Our rights shouldn’t be denied

The Catholic archbishop of Baltimore opposes Question 1, enshrining women’s rights in the state constitution. He wants to encourage Catholics to vote against it. He is, of course, fully entitled to do so. However, his efforts to impose his religious views on the state’s laws are incompatible with biblical teachings, and it is disappointing to see a man of faith fall so far from the good book. For Jesus says, “Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s” (Mark 12:17), the earliest known advice to keep the affairs of church and state separate.

The archbishop should continue to follow his beliefs and to advise the 15% of Marylanders who are Catholic to avoid abortions, IVF and contraception. But he should recognize that our state constitution applies to everyone else, too. We should not be denied our rights just because the archbishop believes they are not for him.

— Fergal Mullally, Baltimore

A tool of deception

A newly formed committee has launched its campaign to oppose Maryland’s “Right to Reproductive Freedom” ballot initiative, set to appear on November’s ballot. Deborah Brocato, a resident of Fallston, founded the state ballot group “Health Not Harm MD” to challenge the proposed constitutional amendment.

As an African-American resident of Baltimore, I believe the sponsors of this amendment are using abortion as a deceptive tool to erode parental rights, particularly in the Black community. The language of the measure is ambiguous and could easily confuse voters, leading them to unknowingly support provisions that extend far beyond reproductive rights. Maryland residents should strongly oppose this initiative, as it is less about abortion and more about introducing access to sex change surgeries for minors without parental oversight.

I firmly oppose this amendment, and I urge others to join in opposition. It represents an attempt to undermine family structures and diminish parental authority, with Maryland potentially becoming a hub for sex change surgeries for minors.

The proposed amendment asserts an individual’s fundamental right to reproductive freedom, including the ability to make decisions regarding pregnancy, and states that the government cannot deny or burden this right unless justified by a compelling state interest achieved through the least restrictive means. However, the amendment fails to define key terms, including reproductive freedom, and sets no minimum age requirement.

Without clear age limits or parental consent provisions, this amendment could allow minors to access gender-affirming care without parental involvement or approval. The lack of defined parameters raises serious concerns about how these rights will be applied and regulated in Maryland law.

In its current form, this amendment threatens to strip away critical parental rights and protections. Marylanders should carefully consider the full implications of this measure and vote to oppose it in November.

— Christopher Anderson, Baltimore

The letter writer is a member of the Baltimore City Republican Central Committee and is running for election to the Baltimore City Council.

Reproductive freedom is on the ballot

Had the Supreme Court not overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, there would be no need for Question 1. Over 50 years ago, the passing of Roe enshrined the right to an abortion nationwide and nullified each state’s ability to legislate on the issue. I believe this was a huge mistake by the highest court, and it has divided the country in dangerous ways.

The reality of abortion is shocking, and I deplore the procedure, yet I recognize there are extenuating circumstances. Sadly, Catholic Archbishop William E. Lori disagrees, along with other church leaders. However, if he had read or heard of the horror stories taking place around the country, he might not be so resolute. As a woman, I consider my health and life God-given, and should an abortion be necessary to save either, it is right to do. As an example, in Missouri abortion has been completely banned since June 24, 2022, with the limited exception to the law being to save the pregnant person’s life or prevent risk of serious harm to the pregnant person’s physical health. It is required that patients go to in-person counseling and wait 72 hours before undergoing the procedure. In other words, if a woman suffers a life-threatening miscarriage, she should wait that length of time before a doctor can save her life. There have been documented gruesome cases. Due to the Missouri law and others, voters in Maryland find it necessary to protect our health and life should a nationwide ban be legislated. That is why the Right to Reproductive Freedom is on the ballot. If Catholics are divided about the question, then they should skip it.

We have taken Roe v. Wade for granted, and if people studied the pre-existing statutes in other U.S. states, they’d be horrified. I’m ashamed to live in a nation where doctors are so frightened they will allow a woman who is dying to postpone the procedure for three days and receive counseling before treating her.

— Rosalind Ellis, Baltimore

Question 1 is about more than abortion

I am writing in response to The Sun’s Oct. 11 article entitled “What Is Question 1, Maryland’s Only Statewide Ballot Initiative?” The author states that “though the word ‘abortion’ is not explicitly used in the question, it is an implied protection under the right to end a pregnancy.”

Retired Judge Katie Curran O’Malley insists that concerns the amendment could allow for gender transitioning for minors, without the knowledge or consent of parents, are invalid because the amendment “has nothing to do with sexual transition.” O’Malley seems to be suggesting that the wording used in the amendment, i.e. “reproductive freedom,” precludes the possibility that such a freedom encompasses gender transitioning.

But if the amendment really is just about abortion, why not use that word explicitly? It seems to me that the generic term “reproductive freedom” was used for a specific purpose, namely, because its intended vagueness allows for multiple interpretations. Word choice, especially in a proposed constitutional amendment, is monumentally important. Marylanders would do well to make sure that we are controlling the words in this ballot initiative, and not the words controlling us and our future.

— Ann Dowling, Davidsonville

Women have the ultimate right to choose

As a gay man who is celebrating my 30th wedding anniversary with my husband this week, it might seem unusual that I am responding to the article, “Maryland Catholics divided over abortion as vote on ‘Reproductive Freedom Amendment’ draws near (October 13).” Catholic Marylanders are divided on their support of the proposal. Indeed, Archbishop Lori wrote, “We should work to create a culture where no woman feels as though she must choose between the life of her child and a bright future.”

It would be good that terminations of pregnancies be a rare event, where most pregnancies are brought to term in families who can provide a safe, loving environment to a new child. But who gets to decide when that is possible? Some pregnancies are overcome by medical complications that can threaten the health and the life of the fetus and the mother where termination is the best, but heartbreaking course of action. Some become pregnant not by their choice, either accidentally or by force. Some families face impossibly difficult economic situations that simply will not support another child. I cannot imagine the anguish that women feel when facing these challenges.

The church’s stance on creating a culture where all women feel safe bringing a pregnancy to term is a noble goal. I believe the church can continue to encourage that culture if the proposed amendment is passed. The amendment will support all who are affected by pregnancy and the choices that must be made. In making those choices, some may certainly turn to their church for guidance and others may seek help from health professionals, support organizations, and their own families.

Women have the ultimate right to choose how they will obtain reproductive health care and what their life path will be. Neither the Roman Catholic Church nor any other religion has the right to impose its doctrine on the general population.

I remember well the 2012 campaign that the Roman Catholic Church waged against gay citizens like me as we sought to have our marriages recognized and supported the same way as the marriages of our heterosexual families and friends. Fortunately, their quest was thwarted, and my marriage is recognized in Maryland and nationally. Given the church’s history of fights against “the other,” whether LGBTQ citizens or women, a constitutional guarantee for women’s reproductive health is in order. I hope you will join me in voting Yes for Question 1.

— Mike Bernard, Parkville

This amendment doesn’t change abortion in Md.

I would like to address your explanation of the abortion issue in the Election 2024 Top Issues section (Oct. 6). Question 1 on the ballot is not just about abortion. It does not use the word abortion nor is there a minimum age in the amendment. The constitutional amendment gives the state the power to fund any reproductive procedure at taxpayers’ expense, on minors without parental notification as “reproductive freedom.” This amendment changes nothing related to abortion in Maryland. Existing Maryland laws are already in place so that “abortion is permitted at any time of the pregnancy.” Not including these facts in your summary is misleading.

— Don Kemp, Columbia