Oversight: “Rx Kids” Program

This week the House Oversight Committee, on which I serve, held a hearing to examine Rx Kids, the cash-payment program that gives expecting and new mothers $1,500 during pregnancy and $500 a month for up to a year after a baby is born. The program, run by Michigan State University professor Dr. Mona Hanna, has enrolled more than 11,700 families and distributed roughly $42 million, supported in part by taxpayer dollars. When public money is involved, it is the Legislature’s job to ask hard questions about how a program works and what safeguards are in place. That is what oversight is for.

I pressed on two areas. First, I asked whether anything in the program’s framework prevents an expecting mother from collecting the prenatal payment and then obtaining a late-term abortion. The director acknowledged there is no such guardrail in the framework. She said the program is associated with fewer abortions and more births, and she noted that the state stopped collecting abortion data in 2024, so the actual numbers are not known. A program supported by taxpayers should be able to answer basic questions about its own outcomes.

Second, I raised questions about the program’s promotion of a voter-engagement organization called VoteER, and about a white paper tied to the program reporting that enrolled mothers were more likely to vote than other mothers. The director said the program does not track participants’ voting habits, that VoteER is one of many optional resources listed on its website, and that the voting study was conducted independently by an MSU political science professor. Those explanations are now on the record, and I will keep asking the questions needed to ensure a taxpayer-supported program stays focused on helping families and nothing else.

Oversight is not about standing in the way of helping mothers and babies. It is about making sure that when the people’s money is spent, it is spent transparently, accountably, and within clear guardrails. I will continue that work.

Vote Record Update

Since my first day in office, I have upheld my promise to regularly share to the public every single vote I have made with an explanation for each one. This is something done by only 8 of 110 Representatives in Michigan. Accountability can only be achieved when there is transparency. Here’s an update of my votes and reasons:

HCR 7 – Convention of States for Michigan

NO- PASSED VIA VOICE VOTE – NO RECORD ROLL CALL

Why I Could Not Support a Convention of States

This week the Michigan House adopted House Concurrent Resolution 7, which applies to Congress for an Article V convention, what supporters call a “Convention of States.” I respect the intentions of my colleagues who backed it, and I share their frustration with a federal government that has grown far beyond its constitutional limits. But there is a reason I opposed it when I first ran for office in 2022, and I could not in good conscience support HCR 7, and you deserve to know why.

The promise of a Convention of States is that it can be safely limited to a few good subjects, such as fiscal restraints, federal power, and term limits. The problem is that nothing in Article V guarantees any such limit. Once delegates gather, there is no enforceable way to keep a convention inside its lines. We have seen this before. The convention of 1787 was called only to amend the Articles of Confederation, yet the delegates set the Articles aside entirely, wrote a brand new Constitution, and changed the ratification rules to make adoption easier. A convention has the inherent power to “run away,” and our own history proves it.

I am far from alone in these concerns. The John Birch Society has warned for decades that an Article V convention cannot be controlled, and Eagle Forum, the organization founded by the late Phyllis Schlafly, has opposed a constitutional convention for more than forty years. As they have long pointed out, when you look at what Article V actually provides once a convention is called, the silence is alarming. There is:

• No constitutional authority for a convention limited to certain subjects;
• No guidance on how delegates would be chosen, who could qualify, or how many each state could send;
• No rules for how the convention would set its own procedures, and no way to enforce them;
• No provision to stop a runaway convention once it has begun;
• No role for the people, and no power for the people to halt it; and
• No rules governing the ratification conventions Congress could choose to call.

These are not idle hypotheticals. When supporters of the convention ran their own simulated “Convention of States” exercises in 2016 and 2023, the delegates produced amendments that expanded federal power and spending, the very opposite of the stated goal. Even a convention full of well meaning conservatives can be steered the wrong way. Once the Constitution is pried open, every protection in it is potentially at risk, including our First and Second Amendment freedoms. Eagle Forum has been especially clear on this point, warning that an Article V convention would put the right to keep and bear arms in jeopardy, and even Chief Justice Warren Burger concluded that there is no reliable way to limit a convention once it convenes.

I also do not accept the core premise. Our problem in Washington is not that the Constitution is poorly written. Our problem is that the federal government already ignores the Constitution we have, including its enumerated powers, the Tenth Amendment, and the plain limits written on the page. Adding new words will not restrain officials who disregard the words already there, and any new amendments would be handed to the very federal courts that have spent a century expanding federal power. As for term limits, we already have them. They are called elections and primaries.

