Del. Lesley Lopez sponsorsed HB 930, which would create a grant fund to help expand abortion access. The bill is part of the priority legislation for the The Women Legislators of Maryland. (Danielle J. Brown/Maryland Matters)
Marylanders overwhelmingly voted in support of enshrining reproductive rights into the state constitution back in November, but that doesn’t mean the debate ended on Election Day.
A slew of abortion-related bills from both sides of the issue were heard over an afternoon of testimony Thursday before the House Health and Government Operations Committee. It started with a bill that would tap into around $25 million to expand abortion services, from a fund collected by Affordable Care Act insurers, and ended with a handful of bills from anti-abortion Republicans that have not made it out of committee in recent years.
Despite the outcome of the reproductive freedom ballot question last year, both sides on Thursday claimed their bills to be what Marylanders want it comes to abortion.
“Abortion has long been used as a political football,” Del. Lesley Lopez (D-Montgomery) said in opening remarks for House Bill 930. “But the truth it clear. It is widely supported across political parties: 76% of Marylanders supported adding full reproductive access to our Constitution.”
Her bill would utilize money that has been collecting dust for around 15 years. A requirement in the Affordable Care Act, it prompts insurers collect a $1 premium per person per month that can only be used for abortion services.
Lopez says that over the course of 15 years, the fund has accumulated some $25 million, which could be used to provide abortion coverage for uninsured or underinsured individuals. Her bill would create a grant fund with those dollars to do so.
She noted that Maryland plays a unique role in the post-Dobbs-decision world, as the state is considered a safe haven for those seeking abortions coming from states that have restricted or even banned abortions.
“An unpredictable patchwork of rights and restrictions force our urgent attention,” Lopez said. “Our work is more important now than ever before.”
But some Republican lawmakers and anti-abortion advocates think Maryland should take a cue from states like Texas and restrict abortion access when doctors can hear the “fetal heartbeat,” which can be as early as six weeks of gestation, according to state analysts.
Del. Ric Metzgar (R-Baltimore County) is sponsoring House Bill 108, which would require a physician to listen for a fetal heartbeat before administering an abortion, which would be prohibited if a heartbeat is heard except under certain circumstances. Metzgar was not able to introduce the bill himself, so his chief of staff, Paul Blitz, presented the bill to the committee.
Jonathan Alexandre, legislative counsel for the Maryland Family Institute, argued that the heartbeat is the “indisputable” sign of life.
“So much happens with the engine that is our heart,” he said in support of the bill. “And it is the scientifically proven, indisputable way for us to know that there are signs of life within that child, within that human. It is the uninterrupted, universal sign of life. The only thing that does interrupt that heartbeat, legally in the state, is an abortionist’s scalpel or an abortion pill, meant to stop that child’s heartbeat.”
The hearing moved swiftly on the restrictive bills, with only a couple advocates speaking in support of each bill.
Two Republican-backed bills take issue with the state’s lack of reporting abortion data to federal officials, and offered to change that with legislation to require data collection on abortions in the state.
House Bill 1357 is sponsored by Del. Teresa E. Reilly (R-Cecil and Harford), who could not make the hearing due to a family conflict. Del. Thomas S. Hutchinson (R-Middle Shore), introduced the bill in her stead, which would require the Department of Health to collect data on the costs of birth, postpartum care, pregnancy care, and abortion in the state.
Laura Bogley, executive director for Maryland Right to Life, emphasized that the bill would not restrict anyone’s access to an abortion.
“It would advance women’s reproductive health care by enabling the state to accurately measure the degree of which public investments in reproductive health care are actually serving the needs of pregnant women and their families,” Bogley said. “It has no bearings on a woman’s access to abortion.”
Del. Robin Grammer (R-Baltimore County) introduced House Bill 373, which would have the state report data to the annual Abortion Surveillance report issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Maryland is one of only four states that does not participate, along with California, New Hampshire and New Jersey.
Sources like the Guttmacher Institute track abortion data in Maryland. According to Guttmacher, more than 30,000 abortions occurred in Maryland in 2020. But those in support of Grammer’s legislation say that Maryland should contribute to the federal dataset.
Jeffrey S. Trimbath, president of the Maryland Family Institute, argues that data collection is valuable regardless of whether someone is pro-abortion or anti-abortion.
“Regardless of which side of the debate you’re on, you should want good data,” Trimbath said. “How many abortions are taking place in Maryland? Are there certain neighborhoods, economic groups, ethnic groups in which abortions are taking place more than others?
“Are there correlational indicators that inform this practice — such as the number of previous abortions, number of live births, the person’s marital status?” he asked. “All of these are important questions that could inform good policy on either side of this issues.”