The news that the Arizona Supreme Court has upheld an 1864 law outlawing abortion from the moment of conception (except to save a mother’s life), while also making abortion a felony (punishable by two to five years in prison for anyone who procures or assists with one) sent a shock wave last week through the nation. How could a 160-year-old law make any sense in the twenty-first century? Many have pointed out how vastly conditions have changed since 1864: women have achieved the right to vote; Arizona has become a U.S. state; medical advances have taught us more about women’s reproductive health; technology has enabled the widespread use of birth control. But what has not changed? 

In my first book, Thinking about Women, (published forty years ago), I wrote that in the mid-19th century abortion was becoming an increasingly common phenomenon, especially among White, married, Protestant women. Abortion was big business and becoming increasingly commercialized. One noted woman entrepreneur, Madame Restell, earned an enormous income from her abortion products and spent as much as $60,000 per year on advertising alone. As both the drug industry and medical profession were growing in the second half of the nineteenth century, companies could become very profitable by seizing control of the abortion market. But midwives, the majority of whom were indigenous and Black women, would have to go. The medical profession actively spread propaganda and promoted state laws that restricted the practice of abortion to medical men (and I do mean men). An organization in 1857 called the Physicians Crusade against Abortion urged all states to pass anti-abortion laws. Many did.

As I pointed out in Thinking about Women, these changes were fueled by mid-19th century shifts in the class, racial, and ethnic structure of American life. Physicians were not only incensed by the flagrant commercialization of abortion, but they also feared that the growing rate of abortion among the middle and upper classes would cause immigrants, Black people, and the poor to outbreed White people. According to historian James Mohr, spurred by the growth of Social Darwinism and an increasing nativist movement, the antiabortion crusade appealed to racist fears and portrayed abortion as the work of criminals, backward medical professionals, and immoral social agents. Thus, between 1860 and 1880 and continuing through the first three-quarters of the twentieth century, antiabortion policies included strict criminal laws about abortion and put absolute control of abortion in the hands of the medical profession. 

Until Roe v. Wade in 1973, women seeking abortions and their accomplices were guilty of murder, abortion was defined as a criminal act, and the distribution of abortion information was illegal. Before Roe v. Wade, the death rate from abortion (both legal and illegal) was high—negligible now. Public moralizing that defined abortion in terms of religious beliefs only emerged later and not until about the 1970s. 

I do not for a minute believe that the justices of the Arizona Supreme Court had this history in mind—or, for that matter, that they thought much about who and why women have abortions today. But I do know that, once again, we face the prospect of a new eugenicist movement fueled by widespread fears that White people will soon become a smaller proportion of the U.S. population. Ironically, I also know, based on CDC data, that nationally and in Arizona, women of color are those most likely to have abortions, as are young women of any race or ethnicity. Are current restrictions on abortion a covert way of promoting more white births? 

Generally, we no longer question the value of medical science to inform and manage abortion care. Now the vast majority (75%, according to a Washington Post poll) say decisions about abortion should be left to women and their doctors and I agree. Abortion politics are clearly being partially fought based on religious beliefs, but the Arizona law broadens our perspective to help us understand how the fight for women’s reproductive freedom must be linked to the ongoing fight for racial justice, immigration rights, and the control all women should have over their own bodies. 

Dr. Margaret L. Andersen is the Edward F. and Elizabeth Goodman Rosenberg Professor Emerita of Sociology at the University of Delaware and a resident of Oxford.

In the halls of power in Annapolis, where political tides ebb and flow with the speed and unpredictability of the Chesapeake Bay itself, a definitive powerful force has emerged. It is a force that has not only shaped the outcomes of the 2024 Maryland Legislative Session but has also cemented its place as the most powerful voice in the state’s political landscape. That force is none other than House Speaker Adrienne Jones.

As we await the inevitable lists of winners and losers from this year’s session, one thing is abundantly clear: Governor Moore and Senate President Ferguson may hold their respective offices, but it is Speaker Jones who stands tall as the true victor. In the often-turbulent waters of Maryland politics, Jones has proven herself to be a skilled navigator, steering her chamber through the treacherous currents of competing interests and partisan divides with a patient, steady hand.