There is a better path, and it does not require gambling with our founding document. We can demand that the Constitution be enforced as written, elect representatives who will actually honor it, and refuse to comply with unconstitutional federal overreach. I will always fight to rein in Washington, but I will not risk the Constitution itself to do it.

For these reasons, I opposed HCR 7. The resolution was nonetheless adopted by the House and now moves to the state Senate, where I hope cooler heads will take a hard look before Michigan lends its name to a convention that no one can control.

House Bill 5498: Faster Permits Without a Bigger Bureaucracy

YES- PASSED 57-51

HB 5498 requires certain state agencies to designate employees to manage and move along the issuance of permits, so that applications do not sit unattended and applicants are not left waiting indefinitely. This is the bill I amended to prohibit agencies from hiring any additional full-time employees to do that work.

I voted yes because a permit delayed is a project, a paycheck, or a home delayed, and the people of Michigan deserve a government that responds in a reasonable amount of time. Just as important, my amendment ensures that faster service comes from agencies managing the staff they already have, not from growing the payroll at taxpayer expense. This is how government should work: more responsive and more accountable at the same time.

I offered a floor amendment to make sure the bill could not become a vehicle for growing the bureaucracy. My amendment, which the House adopted, prohibits any agency from hiring additional full-time employees to manage or assist in the issuance of permits. Streamlining permits should mean a more efficient government, not a bigger one, and this amendment keeps the focus where it belongs. I appreciate colleague Representative Borton for working on this issue with me to make sure we are holding the State accountable for the people of Michigan.

House Bill 5650: Reporting the Cost of the Attorney General’s Lawsuits

YES- PASSED 58-47

HB 5650, sponsored by Rep. Jason Woolford, requires the Attorney General to report to the Legislature whenever the cost of a single piece of litigation reaches, or is expected to reach, $250,000. Each report must include an accounting of how the money was spent and a justification for why the case is being pursued. I voted yes because this is taxpayer money, and the people who are footing the bill have every right to know how much is being spent and why.

This is basic accountability, and it is not aimed at any one person. The requirement applies to the current Attorney General and to every Attorney General who follows, no matter their political party. When a state official can commit hundreds of thousands of public dollars to a lawsuit, the public deserves a clear, written explanation. Transparency like this should not be controversial, and I was glad to support it.

House Bill 4644: Golf Carts on Local Streets

YES- PASSED 87-18

HB 4644, sponsored by Rep. Alicia St. Germaine, updates the Michigan Vehicle Code so that more communities can decide for themselves whether to allow golf carts on their local streets. It raises the population threshold from communities under 30,000 people to those under 65,000, and it keeps sensible safety requirements in place for how and where the carts may be operated.

I voted yes because this is a matter of local control. The decision belongs to the villages, cities, and townships that know their own roads and their own residents, not to bureaucrats in Lansing. Many smaller and mid-sized communities have asked for this flexibility, and this bill gives it to them while still protecting public safety. It is a practical, freedom minded change that lets local people govern local matters.

House Bill 5682: Supporting Conservation and Michigan’s Outdoor Heritage

YES- PASSED 91-14

HB 5682, sponsored by Rep. Phil Green, allows up to five additional premium “Pure Michigan” hunting licenses to be auctioned each year through sportsmen’s organizations that the state authorizes for that purpose. The organization that runs an auction may keep up to 7.5 percent of the proceeds to support its conservation and outdoor work, and the rest goes to the state to fund wildlife and habitat programs.

I voted yes because this is a smart, voluntary way to raise money for conservation without raising fees or taxes on everyday hunters and anglers. The people who choose to bid on these premium licenses are paying into the system willingly, and the dollars they contribute help manage the land and wildlife that all of Michigan enjoys. It supports our state’s strong hunting and outdoor heritage and puts willing donors, rather than taxpayers, behind the cost.

House Bill 4467: Prohibiting Gender-Transition Procedures for Minors

YES- PASSED 57-48

HB 4467 prohibits health professionals from providing gender-transition procedures to minors, including puberty-blocking drugs, cross-sex hormones, and surgical procedures performed to alter a child’s body to resemble the opposite sex. It is the centerpiece of this week’s package to protect children.

I voted yes because these are permanent, life-altering interventions, and a child is not capable of weighing consequences that will follow them for the rest of their life. Many young people who were put through these procedures have since spoken out about the lasting physical and emotional harm they suffered. Our duty is to protect children and to preserve their ability to make such decisions as adults, not to allow irreversible procedures to be performed on them before they are old enough to understand what is at stake.

House Bill 4466: Licensing Sanctions for Performing These Procedures on Minors

YES- PASSED 57-48

HB 4466 amends the Public Health Code so that performing a prohibited gender-transition procedure on a minor is grounds for disciplinary action against a health professional’s license. It is tie-barred to House Bill 4467 and gives that prohibition real accountability.

