Top Stories

The Michigan Messenger going forward

By Staff Report | 11.16.11

I am writing today to announce the closure of the Michigan Messenger. After four years of operation in Michigan, the board of the American Independent News Network, has decided to shift publication of its news into a single site, The American Independent at Americanindependent.com. This is part of a shift in strategy, towards new forms [...]

Colorado-based abstinence program provided false and misleading information to Michigan students

HIV-AIDS-small
By Todd A. Heywood | 11.16.11

An abstinence-only presentation provided to numerous school districts in Calhoun and Eaton Counties in October of this year provided false and misleading information to students about HIV, experts allege.

Class action lawsuit filed against MERS over unpaid taxes

foreclosure
By Todd A. Heywood | 11.15.11

Two county registers of deeds filed a class action lawsuit Monday on behalf of Michigan’s 83 counties alleging that the Mortgage Electronic Registration Services owes millions of dollars in property title transfer taxes.

Schuette fights important mercury regulations

epa_logo
By Eartha Jane Melzer | 11.14.11

Despite evidence of the impact of mercury on children and public health, Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette last month joined with 24 other state attorneys general in filing a lawsuit to scuttle new EPA regulations that would reduce mercury emissions from power plants.

abortion-debate-image

Abortion bill sparks controversy in Michigan Senate

Judiciary Chair takes heat from both sides
By Todd A. Heywood | 03.02.11 | 8:38 am

Planned action Tuesday by the Senate Judiciary Committee to take up a bill to ban partial birth abortions has drawn sharp criticisms not only of abortion rights advocates, but from the Republican leadership.

Sen. Rick Jones (R-Grand Ledge) agreed to have a hearing on SB 160, The Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, during the Senate Judiciarymeeting Tuesday afternoon. That move comes as Republicans are trying to maintain message discipline and focus on economic issues.

Republicans are wrestling with a host of controversial economic issues. Among those issues is the budget proposal from Gov. Rick Snyder, which would eliminate tax credits for the working poor and add a tax on retirement pensions, and a number of controversial bills that are sparking anger from organized labor. Those bills include right to work zones, emergency financial manager legislation and a move to eliminate prevailing wage laws in the state.

Matt Marsden, spokesperson for Senate Majority Leader Randy Richardville (R-Monroe), took issue with Jones’ plan in an interview with the subscription only Michigan Information and Research Service (MIRS).

“I’m reminded of Cool Hand Luke when it comes to Senator Jones: ‘What we’ve got here is failure to communicate,’” Marsden said. “. . . The Majority Leader has been abundantly clear that the focus of the Senate is on jobs and the economy and a determined focus on working with this administration and the House to complete a budget as efficiently as possible. This issue is not relevant to any of those items.”

Marsden continued in the interview, calling Jones “politically tone deaf” and claiming the former Eaton County Sheriff is grandstanding for media attention.

For his part Jones said he was told by the Republican Floor Leader Arlan Meekoff (R-West Olive) that the bills were ready to go. Jones told MIRS that he “believes in working,” and that because work on revamping the state’s sex offender registry is still being reviewed, he had time to take up the partial birth abortion legislation.

“I would never do something to get media attention,” Jones added. “The issues I take up are ones where you walk into any coffee shop in my district, and people would say, ‘this is common sense. Fix it.’”

While Jones was taking heat from Richardville’s team, Planned Parenthood and the ACLU were also taking the Judiciary hearing to task.

“If the goal of the Michigan Legislature is to reduce the number of abortions in Michigan, preventing unintended pregnancies should be the top priority,” said Sarah Scranton, Planned Parenthood Executive Director. “SB 160 will not prevent a single unintended pregnancy or abortion. Instead it is a wedge issue that serves as a troubling distraction from real problems facing our state – the economy, jobs and education.”

The legislation marks the fifth time anti-abortion advocates in the Michigan legislature have tried to pass a partial birth abortion ban. But each time prior, and in this current legislation, the bills did not provide exceptions when the life of the mother is in jeopardy.