Regardless of one’s personal stance on her agenda, there is no denying the sheer effectiveness with which Speaker Jones wielded her power. From the outset of the session, she set forth her vision and agenda for Maryland, and seemingly against all odds, she has managed to translate much of that vision into tangible legislative victories. Whether it is tackling pressing issues like education reform, juvenile justice or navigating complex budget negotiations, Jones has consistently demonstrated an unparalleled ability to not only lead but to deliver results.

What sets Speaker Jones apart from her recent predecessors is not just her legislative prowess but her mastery of the political game. In a state where power dynamics are often fluid and alliances shift like sand, Jones has managed to consolidate her influence in a way that few before her have accomplished. Through a combination of strategic maneuvering and shrewd negotiation, she has emerged as the undisputed architect of the Annapolis political agenda.

But perhaps most importantly, Speaker Jones has done all of this while staying true to her principles and remaining deeply connected to the needs of her constituents. In an era marked by divisive rhetoric, Jones has shown that effective leadership is not about scoring political points or advancing personal agendas but about serving and representing the interests of all Marylanders.

Make no mistake: Speaker Adrienne Jones is not just a powerful figure in Annapolis; she is a transformative leader whose influence will be felt for years to come. Whether you agree with her politics or not, there’s no denying the indelible mark she has left on the Maryland political landscape. As we reflect on the outcomes of the 2024 legislative session, let us remember that true power is not measured by titles or positions but by the ability to effect meaningful change. And in that regard, Speaker Jones stands head and shoulders above the rest.

Clayton A. Mitchell, Sr. is an attorney who resides on the Eastern Shore.

Editor’s note: journalist and filmmaker Scott Rensberger has lived part-time in Oxford for the last eight years quite contently for most of that time. But last year, when a simple inquiry about a stormwater flood gate near his home went unanswered after several attempts to reach Town Hall, Scott began increasingly worried about the town’s management and commitment to transparency.

More recently, after a community debate on the actual salary of the town manager, he faced a similar stonewall when requesting the precise compensation figure for the position. His response was to use his background as a professional storyteller to highlight his concerns.

This video is approximately nine minutes in length.

Cambridge’s City Manager, Tom Carroll, resigned Monday over what he says is a lack of progress in changing the direction advanced by the Cambridge Waterfront Development Inc. (CWDI) for Cambridge Harbor. Mr. Carroll is the second City Manager to leave under this City Council in less than 3 years.  So, what is CWDI and what are the problems?

CWDI is an independent non-profit agency set up in 2018 and funded by the City, the County and the State.  The members of the board of CWDI were appointed (not elected) by the three entities. The purpose of CWDI is to oversee the development of the approximately 35 acres of land where the old hospital was on the Choptank River.  By creating a single entity such as CWDI, the City, County and State allow developers to deal with just one agency instead of having to deal with the three different governmental entities.  This idea has been used all over the US to develop areas but usually agencies such as CWDI hire experienced, professional development companies. CWDI is trying to develop the property on its own.

Our CWDI wants to set itself up as a permanent organization to handle all real estate, tax issues and maintenance in its area of control – very much like becoming a city within a city.  CWDI is setting up funding streams using increased real estate taxes to pay for employees’ salaries and maintenance operations.  This area of the City could have different codes and rules made by an appointed group and not by elected City officials.  CWDI would have a separate maintenance organization, separate equipment to maintain its properties and a separate marina which it will operate.

Our CWDI wants the City, County and State to put up over $50 million for infrastructure – sewers, electrical, streets, parks, parking lots, sidewalks, and public art, etc. before any companies have committed to the project.  The City would have to take out a huge loan of $33 million to net $22 million and would have to wait at least 30 years, if not more, to get paid back though increased taxes.  It is estimated that the City and County would, with interest, pay $60 million over the life of the loan (or $2 million a year between the governments).  

