Legislative Analysis
Phone: (517) 373-8080
REPEAL OF CERTAIN ABORTION-RELATED LAWS
http://www.house.mi.gov/hfa
House Bill 4006 (H-1) as reported Analysis available at
Sponsor: Rep. Laurie Pohutsky http://www.legislature.mi.gov
House Bill 4031 as reported
Sponsor: Rep. Felicia Brabec
House Bill 4032 as reported
Sponsor: Rep. Stephanie A. Young
Committee: Judiciary
Complete to 3-2-23
SUMMARY:
House Bill 4006 would repeal sections 14 and 15 of the Michigan Penal Code.
Section 14 provides that a person who willfully administers to a pregnant individual any
medicine, drug, or substance, or uses an instrument or any other means, with the intent to cause
a miscarriage (except when necessary to protect the life of the pregnant individual) is guilty of
a felony. If the pregnant individual dies as a result, it is considered manslaughter.
Section 15 requires that any drug or medicine known to be designed and expressly prepared
for producing an abortion must have a written prescription by a practicing physician of the city,
village, or township where the sale is made. The druggist or dealer selling the drug or medicine
must register, in a book provided for that purpose, the name of the purchaser, the date of the
sale, the kind and quantity of the medicine sold, and the name and residence of the physician
prescribing the drug or medicine. The section provides that, unless done as described above, it
is a misdemeanor to advertise, publish, sell, or publicly expose for sale any pills, powder, drugs,
or combination of drugs, designed expressly for the use of females for the purpose of procuring
an abortion.
MCL 750.14 and 750.15 (repealed)
House Bill 4031 would amend the Corrections Code. The code bars individuals convicted and
sentenced for committing any of several listed criminal offenses from eligibility for special
parole or for parole before they have served their minimum sentence (less an allowance for any
disciplinary credits). A violation of section 14 of the Michigan Penal Code is included in this
list of crimes. The bill would amend the reference to section 14 to reflect the repeal of that
section as proposed by HB 4006.
MCL 791.233b
House Bill 4032 would amend the sentencing guidelines in the Code of Criminal Procedure to
eliminate the guidelines for a violation of section 14 of the Michigan Penal Code to conform
with the proposed repeal of that section by HB 4006. Currently, a violation of the prohibition
regarding abortion has a maximum term of imprisonment of four years, and abortion causing
House Fiscal Agency Page 1 of 4
 the death of the pregnant woman has a maximum term of imprisonment of 15 years. Both
offenses are Class C felonies against a person.
MCL 777.16a
Tie-bars
House Bills 4031 and 4032 are each tie-barred to HB 4006, which means that those bills cannot
take effect unless HB 4006 is also enacted into law.
BACKGROUND:
Section 14 of the Michigan Penal Code was enacted in 1931 and provides that a person who
willfully administers to a pregnant individual any medicine, drug, or substance, or uses an
instrument or any other means, with the intent to cause a miscarriage (except when necessary
to protect the life of the pregnant individual) is guilty of a felony. If the pregnant individual
dies as a result, it is considered manslaughter.
After the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Roe v Wade, section 14 was declared
unconstitutional by the Michigan Supreme Court as it relates to an abortion performed in the
first trimester of a pregnancy “as authorized by the pregnant woman’s attending physician in
exercise of his medical judgment.” 1
Roe was overturned in June 2022, when the U.S. Supreme Court held that “the constitution
does not confer a right to abortion” and returned the issue to the states to decide. 2
In November 2022, Michigan voters approved Ballot Proposal 3, which added section 28 to
Article 1 of the state constitution. Among other things, section 28 provides that “[e]very
individual has a fundamental right to reproductive freedom,” which includes “the right to make
and effectuate decisions about all matters relating to pregnancy.”
Section 28 also allows the state to regulate the provision of abortion care after fetal viability,
which it defines as “the point in pregnancy when, in the professional judgment of an attending
health care professional and based on the particular facts of the case, there is a significant
likelihood of the fetus’s sustained survival outside the uterus without the application of
extraordinary medical measures.”
