Maryland voters will have the chance to weigh in this fall on Question 1, a ballot measure that would amend the state constitution to enshrine “reproductive freedom,” a change supporters say will protect access to abortion, among other procedures.
But anti-abortion advocates say there’s a problem: The word “abortion” does not show up in the proposed amendment language.
That’s true. The word “abortion” will not appear on ballots this election cycle, even though the constitutional amendment is billed by advocates to protect one’s right to an abortion.
Opponents call that a legal loophole “you can drive a Mack Truck … through,” and have put forth any number of far-reaching possible scenarios the amendment could allow.
Supporters say opponents are just “making stuff up” to confuse voters on an issue that has overwhelming support – a recent poll said 69% of those surveyed plan to vote for Question 1, compared to 21% who will vote no. Even though the word abortion is not on ballot, they said, there’s no way the amendment can be interpreted otherwise.
Secretary of State Susan Lee certified the official ballot language in June. It states, in part, that “the proposed amendment confirms an individual’s fundamental right to reproductive freedom, including but not limited to the ability to make and effectuate decisions to prevent, continue or end the individual’s pregnancy.”
On July 16, Secretary of State Susan Lee certified ballot language for the Right to Reproductive Freedom referendum:“The proposed amendment confirms an individual’s fundamental right to reproductive freedom, including but not limited to the ability to make and effectuate decisions to prevent, continue or end the individual’s pregnancy, and provides the State may not, directly or indirectly, deny, burden or abridge the right unless justified by a compelling state interest achieved by the least restrictive means.”
Voters will choose between “For the Constitutional Amendment,” “Against the Constitutional Amendment,” or leave the question blank.
Erin Bradley, chair of Freedom in Reproduction-Maryland (FIRM), said supporters would have preferred the term “abortion” be used in the ballot language, but it’s not a large issue for them.
“National polling experts have shared with me that when the word ‘abortion’ is in the language, it performs better,” she said. “So, we would have liked to have said, ‘You can prevent a pregnancy through birth control, you can end a pregnancy through abortion,’ but it doesn’t.”
Bradley said the ballot measure, if successful, would still protect the right to an abortion even though it “doesn’t say it outright.”
“The ballot language speaks to the person having the right to make and effectuate their own decisions about preventing a pregnancy – so that covers birth control. About maintaining their pregnancy unfettered – so staying pregnant as they would like and starting a life as they would like. Or to end a pregnancy – which covers abortion,” Bradley said.
Anti-abortion advocates counter that the ballot measure is not limited to just abortions but “paves the way for all kinds of” other medical procedures, according to Jeffrey Trimbath, president of the Maryland Family Institute.
Mail-in voting has already started and almost 70% of Marylanders in a recent poll said they are broadly in support of “adding an individual’s right to reproductive freedom to the Maryland state constitution.” That leaves Trimbath and other opponents with a steep climb to convince a majority of Marylanders to vote against Question 1.
They have latched onto the fact that “abortion” doesn’t appear in the amendment language “because, fundamentally, it’s not about abortion.”
“It’s about undermining parental rights,” he said.
Trimbath and other anti-abortion organizations, like Maryland Right to Life and Health Not Harm MD, say the ballot measure does not explicitly exclude minors, and would overstep a parent’s ability to “influence the health care decision of their kids, and that includes abortion,” he said.
He also argues that the bill language would include gender-affirming care by “being able to take away reproductive function.”
“And that certainly is in the transgender space, where you have hormones and surgeries that do these things,” Trimbath said. “The fact that the word ‘abortion’ doesn’t appear tells us it’s not primarily about that subject, it’s about undermining parental rights.”
He said that as written, the ballot initiative isn’t clear on “what it includes or doesn’t include.”
“‘Including but not limited to…’ My goodness, you can drive a Mack Truck, legally speaking, through that phrase,” Trimbath said. “So we think that this just paves the way for all kinds of things.
“We don’t know what it includes or doesn’t include,” he said. “And you can try to guess, but I would take the amendment at its word – at its expansive ordinance.”
Katie Curran O’Malley, retired Baltimore City District Court judge and current executive director of the Women’s Law Center of Maryland, agrees that the ballot language is broad, but says it is “not vague at all.”
“People get hung up on that sentence that says it confirms an individual’s fundamental right to reproductive freedom ‘including but not limited to,’” she said. “And then they just start making stuff up and saying that means there’s maybe gender-affirming care.
“Not using the word ‘abortion’ is intended to reflect the broad sort of reproductive health services that people need to have protected, that are being attacked now,” O’Malley said. “I would argue that this language is not vague at all – it is broad though. It has to capture those large number of reproductive services that people want to have.”
She noted that while transgender individuals may still need access to abortion and other services, gender-affirming care is separate from reproductive health care.
“It says clearly in the amendment – decisions to prevent, continue or end an individual’s pregnancy… all of those reproductive health services which are completely different from gender-affirming care,” she said.
Bradley with FIRM said the ballot initiative does not cover gender-affirming care or override current state law about minors receiving medical care without parental consent.
“What this does not do: it does not change anything in existing law or statute about parental notification, who can and cannot give or provide an abortion, it doesn’t change any of the medical standards or any of the practices related to the provision of health care,” she said. “Only that no one can interfere with your right to have that health care.”
But Trimbath counters a change to the Maryland Constitution would trump state statute.