Keep in mind that even after the taxpayers have put up $60 million over 30 years for the Cambridge Harbor project, CWDI would, under their current proposal, still have a funding gap of millions. They would need to seek funding from other public subsidies or come back to the City for more funding to close this gap.

Our CWDI has an additional problem in that there is not enough “economic value” (taxable land) to make the project work financially for the City.  CWDI has set aside almost the entire waterfront from the bridge around to the Richardson Museum for nonprofit use.  In addition, they are planning to put the “Y” in the premier spot on the site.  (CWDI states that there is no deal with the Y but if you follow the money, CWDI has spent $5,000 on plans for developing the old “Y” site and the “Y” has spent $47,000 of the City’s ARPA funds on plans for the CWDI site). 

Our CWDI is very guarded with its information. It refuses to give the City pertinent information and is not cooperating with the City.  Therefore, we now have two amphitheaters being planned, one at the Packing House and one at Cambridge Harbor. The City will also have two marinas – the old City Marina, which is not full and needs a lot of work, and now a new proposed and taxpayer-subsidized marina at Cambridge Harbor.  It seems like there could be better coordination for multi-million-dollar projects like marinas and million-dollar projects like amphitheaters in a small City like Cambridge. 

Our CWDI does not provide the public with minutes of its meetings, detailed budgets or the details of its plans. CWDI has been in existence for over 5 years and has yet to announce one private company committing to the site.  Therefore, the City is being asked to develop the site with no tenants in sight.  It could be a very lonely, expensive place.   

There seem to be major problems with the CWDI, and the public does not know enough to make a fair assessment because the information needed is being held tightly.  I can only assume that if the City Manager finds it so troubling that he feels he needs to resign, then the City Council should take action and lay out the issues to the citizens.

What can you do?  Contact your City and County Council representatives and tell them to withhold any funds until all the issues are worked out in open sessions.  Enough of this closed-door decision-making – let the light shine in and let the citizens know what is going on.

Chuck McFadden is the president of the Cambridge Association of Neighborhoods.

In a notable twist of political dynamics, Governor Wes Moore, a fellow Democrat, finds himself at odds with members of his own party in the Maryland House of Delegates over budget priorities. Moore, who has consistently pledged not to raise taxes, now faces the daunting prospect of vetoing a budget bill proposed by fellow Democrats that would do just that. This predicament underscores a deeper rift within the party and raises questions about the alignment of fiscal policies with Democratic principles.

Governor Moore’s $63.1 billion budget proposal marks a departure from conventional approaches, emphasizing fiscal restraint and economic revitalization without resorting to tax increases. As a former investment banker, Moore brings a keen understanding of budgetary intricacies and the imperative to align government spending with tangible outcomes. His commitment to fiscal responsibility resonates with many Marylanders who seek prudent management of taxpayer dollars.

However, the budget presented by Democratic lawmakers in the House of Delegates diverges sharply from Moore’s vision. Their proposal includes tax and fee hikes, directly contradicting Moore’s promise to voters and his principled stance against burdening Marylanders with additional taxes. For Moore, vetoing such a budget bill becomes his only recourse to uphold his pledge, setting the stage for a contentious showdown within the party.

The crux of the disagreement lies in differing approaches to addressing Maryland’s fiscal challenges. While Moore advocates for targeted spending cuts and strategic investments to spur economic growth, some Democratic legislators favor revenue-raising measures to bridge budget gaps. This ideological discord reflects broader debates within the Democratic Party about the role of taxation and government intervention in fostering economic prosperity.

Moreover, the House Democrats’ insistence on tax hikes disregards the potential consequences for Maryland’s economic competitiveness and affordability. Raising taxes could stifle business growth, deter investment, and exacerbate financial strain on households already grappling with rising costs of living. In essence, it’s a gamble with Maryland’s economic future that Moore, as Governor, cannot afford to take lightly.

As the budget proposal moves through the legislative process, Governor Moore faces a pivotal moment in his tenure. His commitment to fiscal prudence and his promise to voters hang in the balance, with vetoing a tax-increasing budget bill emerging as his only viable option. This decision carries significant political implications, shaping perceptions of Moore’s leadership and the Democratic Party’s priorities in Maryland.