I voted yes because a prohibition without consequences is only words on paper. The professionals we license to care for Michigan’s children must be held to the standards this state sets, and this bill makes clear that violating the protection for minors carries professional consequences. It is a straightforward matter of enforcing the law we just passed.

House Bill 4468: Insurance Coverage to Reverse Gender-Transition Procedures

YES- PASSED 58-48

HB 4468 addresses health insurance coverage for individuals who seek to reverse or recover from gender-transition procedures they previously underwent. The bill was amended on the floor before passage to refine its language.

I voted yes because people who come to regret these procedures and want to detransition deserve a path to care, not abandonment. If we are serious about protecting people from the harm these interventions can cause, we also have to make sure that those already harmed are able to seek treatment to recover. This bill stands up for them.

House Bill 5813: Medicaid Error-Rate Transparency

YES- PASSED 58-48

HB 5813 amends the Social Welfare Act to require the Department of Health and Human Services to publicly report, every year beginning October 1, 2026, the error rate and improper-payment rate for medical services provided through Medicaid. The reports must be posted on the department’s website and submitted to the Legislature’s oversight committees.

I voted yes because taxpayers have a right to know how well their money is being managed. Medicaid is one of the largest programs in our state budget, and improper payments waste scarce dollars that should be going to the people who truly need help. Putting these numbers in the open every year is a commonsense step toward accountability and toward protecting both taxpayers and the integrity of the program.

House Joint Resolution U: How Michigan Chooses University Boards

YES- FAILED 52-54

HJR U was a proposed amendment to the Michigan Constitution. It would have changed how candidates for the University of Michigan, Michigan State University, and Wayne State University boards are selected. It would have allowed Precinct Delegates, State Senate, and State House to select candidates and it would require each board to be comprised of 4 Republicans, 4 Democrats and 1 member of the Governor’s party. This balance is a vast improvement from the seemingly perpetual Democrat supermajority that our Universities have seen for the past 40-50 years running. Every single Democrat voted NO on this proposal.

House Bills 5739 and 5740: Updates to Guardianship and Conservatorship Law

YES- PASSED 106-0 (both bills)

HB 5739 and HB 5740 make updates to the Estates and Protected Individuals Code, the law that governs guardians and conservators who are appointed to care for vulnerable people and manage their affairs. Both bills passed unanimously.

I voted yes because protecting vulnerable adults and children who depend on a guardian or conservator is a responsibility that crosses party lines. These were sensible, broadly supported improvements to how that system works, and the unanimous vote reflects that.

House Bill 5536: Restoring a Clear, Lawful Definition of “Wetland”

YES- PASSED 57-51

HB 5536, sponsored by Rep. David Martin, updates Michigan’s definition of a regulated “wetland” to align it with the federal Clean Water Act standard set by the U.S. Supreme Court in Sackett v. EPA. Under that standard, a parcel must have a continuous surface connection to a water of the United States to be regulated as a federally connected wetland.

I voted yes because property owners deserve clear, predictable rules they can understand before they invest their time and money, not a definition that shifts depending on which official is interpreting it that day. Aligning our state law with the federal standard gives families and job creators the certainty they need, while Michigan still retains the ability to protect its waters. Good regulation should be effective without being excessive, and this bill moves us toward that balance.

House Bill 5501: More Workable Wetland Permitting

YES- PASSED 57-51

HB 5501 amends Michigan’s wetland permitting law to give construction and development applicants more flexible options for offsetting wetland impacts, including updated mitigation provisions in the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act. It was amended on the floor to refine which sections of the law it covers.

I voted yes because the current permitting process too often adds needless cost and delay to projects that everyday property owners and builders are simply trying to complete. This bill keeps the expectation that wetland impacts be offset, while giving applicants a more practical and affordable path to get there. Protecting our natural resources and respecting the people who own and improve land are not at odds, and this reform reflects that.

House Bill 5557: Reforming Michigan’s Air-Permit Rules

YES- PASSED 58-50

HB 5557 amends the air-pollution-control provisions of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, the part of state law under which the Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy sets air-quality rules and issues permits. It is part of this week’s broader effort to modernize how Michigan handles environmental permitting.

I voted yes because Michigan’s permitting system should let employers build, expand, and operate without being buried in delay, while still keeping our air protections consistent with federal requirements. Streamlining how these rules and permits work helps protect jobs and investment in our state. Reducing unnecessary regulatory burden is one of the most direct ways we can make Michigan more competitive.