Michigan lawmakers are considering a series of bills that aim to tighten vaccination requirements for schools, childcare centers, and childcare workers. While supporters of the legislation argue that it will improve public health and protect communities from preventable diseases, opponents, particularly those who object to vaccines on religious or personal grounds, have voiced significant concerns about the potential impact of these measures.

Click on the bill number to read the legislation 6205, 6206, 6207, 6208, 6209, 6210

The bills introduce stricter requirements for families seeking vaccination exemptions. Parents or guardians who wish to file a nonmedical exemption for their child due to religious beliefs or personal objections will need to visit a local health department in person. There, they must complete a waiver form and listen to a health officer explain the risks of not vaccinating and the benefits of immunizations. Critics argue this mandatory counseling session is burdensome and could be seen as coercive, as it forces parents to justify their decisions in a setting where they may feel pressured or judged.

I can't keep doing this independent journalism without paid supporters. Lock in now at $5 a month before the price jumps to $6 in January. You can quit at anytime. I walked away from the MSM to give you the real news.

Become a Supporter

Another point of contention is the public reporting of vaccination rates. Childcare centers and schools will be required to disclose the immunization and exemption rates of their students and staff. This information must be posted on the institutions’ websites and displayed prominently in their main reception areas. Opponents fear that this level of transparency could lead to stigmatization of families who choose not to vaccinate, potentially subjecting them to discrimination or social backlash.

For schools that fail to maintain high vaccination compliance rates, the proposed laws introduce penalties, including potential funding cuts. Schools where fewer than 90% of students have up-to-date immunization records may face financial repercussions, a measure that critics argue could unfairly punish schools and communities with higher exemption rates. This creates pressure not only on administrators but also on parents, who may feel compelled to vaccinate their children despite their personal beliefs.

Michigan Rep. Janine Thompson wrote the following on X:

NO EXEMPTIONS ALLOWED ALSO INVOLVES SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS BEING REQUIRED TO REPORT VACCINATION STATUS OF EMPLOYEES And much more! ... take the time to read the short synopsis of each bill The Michigan Department of Health and Human Services' biggest goal is to increase vaccine uptake. What better way to increase vaccines than to impose on your right as a parent/guardian or even the owner of a daycare to an exemption? House Bills 6205 through 6210 take away your right to an exemption, your child's right to a free public education and your right to maintain the privacy of yours and your child's private health information.

The legislation also proposes mandatory vaccinations for childcare staff, requiring all employees of childcare centers to provide proof of immunization. Critics worry this could result in job losses for those who oppose vaccines on personal or medical grounds, further polarizing the workforce and limiting employment opportunities.

Democrat Rep. Phil Skaggs wrote on X:

The vaccination bills - HB- 6205 to 6210 - simply codify the rules on waivers implemented by Gov. Snyher and give parents info about contagious disease safety in their kids schools.

The bills also outline strict compliance timelines, stating that students who do not submit proof of immunization or exemption within specific deadlines will be excluded from school. Vaccine skeptics view this as a barrier to education, potentially denying children access to learning environments due to their parents’ health decisions.

Adding to these concerns is the potential for targeted interventions in schools with high exemption rates. Local health departments would be tasked with taking action to reduce exemption rates, which opponents fear could lead to intrusive oversight and further divisions within communities.

While proponents argue that these measures are necessary to prevent disease outbreaks and protect public health, critics see the proposed laws as an overreach of government authority, infringing on personal freedoms and parental rights. They also worry that the legislation could foster division, stigmatization, and economic hardships for those who choose not to vaccinate.

As Michigan debates these bills, the conversation highlights a broader national tension between public health priorities and individual rights. The outcome of this legislation will likely set a precedent for how states balance these competing interests, shaping the landscape of vaccination policy in the years to come.

Michigan lawmakers are considering a series of bills that aim to tighten vaccination requirements for schools, childcare centers, and childcare workers. While supporters of the legislation argue that it will improve public health and protect communities from preventable diseases, opponents, particularly those who object to vaccines on religious or personal grounds, have voiced significant concerns about the potential impact of these measures.