Shelli Weisberg, ACLU of Michigan legislative director, also slammed the Judiciary Committee for considering the legislation, noting that federal law already outlaws so-called partial birth abortion.

“Although we believe that such laws are bad for women and prevent doctors from practicing the safest and best medicine, this bill is unnecessary because of our federal laws,” said Weisberg. “Even those who are anti-choice should be concerned with our legislature’s attempt to duplicate federal efforts, waste time and money.”

Comments

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Terrance-Huiskens/100001945096359 Terrance Huiskens

    Planned Parenthood and the ACLU do not believe that legislators are only capable of working on one issue at a time, notwithstanding their buncombe. They’re just looking for a way to attack pro-lifers without sounding like the completely unreasonable child-murderers they are.

    Abortion may be a Federal issue at this time, but that may not always be the case. There is no reason States should be prohibited from enacting common sense legislation just in case.

    • Anonymous

      Are you sure you want to use the word “reasonable” in your posting, as your misplaced use of “child killers” is anything but?

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Terrance-Huiskens/100001945096359 Terrance Huiskens

        I’d like to know in what way my post was unreasonable. Are you denying that unborn children are human beings – scientifically?

        • Anonymous

          Are unborn children human beings? Is that your question? The question seems a bit deflective, almost as if to distract readers from thinking about the issue as a debatable item. What does it matter if I think that unborn children are human beings? Does your superior ability to judge prevent me from considering as essential to the issue at hand both the rights of women who carry the unborn human beings and the future lives of the unborn humans?

          • http://americanlibertarian.wordpress.com/ TerranceH

            If unborn children are human beings – and, indeed, they are – then the issue shouldn’t be debatable, period.

            That’s the problem with you Left-wingers. You think everything should boil down to a subjective, philosophical discussion. The Right to Life is the first and foremost Right, because if our verexistencece is not protected, then the other “Rights” do not matter. The Right to Life trumps all, period. That’s simply a basic American principle. Like it, or leave.

          • Anonymous

            Darn you, philosophical discussion! Don’t you know that all policy opinion should boil down to decisive-at-all-costs, knee jerk incivility based on weak constitutional understanding and isolationist American fervor?

    • Anonymous

      Are you sure you are comfortable using the “reasonable” in your post, as your use of the intentionally evocative, and ill-placed “child killers” is anything but?

  • Anonymous

    Weisberg hit the nail on the head. Conservatives and Republicans are so concerned about government waste and government overstepping their bounds, and yet they have no issue with this waste when it is something they want. Federal law bans partial birth abortion. End of story. Why do we need to waste money we do not have in order to pass an unnecessary and redundant bill? Why don’t we take the money that we’re going to waste by attempting to pass this bill and donate it to Planned Parenthood for pregnancy prevention? Gee… THAT might accomplish the same thing as the bill- to prevent abortion from unwanted pregnancies.

  • Anonymous

    I suggest that the Michigan legislature look at the votes in Wyoming on abortion and marriage. If your position is that government should stay out of the lives of individuals, then how can you support a law that that intrudes on the rights of individuals to make decisions about whom they should marry and whether or not a woman should undergo an abortion.

    Aren’t the issues of abortion and gay marriage religious arguments? The constitution, no matter which version one refers to, does not address or mention either topic, but does support the “pursuit of happiness”. If the aforementioned issues are based on religious beliefs, then is not the passage of laws that codify your religious beliefs forcing me to adopt your religion? Isn’t that illegal in the US?

    If you argue against the mandate in the new health reform law, how can you justify banning gay marriage and abortion (especially when the life and well being of the mother is at stake).

    I have no problem with saying marriage is between a man and a woman if the ceremony is done under the auspices of the church (notice lower case for church), if that is the tenet of that church; but if a church recognizes same sex marriage, or the exchanging of vows is done through the offices of civil government, then call the arrangement a civil union. Either way, the law says there is a lawful union of two loving persons with all legal rights provided to the couple.

  • Anonymous

    back and lay calculator:: Back and Lay Calculator for planning your matched betting.
    http://bonusbetting.co.uk/