Michigan House Bill HB4819

Michigan 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 6/15/23
• Refer: 6/15/23

Caption

Health: abortion; abortion reporting form; require to include reason for abortion. Amends sec. 2835 of 1978 PA 368 (MCL 333.2835).

Impact

The implementation of HB 4819 would fundamentally change the way abortion procedures are documented and reported in Michigan. By requiring the collection of specific data points—including reasons for the abortion, the method used, and complications that arose—the bill is intended to enhance the state’s ability to assess the safety and legality of abortions. Additionally, while aiming to inform public health initiatives, the legislation places strict controls on patient identification, which is crucial for maintaining the privacy of individuals seeking abortion services.

Summary

House Bill 4819 seeks to amend the Public Health Code regarding the reporting requirements related to abortions in Michigan. The bill defines 'physical complication' as any physical condition that occurs during or after an abortion that requires medical attention, such as infections or hemorrhage. It mandates that physicians performing an abortion must report specified information about the procedure to the state health department within seven days, ensuring that only certain demographic and procedural details are recorded while protecting the identity of the individuals involved.

Conclusion

Ultimately, HB 4819 represents a complex intersection of public health, medical ethics, and reproductive rights, prompting a critical dialogue about the balance between state oversight and individual privacy rights. As the bill progresses, it will likely face scrutiny from both advocates for women's health and those concerned about government intervention in personal medical decisions.

Contention

Notably, the bill is likely to generate contention among various stakeholders. Supporters argue that improved reporting could lead to better understanding and management of complications from abortions, thereby enhancing overall reproductive health care. In contrast, opponents may view this as a political maneuver to infringe upon reproductive rights and impose undue burdens on medical professionals and patients alike. The extensive detail required in reporting could be construed as invasive and may deter women from seeking necessary medical care.