[ Previous Page] [ Home Page ]
The following opinion is presented on-line for informational use only and does not replace the official version. (Mich Dept of Attorney General Web Site - www.ag.state.mi.us) STATE OF MICHIGAN FRANK J. KELLEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL Opinion No. 6518 May 26, 1988 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Const 1963, art 4, Sec. 24--adding second object to act STATE SCHOOL AID ACT OF 1979: Amendment adding second object to act The people have commanded, in Const 1963, art 4, Sec. 24, that '[n]o law shall embrace more than one object, which shall be expressed in its title.' The purpose of 1979 PA 94, the State School Aid Act of 1979, as expressed in its title, is to appropriate state funds to school districts. Act 94, Sec. 166, as added by 1987 PA 128, imposes criminal penalties for conduct that is not tied to the use of legislatively-appropriated funds, thereby adding a second object to the State School Aid Act of 1979 that is not expressed in its title. Section 166 of the State School Aid Act of 1979, as added by 1987 PA 128, which makes it unlawful for any person to dispense or distribute family planning drugs or devices on public school premises, was enacted by the Legislature in violation of Const 1963, art 4, Sec. 24, and is unconstitutional. Honorable Perry Bullard State Representative The Capitol Lansing, Michigan You have requested my opinion on several questions relating to the constitutionality of 1987 PA 128, which added Sec. 166 to the State School Aid Act of 1979, 1979 PA 94, MCL 388.1601 et seq; MSA 15.1919(901) et seq. Your questions may be phrased as follows: 1. Is Sec. 166 of the State School Aid Act of 1979 violative of Const 1963, art 4, Sec. 24? 2. Is Sec. 166 of the State School Aid Act of 1979 violative of Const 1963, art 4, Sec. 25? 3. Are the prohibitions in Sec. 166 of the State School Aid Act of 1979 concerning dispensing prescriptions for family planning drugs and making referrals for abortions limited to acts that occur in the public schools? Section 166 was added to the State School Aid Act of 1979 by 1987 PA 128, effective October 1, 1987. Section 166 provides: 'A school official or member of a board or other person who dispenses or otherwise distributes a family planning drug or device in a public school in violation of section 1507 of the School Code of 1976, Act No. 451 of the Public Acts of 1976, being section 380.1507 of the Michigan Compiled Laws, that dispenses prescriptions for any family planning drug, or that makes referrals for abortions is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment for not more than 90 days, or a fine of not more than $500.00, or both.' The people have commanded, in Const 1963, art 4, Sec. 24, that '[n]o law shall embrace more than one object, which shall be expressed in its title.' Your inquiry is whether Sec. 166 adds a second purpose to Act 94 in violation of Const 1963, art 4, Sec. 24. The purpose of the State School Aid Act of 1979, as expressed in its title, is to appropriate state funds to school districts. The Legislature may attach conditions concerning the use of funds it appropriates. Also, the Legislature may impose conditions upon a school district's eligibility for state school aid funds it appropriates. See OAG, 1987-1988, No 6465, p 190 (September 10, 1987), and authorities cited therein. Finally, amendatory legislation may add anything to a statute that could have been included within the title of the legislation as originally enacted. Common Council of Detroit v Schmid, 128 Mich 379; 87 NW 383 (1901). However, Act 94, Sec. 166, neither imposes conditions upon the use of legislatively-appropriated state school aid funds nor imposes conditions concerning school district eligibility for such funds. Section 166 of the Senate Substitute for House Bill 4280, which passed the Senate June 9, 1987, provided: 'A DISTRICT OR INTERMEDIATE DISTRICT THAT DISPENSES OR OTHERWISE DISTRIBUTES A FAMILY PLANNING DRUG OR DEVICE IN A PUBLIC SCHOOL IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 1507 OF THE SCHOOL CODE OF 1976, ACT NO. 451 OF THE PUBLIC ACTS OF 1976, BEING SECTION 380.1507 OF THE MICHIGAN COMPILED LAWS, THAT DISPENSES PRESCRIPTIONS FOR ANY FAMILY PLANNING DRUG, OR THAT MAKES REFERRALS FOR ABORTIONS SHALL FORFEIT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR IN WHICH THE ACTIVITY OCCURRED 25% OF ITS ALLOCATIONS OTHERWISE DUE UNDER THIS ACT.' 1987 Journal of the Senate 1584-1587 (No. 55, June 9, 1987) HB 4280, Sec. 166, as substituted by the Senate, did not survive. It was changed by the Conference Committee. The Legislature passed HB 4280 to add Sec. 166 to Act 94 as it appears in its present form. 1987 Journal of the House 2288-2313 (No. 66, June 30, 1987), and 1987 Journal of the Senate 2306-2333 (No. 64, June 30, 1987). Act 94, Sec. 166, as added by 1987 PA 128, is not limited to either the use of the appropriated funds or conditions concerning eligibility to receive the funds. Instead, it imposes criminal penalties for conduct that is not tied to the use of legislatively-appropriated funds, thereby adding a second object to 1979 PA 94 that is not expressed in its title. See OAG, 1973-1974, No 4801, p 87 (October 9, 1973); OAG, 1973-1974, No 4824, p 164 (July 24, 1974); and OAG, 1979-1980, No 5669, p 665 (March 17, 1980). Thus, it must be concluded that Act 94, Sec. 166, as added by 1987 PA 128, was enacted in violation of Const 1963, art 4, Sec. 24. However, since the Legislature unquestionably would have made the appropriations to school districts in the absence of Sec. 166, and the rest of 1987 PA 128 may be effectuated without Sec. 166, the remainder of 1987 PA 128 is severable and valid. OAG, 1973-1974, No 4801, supra; OAG, 1973-1974, No 4824, supra; and OAG, 1979-1980, No 5669, supra. It is my opinion, in answer to your first question, that Sec. 166 of the State School Aid Act of 1979, as added by 1987 PA 128, which makes it unlawful for any person to dispense or distribute family planning drugs or devices on public school premises, was enacted by the Legislature in violation of Const 1963, art 4, Sec. 24, and is unconstitutional. The answer to your first question makes it unnecessary to address your other two questions. (1) Frank J. Kelley Attorney General (1)
[ Previous Page] [ Home Page ]