In the end, the outcome of this budget battle will reverberate beyond partisan lines, impacting the lives of every Marylander. It’s a test of principles, leadership, and fiscal stewardship—one that Governor Moore must navigate with unwavering resolve and a steadfast commitment to the promises he made to the people of Maryland.

The author is an attorney who resides in Stevensville, Maryland.

In order to pay for upcoming structural deficits and increased spending in the Maryland operating and capital budgets, tax and fee increases have been informally discussed among some members of the General Assembly.  One such potential tax proposal is to increase the Maryland Sales and Use Tax.

In the ongoing discourse over whether to increase Maryland’s sales tax, a candid revelation from a Western Shore delegate about a decade ago offers a prescient glimpse into the prevailing sentiments within the state’s political landscape. The delegate’s straightforward admission, “Clay, if you think the urban delegations cares about Kent County, I’m going to tell you ‘No’ “, serves as a sobering reminder of the historical disparities between the Western and Eastern Shores. This revelation, shared with me approximately a decade ago, sheds light on the perennial struggle faced by the Eastern Shore in securing fair and equitable treatment in the halls of Annapolis.

As I reflected on this insight in an article I wrote for Center Maryland in December 2014 (“There’s a Blue Dog Room in Maryland’s Third Party”), the stark reality emerged that the Eastern Shore, with its old-style conservative Democrats and Republicans, finds itself vastly outnumbered by the progressive Western Shore Democrats who wield considerable influence in the state’s political landscape. The sentiment expressed by the Western Shore delegate encapsulates the prevailing attitude in Annapolis—one where the concerns of the Eastern Shore, particularly those related to the impact of undifferentiated tax policies on local businesses, are met with a dismissive “who cares” attitude from many progressive leaders.

It is against this backdrop that an increase in Maryland’s sales tax takes on a more sinister hue. The Eastern Shore, already grappling with a political climate that marginalizes its concerns, now faces the prospect of an additional economic hurdle in the form of a heightened sales tax. The notion that Eastern Shore residents would willingly pay a 6 ½ % to 7% premium to make purchases within Maryland, especially when the neighboring state of Delaware beckons with a tax-free haven, is a testament to the shortsightedness of such a tax policy.

To argue that Marylanders will voluntarily pay the “use tax” for their Delaware purchases that are imported into this state is laughable. The complexities of cross-border economic interactions, particularly with a state boasting a tax-free haven, belie the simplistic notion that such an increased Maryland sales tax adequately compensates for the financial burden placed on Maryland’s Eastern Shore residents.

The juxtaposition of economic trajectories between Middletown, Delaware, and Kent County, Maryland, further accentuates the potential consequences of a sales tax increase. While Middletown, Delaware experiences a surge in economic growth and prosperity, neighboring Kent County, Maryland languishes in stagnation. This stark divergence prompts a poignant question: Does anyone in Annapolis wonder why neighboring jurisdictions can experience such disparate economic outcomes when the areas share a geographical border?

The Eastern Shore’s economic interdependence with Delaware is a reality that cannot be ignored. As policymakers deliberate on tax policies, they must heed the warning signs from the past and recognize the consequences of an unjust burden on the Eastern Shore. A myopic focus on urban priorities at the expense of rural communities threatens the delicate balance of Maryland’s economic ecosystem.

In conclusion, a sales tax increase, when viewed through the lens of historical neglect and dismissive attitudes towards the Eastern Shore, reveals itself as a potentially divisive and detrimental policy. Annapolis must reckon with the reality that fair and equitable treatment of all Maryland residents, irrespective of their geographic location, is essential for fostering a thriving and united state. Only through thoughtful consideration and inclusive policymaking can Maryland hope to bridge the divide and create an environment where the economic well-being of all its residents is safeguarded.

Clayton Mitchell is an attorney who resides on the Eastern Shore

Who is ready for more sticker shock at the grocery store? Well…get ready. It’s going to happen right here in Maryland. 

