Use quotes to search for exact phrases. Use AND/OR/NOT between keywords or phrases for more precise search results.

Michigan Bill Amending Parental Rights Restoration Act (SB 254)

This law was last updated on Jan 23, 2014




SB 254


Failed to Pass


Mar 12, 2013


Primary Sponsors: 1
Total Sponsors: 1


Parental Involvement

Full Bill Text

SB 254 would have amended the Parental Rights Restoration Act, which prohibits abortion providers from performing an abortion on a minor without obtaining written parental consent or a waiver from a judge.

The bill would also have done the following:

  • Prohibited a minor who was denied a waiver of parental consent for an abortion by a family court judge from seeking a waiver for the same pregnancy in the family court. This provision was aimed at addressing concerns among bill supporters that minors were “shopping” for a waiver and going to court multiple times until they found a court willing to grant a waiver. (Source.)
  • If the court denied a waiver, required the court to inform the minor that she could appeal the denial, could not initiate proceedings in a family court, but could request a rehearing by the same family court judge if there were a change of circumstances.
  • Required the court to grant a waiver if it determined that the minor was sufficiently mature and informed to make an abortion decision based on the consideration of specific factors, including whether the court should contravene a common law standard that minors are not capable of providing informed consent for medical treatment.
  • Required the court to grant a waiver if it found that a waiver was in the minor’s best interest based on the consideration of specific factors, including whether the court should contravene a common law standard that a minor’s best interest is served by parental involvement in medical decisions.
  • Required the court to grant a waiver if it found that both parents, or the minor’s legal guardian, had demonstrated through neglect or abuse a lack of concern or competence in serving the minor’s best interests, based on specific factors.


The bill was referred to and passed through the Committee on the Judiciary. In June 2013, it the committee recommended the bill for immediate effect and sent the bill to the full senate for consideration. The bill, however, was not considered by the full senate. (Source.)


Primary Sponsor