This bill package does not introduce mandatory vaccination as some have falsely posted to social media.

Click on the bill number to read the legislation 6205, 6206, 6207, 6208, 6209, 6210

The bills introduce stricter requirements for families seeking vaccination exemptions. Parents or guardians who wish to file a nonmedical exemption for their child due to religious beliefs or personal objections will need to visit a local health department in person. There, they must complete a waiver form and listen to a health officer explain the risks of not vaccinating and the benefits of immunizations. Critics argue this mandatory counseling session is burdensome and could be seen as coercive, as it forces parents to justify their decisions in a setting where they may feel pressured or judged.

I can't keep doing this independent journalism without paid supporters. Lock in now at $5 a month before the price jumps to $6 in January. You can quit at anytime. I walked away from the MSM to give you the real news.

Become a Supporter

Another point of contention is the public reporting of vaccination rates. Childcare centers and schools will be required to disclose the immunization and exemption rates of their students and staff. This information must be posted on the institutions’ websites and displayed prominently in their main reception areas. Opponents fear that this level of transparency could lead to stigmatization of families who choose not to vaccinate, potentially subjecting them to discrimination or social backlash.

For schools that fail to maintain high vaccination compliance rates, the proposed laws introduce penalties, including potential funding cuts. Schools where fewer than 90% of students have up-to-date immunization records may face financial repercussions, a measure that critics argue could unfairly punish schools and communities with higher exemption rates. This creates pressure not only on administrators but also on parents, who may feel compelled to vaccinate their children despite their personal beliefs.

Michigan Rep. Janine Thompson wrote the following on X:

NO EXEMPTIONS ALLOWED ALSO INVOLVES SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS BEING REQUIRED TO REPORT VACCINATION STATUS OF EMPLOYEES And much more! ... take the time to read the short synopsis of each bill The Michigan Department of Health and Human Services' biggest goal is to increase vaccine uptake. What better way to increase vaccines than to impose on your right as a parent/guardian or even the owner of a daycare to an exemption? House Bills 6205 through 6210 take away your right to an exemption, your child's right to a free public education and your right to maintain the privacy of yours and your child's private health information.

The legislation also proposes mandatory vaccinations for childcare staff, requiring all employees of childcare centers to provide proof of immunization. Critics worry this could result in job losses for those who oppose vaccines on personal or medical grounds, further polarizing the workforce and limiting employment opportunities.

Democrat Rep. Phil Skaggs wrote on X:

The vaccination bills - HB- 6205 to 6210 - simply codify the rules on waivers implemented by Gov. Snyher and give parents info about contagious disease safety in their kids schools.

The bills also outline strict compliance timelines, stating that students who do not submit proof of immunization or exemption within specific deadlines will be excluded from school. Vaccine skeptics view this as a barrier to education, potentially denying children access to learning environments due to their parents’ health decisions.

Adding to these concerns is the potential for targeted interventions in schools with high exemption rates. Local health departments would be tasked with taking action to reduce exemption rates, which opponents fear could lead to intrusive oversight and further divisions within communities.

While proponents argue that these measures are necessary to prevent disease outbreaks and protect public health, critics see the proposed laws as an overreach of government authority, infringing on personal freedoms and parental rights. They also worry that the legislation could foster division, stigmatization, and economic hardships for those who choose not to vaccinate.

As Michigan debates these bills, the conversation highlights a broader national tension between public health priorities and individual rights. The outcome of this legislation will likely set a precedent for how states balance these competing interests, shaping the landscape of vaccination policy in the years to come.

 

MIDLAND, Mich. — As the Michigan Legislature considers a new wave of corporate welfare handouts during its lame-duck session, a new study from the Mackinac Center for Public Policy sheds light on two decades of broken promises tied to taxpayer-funded business subsidies. The study reveals that only 9% of the jobs announced in major state-sponsored deals from 2000 to 2020 were ever created.