BRIEF DISCUSSION:
House Bill 4006 centers on repealing a 1931 law that makes it a felony offense to perform an
abortion except to save the life of the pregnant individual. The companion bills, HBs 4031 and
4032, would remove references in other laws to that provision. The bills are largely seen as
“clean up” legislation that would remove a law that was held largely unconstitutional under
Roe, remained unenforceable after the Dobbs decision, and is now seen as moot after voters,
by a large margin, supported Proposal 3 in the 2022 general election thereby enshrining its
reproductive freedom provisions in the state constitution. Outdated or obsolete laws and laws
held to be unconstitutional under either state or federal law are often repealed. Proponents
1
People v Brickner, 389 Mich 524 (1973).
2
Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization, No. 19-1392, 597 U.S. ___ (2022).
House Fiscal Agency HBs 4006 (H-1), 4031, and 4032 as reported Page 2 of 4
 argue that the bills would remove laws that, although deemed unenforceable, still act to
intimidate and create uncertainty regarding lawful choices pertaining to both personal decisions
and medical decisions that should remain between a physician and a patient.
Supporters of the bills also argue that repealing sections 14 and 15 should not endanger the
health and safety of pregnant individuals because other laws, such as scope of practice and
medical malpractice laws for medical professionals, standards of care by medical societies, and
administrative rules and regulations, as well as sanctions imposed by medical licensing boards,
provide both guidance and sanctions for medical professionals when providing health care to
pregnant individuals. In addition, the Penal Code prescribes criminal penalties for certain
criminal or grossly negligent acts committed against a pregnant individual that cause the
individual to suffer a miscarriage or stillbirth or that harm the embryo or fetus. These current
laws, regulations, and medical standards of care should continue to protect pregnant individuals
from harm in a broad range of circumstances without interfering with or impeding the provision
of health care for the well-being of a pregnant individual.
Some, however, see sections 14 and 15 as providing additional protections for a pregnant
individual from acts committed by a nonphysician that result in miscarriage or abortion. They
point to post-Roe court decisions that have allowed prosecutions under the 1931 law as recently
as 2019. Abortions, even when provided by physicians, can result in complications that result
in the death of or injury to the pregnant individual. A nonphysician who uses an implement or
a drug or other substance to induce a miscarriage or abortion, or even advertises such methods,
should face criminal charges for endangering the health of pregnant individuals.
Further, some argue that the new reproductive freedom amendment contains several undefined
terms that, depending on interpretation, could have unintended consequences that lead to harm
to pregnant individuals. Until it is seen how the new law will be implemented—as to what it
will and will not allow and how well it affords protections to the health of pregnant
individuals—they feel, the current laws that are enforceable under court decisions should
remain on the books.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The bills would have no fiscal impact on state or local government.
POSITIONS:
Representatives of the following entities testified in support of the bills (3-1-23):
• ACLU of Michigan
• Planned Parenthood of Michigan
The following entities indicated support for the bills (3-1-23):
• Michigan Council for Maternal and Child Health
• Michigan Society of Hematology and Oncology
• Michigan Nurses Association
• Michigan Academy of Family Physicians
• Michigan League for Public Policy
• League of Women Voters of Michigan
House Fiscal Agency HBs 4006 (H-1), 4031, and 4032 as reported Page 3 of 4
 • American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG)
A representative of the Michigan Catholic Conference testified in opposition to the bills.
(3-1-23)
The following entities indicated opposition to the bills (3-1-23):
• Salt and Light Global
• Mid-Michigan Women for Conservative Values
• Right to Life of Michigan
• Citizens for Traditional Values
Legislative Analyst: Susan Stutzky
Fiscal Analysts: Robin Risko
Victoria Amponsah
■ This analysis was prepared by nonpartisan House Fiscal Agency staff for use by House members in their
deliberations and does not constitute an official statement of legislative intent.
House Fiscal Agency HBs 4006 (H-1), 4031, and 4032 as reported Page 4 of 4


Statutes affected:
House Introduced Bill: 791.233