Why are Maryland Dems so jubilant about expanding access to abortion?

State constitutional abortion amendment a ‘political mobilizing device’ for Democratic Party

Maryland has a liberal abortion law, unaffected by the

U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which found no right to abortion in the U.S. Constitution. Nonetheless, some are urging a state constitutional amendment (“Maryland House speaker files bill to create statewide referendum on abortion,” Feb. 8).

Why? The state Constitution, unlike the federal, is easily amendable. The effect would be to delay, for perhaps two years, any legislative change of mind, pending a referendum. Repeal of the present law could likewise be petitioned to referendum.

The constitutional amendment is being sought as a political mobilizing device for the Democratic Party. It hopes that a 2024 referendum will stimulate the apathetic young eager to protect the hookup culture, insulating the party from any reaction against inflation, foreign policy mistakes, police consent decrees and the non-operation of public schools. This justifies reviving “culture wars.”

But this carries with it serious cost. The Dobbs decision introduces, for the unsophisticated, uncertainty as to availability of abortions. Its effects are likely to be benign. It has not yet dawned on some that Roe v. Wade proved to be disastrous social policy.

Abortion laws affect the behavior of not only women already pregnant but those not yet pregnant. In reliance on the abortion “backup,” many threw caution to the winds, both in choice of sexual partners and the taking of precautions, producing drastic changes in mores and generating an increase in the national rate of unwed motherhood from 5.7% of all births in 1970 to 40.1% in 2020; among Black births from 38% in 1970 to 71% in the later year. So-called “shotgun” marriages following unwanted pregnancies fell from 43% to 9%. Many who thought they could rely on abortion discovered — because of lack of means, procrastination, parental pressure, residual religious feeling, fear of not being able to have wanted children later or a maternal instinct to protect a moving fetus — they could not go through with it. Contrary to “reformers” expectations, an increase in fatherless children resulted.

Experience suggests that legal changes affect behavior “on the street.” When the welfare reform act of 1996 was passed, there was much doomsday-crying. But the teenage birthrate plummeted from 213 per thousand in 1990 to 65 per thousand in 2016.

Already, since Dobbs, there have been reports of reductions on the order of 20% in casual sexual liaisons. There may be a reduction in the percentage of children in fatherless homes to Western European levels, where abortion is not a constitutional right. The legislature should wait for and examine the new statistics before acting.

— George W. Liebmann, Baltimore

Political ideology over humanity

So now we have evidently arrived at a place where ideology overwhelms one’s humanity (“Gov. Wes Moore supports package of bills to protect abortion services, patient and provider data,” Feb. 9). How else to explain the veritable ebullience of the state’s highest officials (why the new governor seems practically giddy with delight) when announcing a new slate of bills to ensure Maryland’s status as a national abortion mill? What a jovial get-together! Not long ago, Dems were of the position that abortion should be “safe, legal and rare,” but today it seems that they just cannot get enough of it. Has their moral sensibility become so corrupt that they are incapable of acknowledging that “reproductive health care” (as they euphemistically call it) ends the life of a human being (regardless of whether you consider the life growing in the womb a person or not)? Is there no sadness or solemnity in recognition that this is at the very least a tragic choice? I, for one, am very sorry to see Maryland become a national human abattoir and to see the state’s lawmakers and officials delighted at the prospect. It was a ghoulish spectacle.

— John Devine, Baltimore