Updates About Legislation

A Senate panel has approved a package of bills aimed at addressing disparities in maternal health care for the second time. The bipartisan-supported package is championed by Senators Erika Geiss (D-Taylor), Mary Cavanagh (D-Redford Township), Stephanie Chang (D-Detroit), and Sarah Anthony (D-Lansing). Together, the bills seek to close gaps in care and combat systemic inequities that have led to higher maternal and infant mortality rates.

Key provisions of the Maternal Health Care Package include:

• Bias & Discrimination Reporting (SB 29, SB 30, SB 34 – Mandates the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to collect and report data on perinatal care bias and amend civil rights laws to protect pregnant individuals.
• Hospital & Insurance Requirements (SB 31, SB 32, SB 33 – Ensures hospitals stabilize laboring patients before discharge and requires insurers to disclose perinatal care policies.
• Midwife & Medicaid Access (SB 36, SB 37, SB 38, SB 39 – Expands midwife loan repayment programs, mandates insurance reimbursement for midwives, and increases Medicaid coverage for maternal health services.
• Technical Amendments (SB 31, SB 37) – Adjustments were made to eliminate redundant reporting requirements and ensure midwives are included in insurance networks.

Senate Majority Leader Winnie Brinks (D-Grand Rapids) and the Senate have escalated their legal battle with the House, filing appeals with both the Michigan Court of Appeals and the Michigan Supreme Court. The dispute centers on the House’s refusal to present nine bills, passed last session, to the governor. Leader Brinks is seeking an expedited ruling, arguing that withholding the bills violates the state constitution by allowing one chamber to indefinitely block legislation. In response, the Senate also adopted a rule change allowing its secretary to present House-approved bills to the governor if the House fails to do so.

House Speaker Matt Hall (R-Richland Township) pushed back, stating the Michigan Constitution does not permit the current House to present bills from a prior session. He criticized Brinks’ alternative proposal that the House send the bills to the Senate for presentation, calling it unconstitutional. Meanwhile, Brinks defended the Senate’s rule change as a way to ensure legislative compliance with the court’s ruling. The legal fight continues as the courts weigh whether to intervene.

Related Articles: MICHIGAN HOUSE DECLINES TO SEND NINE BILLS TO GOVERNOR • SENATE DEMOCRATS FILE LAWSUIT AGAINST SPEAKER HALL

The Michigan House of Representatives has announced it will not be sending nine bills from the previous legislative term to the Governor for signature. This announcement was made by passing resolution HR 41, which declares that only legislation passed by both chambers of the 103rd Legislature will be presented to the Governor. The move follows a recent Court of Claims ruling that the state Constitution does require the House to transmit the bills. However, Judge Sima Patel also elected to follow judicial non-interference in the legislative process, indicating that a mandate to present the bills will not be enforced by the court. House Republicans, led by Speaker Matt Hall, argued that legal ambiguities require further clarification, while House Democrats strongly opposed the resolution, calling it unconstitutional.

The bills in question include:

• HB 4177 of 2023, HB 5817 of 2024, and HB 5818 of 2024 - Collectively allow history museums in the city of Detroit to request a property tax millage from residents of Wayne County
• HB 4665 of 2023, HB 4666 of 2023, and HB 4667 of 2023 - Expands the Michigan State Police pension system to include corrections officers
• HB 4900 of 2023 and HB 4901 of 2023 - Exempts public assistance, disability, and worker’s compensation from being garnished for debt repayment
• HB 6058 of 2024- Increases public employer contributions towards medical benefit plans for public employees

The decision is likely to prompt further legal challenges, with Senate Democrats expected to appeal the ruling to enforce bill transmission and House Republicans seeking a review of the court’s interpretation of constitutional requirements. Speaker Hall has indicated plans to take the matter to the Court of Appeals to establish a clearer legal precedent.

Related Article: SENATE DEMOCRATS FILE LAWSUIT AGAINST SPEAKER HALL