Committee Meeting Resources

SUPPORTING POSITION: You want to allow Newborn Safety Devices (NSDs) to be installed and used at emergency service provider locations in order to ensure the safety of newborns who are being legally abandoned by parents who are unwilling to engage in face-to-face interaction while legally abandoning their child. This bill would amend current Safe Haven Laws which you believe have been effective, but the protections should go one step further. 

OPPOSING POSITION: You oppose this bill. You believe that additional complications would arise with this bill including the question of whether the mother is actually the one surrendering the baby, how much additional training must be given to the ones who must monitor the device, and the potential increased rates of abandonment as a result. It does not address who will be held liable happens to a baby placed in an NSD as well as requiring standards for NSD to be outlined by the Michigan department of Health after the bill passes, rather than including those standards in the bill itself. This means that no one will know what those standards are until after this bill is signed into law.

Bill & Analysis
Bill and Analysis – HB 5751 Safe Haven Device

Testimonies
Supporting Arguments – Testimony
Opposing Arguments – Testimony

Additional Resources
Additional Opposing Testimony
Explanatory Article – Baby Boxes, Safe Haven Laws: A “Last Resort’ to Curb Infant Abandonment
Explanatory Article – FAQ: Safe Haven Movement, Baby Boxes, and Laws

SUPPORTING POSITION: You believe that the immediate needs of the youth in question must be addressed and that contacting a parent in these circumstances may be too difficult to acquire or would be hazardous to the youth in an abusive situation.

OPPOSING POSITION: You believe that this bill is too broad in what medical services may be provided and opens the door to removing consideration for parental consent in general and that, while well intentioned, this bill will likely have significant consequences for the family unit.

Bill & Analysis
Bill and Analysis – HB 4087 Homeless Youth Medical Care

Testimonies
Supporting Arguments – Testimony
Opposing Arguments – Testimony

Additional Resources
Explanatory Article – Supporting Homeless Youth in Michigan
Explanatory Article – Bill Introduction

***NOTE: SSI has edited this bill to not allow homeless or runaway youth to consent to an abortion or gender affirming medical treatment. Please be aware of this as you do additional research for your testimony.

SUPPORTING POSITION: You want to allow terminally ill patients the right to try experimental treatments whose effectiveness, safety, or danger is still unknown. You believe that this will give patients hope and help further medical research.

OPPOSING POSITION: You want the status quo to remain in place, which denies terminally ill patients the right to try experimental treatments whose effectiveness, safety, and danger is still unknown. You believe that there are inherent risks associated with this bill. Namely, you’re concerned that the patient may not fully understand what he/she is consenting to or that medical personal could pressure terminally ill patients to undergo experimental treatment free from liability.

Bill & Analysis
Bill and Analysis – SB 991 Right to Try

Testimonies
Supporting Arguments – Testimony
Opposing  Arguments  – Testimony

Additional Resources
Explanatory Article – Assessment of the Right-to-Try Law: The Pros and the Cons
Explanatory Article – Pharmacy and Therapeutics
Explanatory Article – Ethics of ‘Right to Try’ Laws

SUPPORTING ARGUMENT: You want to allow vulnerable adults and youth with special health needs to be microchipped as this is essential for their safety and protection from being lost or kidnapped.

OPPOSING ARGUMENT: You do not want vulnerable adults or youth to be tracked as this poses a significant risk for an invasion of privacy, causes undo distress to those being chipped, and that it creates a slippery slope for further tracking efforts.

Bill & Analysis
Bill & Analysis – HB 5016 Microchips

Testimonies
Supporting Arguments – Testimony
Opposing Arguments – Testimony

Additional Resources
Explanatory Article – Detroit Free Press, Detroit Missing Persons Surge in 2024
Explanatory Article – U.S. News, Wandering and Elopement in Nursing Homes
Explanatory Article – Washington Post, Report on Assisted Living Resident Deaths from Wandering
Explanatory Article – Human Microchipping Pros & Cons

SUPPORTING POSITION: You want to reinstate the Death Penalty in Michigan.
*Note: While in real life, passing this resolution would bring the issue to the Michigan people to vote on, for our simulation, the students will be framing the debate as though passing this resolution would reinstate the death penalty.

OPPOSING POSITION: You want the death penalty to remain unconstitutional in Michigan.
*Note: While in real life, passing this resolution would bring the issue to the Michigan people to vote on, for our simulation, the students will be framing the debate as though passing this resolution would reinstate the death penalty.

Bill & Analysis
Bill and Analysis – HJR H Death Penalty

Testimonies
Supporting Arguments – Testimony
Supporting Arguments – Testimony 2
Opposing Arguments – Testimony

Additional Resources
Opposing Arguments – Article 

SUPPORTING POSITION: You want regulation on knives to be consistent across the state by restricting local ordinances regarding knives.

OPPOSING POSITION: You want local municipalities to be allowed to govern restrictions on knives based on the needs of that township, county, etc.

Bill & Analysis
Bill and Analysis – HB 5286 Knife Rights Act

Testimonies
Supporting Arguments – Testimony
Opposing Arguments – Testimony

Additional Resources
Explanatory Article – Current Knife Laws in Michigan

Please note that there are two versions of this bill: HB 5286 (2019) which was not passed in committee, and HB 4066 (2021) which passed both the House and Senate, but was vetoed by the Governor. The content of each bill is identical, and articles about both bills may be used to craft your arguments. Please refer to the bill as HB 5286, as this is the version we are using in the simulation. The bill is to be considered on first reading, so we ask that you not reference the bill’s real world progress in the legislature (i.e. it being vetoed by the Governor).

SUPPORTING POSITION: You want to require Michigan law enforcement officers to wear and use a body camera when on duty, in uniform, and carrying a taser or weapon to provide for greater accountability and safety for both public and within law enforcement.

OPPOSING POSITION: You do NOT want to require Michigan law enforcement officers to wear and use a body camera when on duty and carrying a taser or weapon, due to concerns of privacy and the dangers of a blanket policy for all local law enforcement agencies.

Bill & Analysis
Bill and Analysis – HB 5019 Body Cameras

Testimonies
Supporting Arguments – Testimony
Opposing Arguments – Testimony

Additional Resources
Explanatory Article – Pros and Cons of Police Body Cameras
Explanatory Article – Police Body Camera Benefits
Explanatory Article – Police Misconduct and Accountability, 2020
Explanatory Article – Assessing the Effectiveness of Police Body Cameras

SUPPORTING POSITION: You want to allow volunteer emergency responders to fulfill their obligations to the public without having to suffer adverse employment consequences.

OPPOSING POSITION: You want employers to take a person’s obligations into account during hiring without fear of a potential lawsuit.

Bill & Analysis
Bill and Analysis – SB 162 Emergency Responder Job Protection

Testimonies
Supporting Arguments – Testimony
Opposing Arguments – Testimony

Additional Resources
Explanatory Article – Michigan EMS Worker Shortage
Explanatory Article – First Responder Staffing Shortages & Burnout
Explanatory Article – Michigan EMT Burnout and Shortages