“Since it … will amend our state’s constitution, by definition, it will be the supreme law of the land. It will supersede every other state statute having to do for health care with minors,” he said.
Sharon Blugis, founder and legislative director of Reproductive Justice Maryland, says opponents are clutching at straws, and she is not surprised they are looping parental rights concerns and transgender issues in to their arguments against the amendment.
“This is their MO — it’s what they do. It’s the same stuff over and over and over and over. Doesn’t have to be true for them to do it,” she said. “There is not one iota or anything that would allow a child to have any kind of sex operation.”
“It’s outrageous, but it works. It won’t hit in this state as much as it will in Ohio, Missouri or Florida,” she said. “But it gets people all worked up if they’ve never actually read the bill … or the ballot language.”
By Danielle J. Brown
William Keppen says
I, for one, have had enough of those people who demand to rule over a woman’s healthcare and reproductive freedom. Mind your own damn business.
Dr Jim Kelly and David Montgomery says
This article appears to present both sides but gives only brief and weak account of the reason I and many others oppose the Amendment.
Ballot Question # 1 for Maryland voters to vote on this October-November 2024 in the general election will in fact OUTLAW PARENT RIGHTS -if passed. Drafters of this Constitutional Amendment hid this fact by calling it the “Right to Reproductive Freedom Amendment”. This amendment does nothing to expand, protect, or improve any reproductive rights or treatments for adults.
What this amendment actually does is empower the government to override parent rights and to do “gender transitions” on young children without parent knowledge or consent. By clever design this constitutional amendment avoids using the word “adult” and uses the word” individual” so that this specifically targets CHILDREN OF ANY AGE and is designed to destroy
parent rights.
If we voters do not vote against and defeat Ballot Question # 1 then any anxious, stressed, or confused child can mention to a “provider” questions about their gender and that “provider” (who does not need to be a doctor, or psychologist and does not even need to be licensed) can then activate the “gender transition” process without parental notification or consent.
Children who currently cannot legally be given aspirins or vitamins without their parents’ consent can get “sex change” drugs and permanent “sex change” genital mutilation surgeries initiated through school clinics or any “provider” without their parents’ knowledge or consent.
There will be NOTHING that a parent can do to stop it. Parents, Families or others who risk rescuing children from this fate will be considered criminals and can lose custody of their children because parents will be violating this new right. Similar anti-parent laws are now the law in California, Michigan, Ohio and Vermont and 10 other states are proposing similar legislation. This crisis is not hypothetical, parents who opposed government’s and provider’s decision to “gender transition” their children are currently losing custody of their children.
If you believe that parents -not government, not providers -should raise their own children then you need to vote NO – vote against Question # 1 – Constitutional Amendment the Right to Reproductive Freedom amendment that will be on the general election ballot this October- November 2024.
Deirdre LaMotte says
Just leave the lies aside. No one is forcing Molly to be a man or Michael to be a girl.
Yes, I understand it is difficult to leave Opus Dei in one’s own belief system without imposing on others.
However here in the
21st century, most women do not not like being incubators for theocratic purposes and demand
their body is their own. It is not yours nor GOPs.
Mind your own damn business.
Barbara Denton says
David and Jim are correct. Vote no on Question 1. Protect your parental rights. This question has nothing to do with abortion.
Robert Douglass says
I already voted and fully support the language of the amendment as a protection for all Marylanders against the radical right and their desire to control women and their bodies at all cost, mainly based on THEIR religious beliefs, not those of the pregnant woman. Shameful what the former president and his right wing justices did to take away the rights of women to make their choices about their bodies.
On July 16, Secretary of State Susan Lee certified ballot language for the Right to Reproductive Freedom referendum:“The proposed amendment confirms an individual’s fundamental right to reproductive freedom, including but not limited to the ability to make and effectuate decisions to prevent, continue or end the individual’s pregnancy, and provides the State may not, directly or indirectly, deny, burden or abridge the right unless justified by a compelling state interest achieved by the least restrictive means.”
If anyone would like to learn the full story of this decades long strategy to strip woman’s rights since Roe, I strongly recommend reading “The Fall of Roe” by Elizabeth Dias and Lisa Lerner.
After reading that book, my deduction is that those in the anti-abortion side of the argument will stop at nothing, absolutely nothing, to further their perceived righteous cause of anti-abortion that 70% of Americans do not believe in and do support a woman’s right to choose as do I.
Don’t insult us with the legalese word salad card of “driving a Mack Truck through the language” versus the real issue, codifying a woman’s right to choose. This is not about parent’s rights or minors getting gender affirming care.
For Dr. Jim Kelly, are you an OB/GYN who has cared for women to the point of death before administering life saving care or is your specialty elsewhere in the healthcare field that makes you an expert on law associated with gender affirming care or parental rights in medical decision making?
Thank you for considering adding your additional response on these topics and any precedent for the Maryland Amendment language and elsewhere in America where you claim these negative results will occur?
Robert Douglass
St. Michaels
Michael Davis says
I don’t believe that parents should kill their kids or torture them or rape them or cut their limbs off or deny them an education. There is a LOT of stuff that is illegal for parents to do in the United States. Mostly because parents have been killing and oppresing their children since our country was founded.
I have no problem with the government having a say about how parents raise their children. Children all over the world wish they had the government protections that children have here.