On March 1, the Senate Committee on Education, Energy and the Environment voted favorably on Senate Bill 1, which means it will now go to the Senate for likely approval. If passed, it will end retail energy competition and choice in Maryland, and take us back to the days when everyone was forced to shop with the government-backed utilities. 

It’s arguably the most anti-business and anti-consumer bill I’ve ever seen brought before the General Assembly. And if possible, the bill has gotten even worse.

Amendments have been added to the bill that will prohibit a green energy producer from marketing “green energy” unless it has been approved as such by the Public Service Commission. Which must, according to the bill language, consider THE STATE WHERE THE RENEWABLE ENERGY WAS PRODUCED.

Here’s what this means:

There will be even more pressure to chew up Maryland farmland for the installation of solar panels. 

As a result, there will be fewer family farms producing less food for local consumption, and prices at the grocery store will go up even more than they already have.

That’s basic economics.

To summarize, we will be paying even more for our electricity because that’s what always happens in a monopoly.

And now we will pay more for our milk, bread, eggs and vegetables. 

This is a windfall for the big utilities and it is a land grab for big energy corporations. It is a punch in the gut for consumers who don’t need and cannot afford to deal with higher costs at the grocery store.

Senate Bill 1 is anti-business. It is anti-consumer. And it is anti-green energy. Please contact your senator and delegates today and ask them to tap the brakes and think this through before voting for a bad bill.

Len N. Foxwell is the principal of Tred Avon Strategies and the former chief of staff to Comptroller Peter V. R. Franchot

In the corridors of legislative power in Maryland, a bill looms large, bearing the ominous moniker Senate Bill 1 / House Bill 267. This legislative concoction threatens to strip away the cherished right of choice from Maryland’s electricity and natural gas consumers. The intended consequence? Cementing the dominion of utility monopolies while muffling the voice of the customer.

Baltimore Gas and Electric, among others, wields an iron grip over the market, a fact that evokes the ire of many consumers. Despite fervent opposition, BGE’s petition for a staggering three-year, $408 million rate hike found favor in December. If permitted, this would culminate in a jaw-dropping 30% monthly rate increase this year. Such unchecked control, it is plain to see, bodes ill for the ratepayers.

Cast your mind back to 1999 when Maryland’s lawmakers, in a gesture towards fostering consumer choice, ushered in legislation aimed at broadening the array of electricity options available. Yet, despite the ostensible diversity promised, the tentacles of utility monopolies still ensnare a staggering 80% of residential customers, leaving the notion of choice a mere chimera for many.

Advocates of Senate Bill 1 / House Bill 267, like former Maryland Governor Parris Glendening, tout its virtues in a recent online news publication, alleging that retail energy suppliers have raked in undue profits at the expense of the consumer. However, this narrative conveniently sidesteps the elephant in the room – the exorbitant profits amassed by utility monopolies, which then find their way into the coffers of organizations like “Power for Tomorrow,” serving as a haven for erstwhile regulators and governors in their advocacy pursuits.

A damning report from The Energy and Policy Institute unmasks the opaque machinations of Power for Tomorrow, revealing its aversion to any attempts at fostering competition in the utility sector. Under the guise of consumer advocacy, this Arlington-based cabal furtively advances the interests of corporate behemoths.

The former champion of consumer choice, Governor Glendening, merits accolades for his role in shepherding the Electric Customer Choice and Competition Act of 1999 into existence. However, his dalliance with Power for Tomorrow warrants scrutiny, exposing the veritable collusion between regulated utility monopolies and those ostensibly tasked with safeguarding consumer interests.

SB 1 stands poised to usher in a new era of monopoly hegemony under the pretense of consumer protection—a wolf in sheep’s clothing if ever there was one. Let it be known: the erosion of the competitive market is no panacea. I urge you to wield your voice and preserve your choice, lest the specter of utility monopolies cast its suffocating shadow over the landscape of consumer rights.

Clayton A. Mitchell, Sr. is an attorney who resides on the Eastern Shore