution and substitute were laid over one day under the rules.

 

 

Favorable Roll Call

 

To Report Out:

Yeas: Reps. Bradstreet, Middaugh, Bisbee, Casperson, Garfield, LaJoy, Nitz, Palsrok, Stahl, Woodward, Hopgood and Murphy

Nays: None

COMMITTEE ATTENDANCE REPORT

 

The following report, submitted by Rep. Bradstreet, Chair, of the Committee on Energy and Technology, was received and read:

Meeting held on: Wednesday, April 21, 2004

Present: Reps. Bradstreet, Middaugh, Bisbee, Casperson, DeRoche, Garfield, LaJoy, Nitz, Palsrok, Stahl, McConico, Rivet, Woodward, Hopgood and Murphy

Absent: Reps. Huizenga, LaS