WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

SB 72

Criminal procedure: sentencing guidelines; sentencing guidelines for the crime of performing certain medical treatments on a minor without consent and another individual present and intentionally omitting certain services in a medical record; enact. Amends sec. 13n, ch. XVII of 1927 PA 175 (MCL 777.13n). TIE BAR WITH: SB 0069'23, SB 0071'23

2023-2024 Regular Session Introduced by Rosemary Bayer and 10 co-sponsors

Michigan law now criminalizes certain undisclosed medical treatments on minors and medical record falsification, with sentencing guidelines effective immediately upon governor approval.

ASSIGNED PA 0063'23 WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT
#criminalprocedure:sentencingguidelines #healthoccupations:healthprofessionals
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · SB 72

Legislative bill overview

SB 72 establishes sentencing guidelines for a newly criminalized offense: performing certain medical treatments on a minor without parental consent and without another individual present, as well as intentionally omitting services from medical records. The bill amends Michigan's sentencing guidelines framework and was tied to companion bills SB 69 and SB 71, which presumably define the underlying criminal conduct.

Why is this important

This legislation creates criminal penalties with specified sentencing guidelines for medical providers, affecting how doctors, nurses, and other practitioners can lawfully treat minors. The provision regarding medical record falsification carries separate implications for healthcare documentation standards and fraud prevention. The immediate effect designation means the law took effect upon gubernatorial approval rather than waiting for a standard effective date.

Potential points of contention

  • Scope ambiguity: The bill references "certain medical treatments" without specifying which procedures are included, creating uncertainty about what conduct is criminalized—this likely depends on companion bills SB 69/71, which may address sensitive healthcare issues like gender-affirming care, reproductive services, or vaccinations.
  • Parental consent vs. medical judgment: The requirement for parental presence/consent may conflict with established medical ethics, minor consent laws for specific treatments, and emergency medical situations where parental involvement is impractical.
  • Medical record provision: Criminalizing "intentional omission" of services in records is vague regarding which services must be documented and could create liability for routine clinical judgment calls about what belongs in records.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.