We passed two abortion bills on the House floor yesterday.  My remarks follow.

First Statement

I rise to explain my vote.

When we as a body last considered this momentous issue thirty-one years ago, my niece, Rachel, was six years old; she is now the mother of two wonderful kids, Liv and Ivy.

But the issue before us is the same fundamental issue that we faced – and the voters then faced – thirty years ago:  who decides?  Should it be a decision, this momentous decision . . . should it be a decision that the woman makes in consultation with the people whom she chooses to seek advice from?  Or should the State intervene at any stage . . . whenever?

We reached a balance, as the Court did in Roe.  We said that prior to viability, this is a decision for the woman to make.  And it is very restrictive after that.  It is not abortion on demand.

The one thing that has changed is our health care system.  One of the things that I’ve learned serving on HGO [the Health and Government Operations Committee], is that our health care system today provides far more access to most women – most Marylanders – than it did thirty years ago.  What this bill does is try to address that gap, so that every woman in this state is treated equally.

I, once again, urge a green vote.

(Note:  I spoke of Rachel, Liv, and Ivy but I was also thinking of being in Grandma’s hotel room in NYC the night that Cronkite announced that Roe v Wade had been handed down; my aunt’s 60th birthday party in 1991, where she announced to her friends that I was the floor leader for the vote to codify Roe the next day; and, of course, Mother’s influence on my thinking.)

 

Second Statement

If I may make two points regarding the comments by my friend the Minority Whip.

First, the key phrase in this proposed constitutional amendment is that the state can intervene, can restrict, the abortion only if it’s furthering a compelling state interest.  Well, if there’s ever a compelling state interest, it’s the First Amendment and free speech.  And if I heard my colleague correctly, he indicated that this amendment would inhibit free speech, so that is not the case.

I would also say that the basis of the decision in Roe is not from out of nowhere; the basis of the decision is the privacy right, which was first articulated by then Professor Brandeis, future Justice Brandeis.  So it is protecting that right and furthering that right at a time at a time when there are now members of the Court who believe that we should go further and then strike down Roe, but to enshrine as a constitutional right, the right to life of the fetus.

So this constitutional amendment is before you in light, as well, of that real prospect.