Analyzing front-page headlines from the Detroit Free Press, the study found that while companies promised 123,060 jobs through subsidy agreements, only 10,889 materialized. Worse, half of the companies awarded deals created no jobs at all, and just 15% of companies met or exceeded their job projections.

“News headlines frequently tout the promise of new jobs, but rarely report when the programs fail to deliver on their promises,” said James Hohman, director of fiscal policy at the Mackinac Center and author of the study. “This creates a misunderstanding among the public that job announcements are the same thing as actual jobs created. Yet lawmakers continue to rubber-stamp these ineffective and costly deals.” Click here to read more.

 

LANSING, Mich - An eleventh hour move ahead of Thanksgiving — teeing off the Michigan Legislature’s upcoming lame duck session — shows Democrats on the warpath with vague legislation aimed at dragging the firearms industry into lawfare for others’ conduct under the banner of public nuisance laws.

“Nuisance is the great grab bag, the dust bin, of the law,” declared the Michigan Supreme Court in a 1959 decision, and now Michigan Democrats want to drag gun manufacturers and sellers into it.

A partisan-backed update to public nuisance laws, backed by 19 Democrats and set for review when the legislature returns December 3, could expose purveyors of guns to lawfare and legal scrutiny by the Michigan Attorney General.

An amendment to the Revised Judicature Act of 1961’s public nuisance laws could now implicate gun manufacturers and sellers in others’ conduct — a move of questionable precedent and constitutionality.

The update would attempt to hold the firearms industry and its personnel liable as “proximate causes” to public nuisances, that is, for the actions of others. Click here to read more.

 

NEW YORK, NY - More than 1,000 illegal migrants in New York City are likely gang members who are free to roam the streets, new federal data shows.

A total of 1,053 migrants in the Big Apple are “suspected or known gang members,” according to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) data obtained by the New York Post.

The city is still groaning under an influx of more than 223,000 illegal migrants over than past two years.

An eye-popping 759,218 people who crossed the border illegally were living in the city as of November 17, according to federal authorities.

Of those migrants, 58,626 have been convicted of crimes or had criminal charges pending, ICE data shows. Click here to read more.

 

WASHINGTON D.C. - A congressional subcommittee concluded its two-year investigation on the coronavirus pandemic on Monday, finding that COVID-19 likely originated from a lab in Wuhan, China, and that social distancing and masking were not backed with scientific data.

The Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic released its final 520-page report that stated "COVID-19 most likely emerged from a laboratory in Wuhan, China."

In support of the "lab leak" theory, the report said the subcommittee learned that the virus had a biological characteristic that is not found in nature and that data showed all COVID-19 cases stemming from a single introduction to humans.

"By nearly all measures of science, if there was evidence of a natural origin it would have already surfaced," the report says.

The report also noted that China’s foremost SARS research lab is in Wuhan, "which has a history of conducting gain-of-function research at inadequate biosafety levels," and that researchers at the lab "were sick with a COVID-like virus in the fall of 2019, months before COVID-19 was discovered at the wet market."

Initial rumors swirled at the beginning of the pandemic that China’s wet markets, which are known for selling meat, fish, produce and exotic animals in unsanitary conditions, were the origin of the virus. Click here to read more.

 

CHICAGO, IL - Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson wanted a $300 million property tax hike for his big budget. All 50 aldermen said “no.” So then he asked for $150 million and a 35% tax on liquor. Johnson fails to admit it’s not about taxes, it’s about making changes.

All 50 Chicago aldermen told Mayor Brandon Johnson he couldn’t have his $300 million property tax hike, so he asked for $150 million in property taxes, $128 million in cloud computing taxes, $10 million in streaming service taxes and $10.6 million from a 35% hike in liquor taxes.

Maybe Johnson should recognize “no” to $300 million in new taxes means “no” to $300 million in new taxes. Instead of asking for it a different way, he needs to stabilize Chicago’s finances by backing pension reform, cutting non-essential spending from his $17.3 billion budget and auditing departments for cuts. He needs to safeguard public safety and stop the financial games that deny Chicago long-lasting fiscal stability. Click here to read more.