Michigan committee hears testimony on five-bill 'fertility fraud' package amid split over scope and penalties

LANSING — The House Families and Veterans Committee heard hours of testimony on HB 5035 through HB 5039, a five-bill package sponsored by Representatives Joseph Roth and Alicia Saint Germain that would create criminal penalties for intentional misrepresentation connected to assisted reproduction services.

Sponsors and victims described cases in which donors or clinic personnel misrepresented identity or, in some allegations, a practitioner used his own genetic material. "Doctor that ran the clinic actually used his own DNA to inseminate mom," Rep. Roth told the panel as he urged lawmakers to add legal guardrails for patients. Victims who testified by Zoom described personal consequences: "I was born in fraud," said Jamie Hall, who told the committee she learned through consumer DNA testing that her biological father was the physician at the clinic her parents used.

Rep. Alicia Saint Germain, who described HB 5038 as the "hammer" bill, told the committee the package would increase criminal penalties for people who "provide false representation of reproductive procedures," including penalties sponsors described as up to five years for some offenders and longer terms (discussed in the hearing as up to 15 years) when a medical professional knowingly or recklessly uses embryos or gametes not agreed to by a patient. Committee members and witnesses repeatedly sought clarification during the hearing about the exact criminal classifications and whether the proposed sentences align with other states' laws.

Supporters and advocacy groups pressed two main points: that consumer DNA testing has exposed long-running cases of misattributed parentage, and that current federal rules only require communicable-disease screening of donors, not verification of donor identity or background. Cara, a cofounder of the nonprofit Right to Know, told the committee that she tracks similar statutes nationwide and that the discovery-based statute-of-limitations approach in the bills is common: "the statute of limitations starts after the discovery is made," she said, noting 14 states with comparable laws and a typical five-year penalty.

Victims and clinicians emphasized the human and clinical consequences. Lynn Weiner Spencer, a nurse and psychologist who testified she discovered she was donor conceived at age 35, said she has "82 DNA confirmed half siblings" from one donor and described how widespread misattributed parentage has become since consumer genetics services proliferated.

Opponents — including Stephanie Jones, president of the Michigan Fertility Alliance — urged the committee to reject the package as written. Jones described the bills as "vague" and "overreaching," arguing they could hold physicians criminally liable for information a donor does not know or cannot verify, including extended family medical histories or social-history items. "Under this bill package a physician would be criminally liable if a donor fails to accurately report the medical history of their first, second, or third degree relatives," Jones said, calling that standard "almost an impossible standard." She warned that clinics could stop offering donor services or leave the state if the legal risks are broad.

Several lawmakers asked whether the bills would criminalize ordinary inaccuracies or human error. Witnesses and sponsors repeatedly emphasized that the bills are intended to target intentional deception and that prosecutorial discretion would limit weak or marginal cases: prosecutors, sponsors said, would assess when discovery and evidence support criminal charges. The Attorney General's office was referenced as having been consulted in drafting.

Committee members also pressed sponsors about statutory details such as the discovery trigger for the statute of limitations and the specific classification of felonies described in testimony; sponsors said they would provide the committee with statutory language and explanatory notes.

No committee vote was taken during the hearing. Representatives Roth and Saint Germain said they hope to advance the bills this term and that they will provide additional technical clarifications to address drafting concerns raised by medical and advocacy witnesses.

What happens next: The bills remain under committee consideration; sponsors indicated they will supply follow-up information on penalty classifications, statute-of-limitations language and other drafting questions raised at the hearing.