a:1:{s:15:"field_news_body";a:1:{i:0;a:2:{s:5:"value";s:6765:"<span style="font-size: larger;">-----------------------------------------------------------------<br />
YOU CAN NOW COMMENT ON STORIES AND POLLS<br />
LET US KNOW HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT THE ISSUES.<br />
-----------------------------------------------------------------<br />
POLL OVERVIEW:<br />
<br />
Michigan House Bills 5684 and 5685:<br />
<br />
The House Tax Policy Committee recently heard testimony on a bill that would grant &quot;personhood</span><span style="font-size: larger;">&quot;</span><span style="font-size: larger;"> status to fetuses, allowing expectant parents to qualify for a tax exemption.<br />
<br />
Democrats and pro-choice advocates said the two-bill package is similar to attempts in Mississippi, Colorado and other states to pass </span><span style="font-size: larger;">&quot;</span><span style="font-size: larger;">personhood</span><span style="font-size: larger;">&quot;</span><span style="font-size: larger;"> bills meant to obstruct abortion rights by declaring a fetus of any age a person. Michigan would be the first state to succeed in passing such a law.<br />
<br />
Parents would be able to claim a dependency exemption for a fetus that has completed at least 12 weeks of gestation as of the last day of the tax year and that has been under the care and observation of a physician since at least 12 weeks of gestation. The period of gestation would have to be determined by a physician.<br />
<br />
Rep. Lisa Lyons of Alto, sponsor of one of the two bills, said the legislation is meant to help pregnant women with the costs of pre-natal care.<br />
<br />
The personal exemption is $3,950 for the 2013 tax year and $4,000 for the 2014 tax year and subsequent years. Allowing fetuses to qualify would cost Michigan about $5 million annually in revenue, according to a House Fiscal Agency analysis.<br />
<br />
NEW POLL QUESTION:<br />
&nbsp;----------------------------<br />
Should the legislature pass legislation to grant </span><span style="font-size: larger;">&quot;</span><span style="font-size: larger;">Personhood</span><span style="font-size: larger;">&quot;</span><span style="font-size: larger;"> to fetuses and award tax credits to expecting mothers?<br />
<br />
Yes<br />
No<br />
Undecided<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.clinton-countygop.org/content/should-michigan-legislature-pass-legislation-grant-%E2%80%9Cpersonhood%E2%80%9D-fetuses-and-award-tax-credit">http://www.clinton-countygop.org/content/should-michigan-legislature-pass-legislation-grant-%E2%80%9Cpersonhood%E2%80%9D-fetuses-and-award-tax-credit</a><br />
<br />
(To enter your comments click on </span><span style="font-size: larger;">&quot;</span><span style="font-size: larger;">Add new comment</span><span style="font-size: larger;">&quot;</span><span style="font-size: larger;"> after you vote.)<br />
<br />
-----------------------------------<br />
PREVIOUS POLL QUESTION:<br />
-----------------------------------<br />
<br />
Are you in favor of changing Michigan&rsquo;s election law to allow for anyone to vote absentee without needing a reason?<br />
<br />
Yes . . . . . . . . . 40%<br />
No . . . . . . . . . . 52%<br />
Undecided . . . . . 8%<br />
<br />
TWO COMMENTS WERE MADE ON THIS POLL QUESTION<br />
<br />
COMMENT #1<br />
expansion of absentee voting<br />
<br />
1. The described proposal does not have adequate controls on verifying who exactly is voting. The described problem of Grand Rapids voters waiting for 4 hours can be remedied by more poll workers in polls in which there are a lot of registered voters.<br />
<br />
2. I am very disappointed in Ruth Johnson not coming up with a remedy to guarantee that military ballots will be processed and received in a way that GUARANTEES that those votes will be counted no later than election day.<br />
<br />
3. Here is something that Ruth Johnson needs to deal with. It is not true that the problem of Clerks sending out unrequested absentee ballots has been remedied. Using me as an example in the 2012 Presidential. We requested absentee ballots in the August primary as we were out of town. Then, much to my surprise, we received unrequested November General Election BALLOTS in the mail (yes, ballots; not requests for ballots). I called the SOS Election Division about this and the staffer said that the Clerk had likely used a form in the primary election in which we were requesting absentee ballots for both the primary and general. I don't think that this occurred and why would it and I would have noticed it. Just because someone will be out of town in August does not mean that they would be out of town in November and there was nothing on the form I signed that indicated multiple dates. This is not the first time that this has occurred with the City of Lansing Clerk's office. Furthermore, primary elections and general elections are separate elections under Michigan election law, including campaing finance law. As absentee ballots are the easiest way for voter fraud to occur, there needs to be great care that ballots do not go out willy nilly.<br />
<br />
4.. Having a great percentage of voters voting 45 days prior to the election is a bad idea. This really means that a general election (where there was a contested primary) really only lasts 30 to 45 days - - and it would be non-existent for voters who actually vote at the beginning of the time period. While some voters know very early on exactly who they wish to vote for, most voters wait until close to the actual election to decide and it is a bad idea for people to vote without access to sufficient information to choose and prior to candidates to be able to campaign - - especially when their is a protracted primary, followed by summer when voters won't listen so candidates lay fairly low. The general election doesn't start up until after Labor Day - - so, this would result in a 30 to 45 day general and for those voting absentee at the earliest possible time, they are allowing no time to receive any information that would be revealed during the general election.<br />
<br />
COMMENT #2<br />
No reason absentee voting<br />
<br />
If Provisional Ballots are set aside until verification of the voter's signature, I think we need to look at changing our voting methods. I have been told that the Democrats are already using AVs by simply having their voters say that they will be out-of-town on Election Day so they automatically qualify to vote early.<br />
<br />
I also think, as part of any election changes, that we need to set aside provisional ballots that are cast on election day until they can be verified as qualifying voters as well.<br />
---------------------------------<br />
<br />
</span>";s:6:"format";s:1:"1";}}}