right to choose – Sandy Rosenberg

But in Maryland, We Did

September 3, 2021 | by delsandy | Uncategorized | No Comments

“You can’t plan for a blatantly false or unconstitutional court ruling like this [Supreme Court decision on the Texas abortion law],” said Representative Conor Lamb of Pennsylvania, a Democrat who is running for his state’s open Senate seat next year.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/02/us/politics/scotus-abortion-decision.html

Pro-choice health care providers, activists, and legislators are now responding to the Supreme Court’s decision late Wednesday night.

How can the White House, the Congress, and state legislatures preserve a woman’s right to choose?

In Maryland, we did so thirty years ago.

Anticipating a case where the Court would weaken or eliminate the constitutional protections for abortion, we passed legislation that preserved the holding of Roe v. Wade in Maryland law.

Before a fetus is viable – capable of sustained survival outside the womb, the government may not intervene.

When the fetus is viable, an abortion can be performed in only a limited set of circumstances.

I was one of the leaders of this effort in the House of Delegates.

Next year, we will continue to protect the right to choose for all women, whatever their economic status.

March 22 – Nothing for granted, again

March 22, 2016 | by delsandy | Sandy's 2016 Legislative Diary | No Comments

I’ve given this speech before.

The topic was Medicaid funding for abortion. My first session in 1983, I was a floor whip for the pro-choice side.

The Republicans’ amendment would deny funding if the medical justification was the woman’s mental health.

I reminded my House colleagues that the voters of Maryland approved the law protecting a woman’s right to choose whether to have a child and to make that decision after consulting with the people she chooses.

Most of them knew that.

However, most of my students do not.

When we discuss abortion in my law school classes every fall, a majority of the class does not know that Senate Bill 162 – Abortion, was approved on referendum in 1992, 62-38%. Delegate Larry LaMotte and I were the lead sponsors of the House bill.

As I wrote yesterday about the legislative process, my students should take nothing for granted.

A principle and the principal’s office

March 26, 2014March 26, 2014 | by delsandy | featured, Sandy's 2014 Legislative Diary | No Comments

“The Speaker wants to see you in his office.”

A state trooper conveyed that message to me.

I was on the House floor, waiting for today’s floor session to begin.

Was I being summoned to the principal’s office?

Thankfully, not.

I had company –the leadership of the Appropriations Committee.

The State operating budget would be debated today. Amendments had been drafted to reduce Medicaid-funded abortions. I was asked to speak against them.

One amendment would eliminate abortions for mental health reasons; the other would prohibit third-trimester abortions.

The current language is nearly 40 years old.

When I was first here, we tried to expand the conditions when Medicaid would fund an abortion.

That effort failed. Then we enacted the Supreme Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade. The voters approved the bill on referendum in 1992.

When I spoke on the floor, I read from that law, which I had asked committee counsel to provide me after the Speaker’s office meeting.

The amendments failed, 48-84 (mental health), and 54-79 (3^rd trimester).

A friend and pro-choice lobbyist wrote, “Thanks as always for standing up for the right to choose this morning!”

“The right to choose means a lot to both of us,” I replied.

Someone else wrote, “What does it feel like to stand up to oppose the Medicaid abortion floor amendment for what feels like 20 straight years?”

When it means a great deal to you and you win, it still feels very good.

Making choices

March 22, 2012 | by delsandy | Sandy's 2012 Legislative Diary | No Comments

“A majority of low-income women oppose abortion.”

When one of my colleagues said that during the floor debate on her amendment to further restrict Medicaid funding for abortion, I rose to respond.

“It’s not a question of what a majority of poor women may or may not believe,” I declared. “It’s a decision for each individual woman to make with the people she chooses to consult.”

“For poor women, that choice is already limited by the existing language. We should reject this proposal.”

The amendment failed, 48-82.

The same number opposed a similar amendment last year. I know that because we had discussed it at our strategy meeting this morning.

—

During a discussion of the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act on Morning Joe today, Jeff Greenfield prefaced his remarks by saying, “It’s been a long while since I was in law school, and I never had a practice.”

My last semester in law school, Jeff was my co-professor for “Writing About the Law.” I was thinking about not taking the Bar and sought his advice.

“I had that conversation with my Jewish mother,” he responded.

He lived to tell the tale.

So did I.

Not taking the Bar was the best thing I never did.