LaPortas urge Michigan lawmakers to back ‘Queenie’s Law’

Detroit Lions tight end Sam LaPorta and his wife, Callie, have asked Michigan lawmakers to pass bipartisan legislation aimed at prohibiting painful experiments on dogs at public institutions, citing controversial studies at Wayne State University. The couple sent a letter to lawmakers in Lansing urging them to advance the measure, known as “Queenie’s Law,” which supporters say would stop taxpayer-funded experiments that cause suffering for dogs.

Why the push matters

The campaign joins advocacy from the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine and others who argue that publicly funded dog experiments should end. Supporters point to testimony and surgical procedures involving a beagle identified as Dog 3003 as evidence that the bill is needed to protect animals and public dollars.

What happened and when

LaPorta and his wife put their names and public profile behind a letter sent to Lansing lawmakers, framing the issue as both urgent and broadly popular. “We are writing as dog lovers and proud residents of Michigan, whose people have warmly embraced us since moving here. Our reason for writing is urgent and exciting you have the power to advance lifesaving, popular and bipartisan legislation,” Sam LaPorta wrote in the letter.

Records and testimony in the case of Dog 3003 span several months: witnesses gave testimony between November 2023 and March 2024, surgeries on that animal were performed in April and May 2024, and a final surgery took place in August 2024. Former research staff described prolonged distress: “Dog 3003 continued to cry, likely in pain and/or distress, for six hours,” said Sally Christopher, a former research veterinarian.

Those timelines and accounts are central to the argument advanced by the bill’s backers, who say the combination of testimony and surgical records demonstrates unacceptable harm to animals in taxpayer-supported research.

Voices on both sides

Advocates have framed the LaPortas’ involvement as a high-profile boost to an existing campaign led in part by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. “Michigan’s dogs are lucky to have Sam and Callie on their side. Taxpayers shouldn’t be forced to foot the bill for painful, dead-end dog experiments,” said Ryan Merkley, Director of Research Advocacy at the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine.

At the same time, Wayne State University has defended its research programs. “Over the 30-plus-year history of this research at Wayne State, there have been numerous scientific advancements that have been added to the body of scientific knowledge of cardiovascular physiology,” said Dr. Michael Bradley, a researcher and attending veterinarian at Wayne State University.

Other experts urge a transition away from animal models toward newer methods. “A lot of my work involves transitioning away from animal research to new methods like AI and organs-on-a-chip, and I believe that this bill will help us do that,” said Dr. Paul Locke, an environmental health scientist and professor at Johns Hopkins University.

Legislative progress and next steps

The push in Lansing comes as a House bill related to the issue advanced out of committee on Oct. 30. Supporters describe the measure as bipartisan and aimed specifically at prohibiting painful experiments at public institutions, while some universities, including Michigan State University and the University of Michigan, have been listed among institutions opposing the bills.

Lawmakers playing central roles in the Michigan Legislature include House Speaker Matt Hall and Senate Majority Leader Winnie Brinks, as well as individual legislators such as Senator Paul Wojno and Representative Joe Aragona, each of whom are part of the legislative environment where the bill will continue to be considered.

Organizations involved

The campaign includes the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, which has publicly promoted the LaPortas’ appeal and broader advocacy work; Wayne State University, identified as the site of the controversial dog studies; and universities listed as opposing the bills, including Michigan State University and the University of Michigan. The effort combines testimony from former research staff with policy advocacy and public outreach by allies.

For more on the LaPortas’ letter and the advocacy campaign, see the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine’s release on the matter on the organization’s website.

Personal accounts and testimony

Former and current researchers have given sharply different accounts of the programs at issue. Sally Christopher, who worked as a research veterinarian, emphasized the animal experience in testimony: “Anyone who’s experienced a rapidly pounding heart knows how uncomfortable that is. Imagine experiencing that every day for weeks,” she said.

Supporters of the bill say that the combination of firsthand testimony, surgical records, and the lengthy timeline of procedures on Dog 3003 justify a policy change. Local coverage and reporting have followed the story as lawmakers weigh the legislation; one recent account appeared in local media at MLive.

Advocates also point to broader conversations in scientific and advocacy circles about alternatives to animal research. The Physicians Committee has published materials discussing barriers and pathways to shifting away from animal studies in a separate briefing.

What comes next in Lansing

With the House bill having advanced out of committee on Oct. 30, the measure will need further consideration in the legislative process before becoming law. Supporters are pressing lawmakers in Lansing to act on the measure, while opponents among some research institutions continue to push back. The LaPortas’ letter and public advocacy add a prominent voice to a debate that mixes scientific, ethical and taxpayer considerations.

Source

Original reporting: view the original article.