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 surrender, 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
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: LEAD 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 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

SUPPORTING POSITION: You want to allow parole for certain criminals who meet certain medical requirements. You believe that if a person does not pose a critical threat to society that the need to continue incarcerating them is no longer necessary for public safety. You also believe this is not an overextension of the law as it simply adds to pre-existing considerations for those who are physically or mentally incapacitated. 

OPPOSING POSITION: You want to maintain current penalties and procedures for criminals, even if they have certain medical issues. You believe that extending the parole requirements to medically frail individuals is unnecessary and dangerous. You believe that the criteria for what constitutes medical frailty does not provide sufficient verification that a person is now incapable of committing a crime. 

Bill & Analysis
Bill and Analysis – HB 4129 Medically Frail Parole

Testimonies
Supporting Arguments – Testimony
Supporting Arguments – Explanation and Testimony
Opposing Arguments – Testimony

Additional Resources
Explanatory Article – Pros & Cons of Parole
Explanatory Article – Medical Parole
Explanatory Article – American Medical Association on Medically Frail Parole
Explanatory Article – Supporting Medically Frail Parole

SUPPORTING POSITION: You believe that to impose a felony upon a citizen is an excessive infringement upon an individual’s second amendment right and too harsh of a punishment for what is often simple forgetfulness. You are in favor of reducing the penalty for carrying a concealed pistol on an expired concealed pistol license (CPL) from a felony penalty to a civil of $330. 

OPPOSING POSITION: You believe that ownership of a CPL is a very weighty responsibility that should not be taken lightly. You believe that the current punishment of a felony is needed to keep gun owners responsible (a felony conviction with a prison sentence of up to five years and a fine that can be as high as $2,500, or both).

Bill & Analysis
Bill and Analysis – HB 4003 Expired CPL Consequence

Testimonies
Supporting Argument – Testimony
Opposing Argument – Testimony

Additional Resources
Explanatory Article – Detroit News, Bill Explanation
Explanatory Article – Michigan Law for Convicted Felons and Carrying a Gun
Explanatory Article – Explaining the Charges for Carrying a Concealed Weapon on an Expired License

SUPPORTING POSITION: You want to allow individuals and others to resell tickets for more than face value without obtaining permission from the venue, treating tickets as the property of the ticketholder. You think that the free market should not be infringed on by government agencies, and the ban on ticket scalping is excessive government control over the economy. A ticket is someone’s personal property, and the right to sell your property for whatever price you choose should be protected. 

OPPOSING POSITION: You want to keep the current ban on ticket scalping. You think that the restrictions on ticket scalping protect consumer rights and prevent excessive charges by resellers. Allowing ticket scalping allows for extorsion especially when you consider the impact that technology can have by buying all the available tickets and restricting access to events.

Bill & Analysis
Bill and Analysis – HB 4015 Repeal Ban on Ticket Scalping

Testimonies
Supporting Arguments – Testimony
Opposing Arguments – Testimony

Additional Resources
Explanatory Article – How Does Ticket Scalping Work?
Explanatory Article – The Economics of Ticket Scalping
Explanatory Article – The Motley Fool, Supporting Ticket Scalping

SUPPORTING POSITION: You want to create a legal definition for vulnerable children (i.e., a child with disabilities) and increase penalties for abusing a vulnerable child. You believe that harsher punishments should be placed upon abusers who specifically target youth with a physical or mental health disability as they are less capable of advocating for themselves. 

OPPOSING POSITION: You want to maintain the penalties for child abuse. You believe that the bill does not go far enough its definition of vulnerable children by excluding 0–3-years-old. You also believe that because all children are vulnerable, increased punishment ought to be generally applied instead of limiting it to a subset of children. You may further make the argument that increased punishment is not an adequate means of reducing the risk of abuse among children with disabilities. 

Bill & Analysis
Bill and Analysis – HB 4071 Abuse of a Vulnerable Child

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

Additional Resources
Explanatory Article – Bill Introduction
Explanatory Article – National Children’s Alliance, National Statistics on Child Abuse
Explanatory Article – American Academy of Pediatrics, Maltreatment of Children with Disabilities
Explanatory Article – Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, Do Criminal Laws Deter?

SUPPORTING POSITION: You are in favor of changing the voting age by lowering it to 16.

OPPOSING POSITION: You do not want to change the voting age, but keep the voting age at 18. 

Bill & Analysis
Bill and Analysis – HB 6183 Lower Voting Age

Testimonies
Supporting Arguments – Testimony
Opposing Arguments – Testimony 1
Opposing Arguments – Testimony 2

Additional Resources
Explanatory Article – Pros & Cons of Lowering the Voting Age to 16
Explanatory Article – Ireland Teens Vote to Lower the Voting Age

SUPPORTING ARGUMENT: You want the State of Michigan to mandate that all local law enforcement agencies make an excessive force policy and that law enforcement officers that do not intervene to stop excessive force will have disciplinary action taken against them. You believe that there needs to be a greater degree of oversight between officers who can intervene in cases of excessive force have an obligation to do so. 

OPPOSING ARGUMENT: You believe that this bill is far too vague and does not do enough to clarify penalties or standards of excessive force. 

Bill & Analysis
Bill & Analysis – SB 967 Duty to Intervene

Testimonies
Supporting Argument – Testimony
Opposing Argument – Testimony

Additional Resources
Explanatory Article – Duty to Intervene Training Explanation
Explanatory Article – Excessive Force and Failure to Intervene
Explanatory Article – National Police Association, Officer Intervention Can Compromise Officer Safety
Explanatory Article – Ethical Policing and the Duty to Intervene