SB 1152 — Summary (Revised Judicature Act: protections for “legally protected health activities”)
Status & procedural history (key dates)
- Introduced in the Michigan Senate (Sen. Mary Cavanagh) — substitute S‑1 reported and passed the Senate 12/12/2024.
- Multiple committee actions and referrals followed in 2025; latest status provided: placed on second reading / on the General State Calendar.
- Bill amends MCL 600.2203 and adds sections 1459, 2170, 2203a, and 2980 to the Revised Judicature Act of 1961.
Purpose / intent
- To create state-law protections for persons who seek, provide, assist with, or otherwise support reproductive health services that are lawful in Michigan, by (1) excluding certain evidence from use against those persons, (2) limiting the issuance of subpoenas tied to foreign proceedings, (3) directing courts to apply Michigan law exclusively in these matters, and (4) creating a private cause of action for interference with protected rights.
Key provisions
- Definitions (new sec. 2170):
- “Legally protected health activity” — includes seeking, providing, receiving, referring for, assisting with, or materially supporting travel for reproductive health services that are lawful in Michigan, including telehealth and self‑managed care, and regardless of vicarious/joint liability theories, provided the provider is physically present in Michigan.
- “Reproductive health services” — broad definition including medical, surgical, psychiatric, preventative, contraceptive, pregnancy care, assisted reproduction, miscarriage management, termination of pregnancy, endocrine care, and telehealth services.
- Evidence exclusion (sec. 2170):
- Evidence that a person engaged in one or more legally protected health activities is inadmissible to show that the person committed wrongdoing (civil, criminal, professional, etc.), except in limited actions (see below).
- Exceptions (applicable to exclusion and subpoena prohibition):
- Does not apply where all three are true: (1) the action sounds in tort or contract; (2) the cause of action is recognized under Michigan law in an equivalent/similar manner; and (3) the action was brought by the individual who received the reproductive health services (or their legal representative).
- Subpoena limits (amends sec. 2203 / adds sec. 2203a):
- Clerks must refuse to issue subpoenas under the Revised Judicature Act for foreign proceedings that concern legally protected health activities, subject to the exceptions above.
- Choice-of-law directive (sec. 1459):
- Michigan courts must apply Michigan law exclusively when construing or applying state law related to legally protected health activities (i.e., do not apply another state’s law).
- Private right of action (sec. 2980):
- A person sued in any U.S. court (civil or criminal) for conduct involving provision, facilitation, or access to reproductive health services may sue in Michigan circuit court for “unlawful interference with protected rights.”
- Remedies required: compensatory damages; costs and attorney fees (including expert witness fees); punitive damages if the court finds the foreign action was commenced/continued to harass, intimidate, punish, or maliciously inhibit protected rights.
- Statute of limitations: 6 years from when the right to file arose.
- Preserves other available remedies under law.
Who is affected
- Reproductive health providers and clinicians physically practicing in Michigan.
- Patients seeking reproductive health services in Michigan (including out‑of‑state residents receiving lawful care in Michigan).
- Individuals and organizations assisting or providing material support (e.g., travel assistance) for accessing care.
- Parties or counsel seeking to use out‑of‑state subpoenas, discovery, or foreign litigation to pursue persons for conduct that is lawful in Michigan.
Anticipated impact
- Legal protection: limits the admissibility of evidence and blocks many forms of out‑of‑state discovery/subpoena use tied to lawful reproductive health activities in Michigan.
- Litigation consequences: establishes a Michigan forum and statutory remedies (fees, costs, possible punitive damages) against parties who initiate out‑of‑state actions that interfere with protected activities.
- Fiscal: committee analyses reported no expected fiscal impact to state or local courts.
Related measures / context
- SB 1152 was reported alongside other “protected health activities” bills (e.g., SB 1151, SB 1163, SB 1164, SB 1175) addressing licensure discipline, extradition, and address confidentiality; some of these bills are tie‑barred.
If you want, I can:
- Produce a short explainer for clinicians or clinics describing operational/legal steps under SB 1152; or
- Extract the exact statutory language for each added section for review.
