Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Dec 27, 2023 / 06:00 am (CNA).
Voters in Maryland will take part in a statewide referendum next November to decide whether to make abortion access a constitutional right there.
A simple majority will be required to pass the amendment when voters head to the polls on Nov. 5, 2024.
The bill to propose the amendment for a referendum was passed by the state legislature with the necessary three-fifths majority in both chambers in May 2023.
The vote comes as a wave of states attempt to expand abortion access by amending their constitutions following the overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022, which ended several decades of the constitutional guarantee to abortion.
Ohio is the most recent state to make abortion a constitutional right, with voters in the swing state overwhelmingly voting to pass an amendment in November.
Maryland’s proposed amendment says that “every person, as a central component of an individual’s rights to liberty and equality, has the fundamental right to reproductive freedom, including but not limited to the ability to make and effectuate decisions to prevent, continue, or end one’s own pregnancy.”
“The state may not, directly or indirectly, deny, burden, or abridge the right unless justified by a compelling state interest achieved by the least restrictive means,” the amendment says.
The bill was overwhelmingly approved by the state House of Delegates and the Senate, both of which are controlled by Democrats.
A similar bill in 2022 proposing a referendum adding abortion protections to the constitution passed the state house 93-42 but failed in the Senate after the Senate president chose to focus on other bills expanding abortion access.
According to MarylandMatters.org, a spokesperson for the senate president said the 2022 bill was seen as a “response to the national politics and … what many people will think will happen,” referring to the anticipation of the U.S. Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe.
Maryland abortion law
Maryland has some of the most extreme abortion laws in the country, allowing the killing procedure throughout nine months of the child’s development in pregnancy in certain cases.
The law says that abortion is restricted after viability, which is around 24 weeks gestation, or about six months.
During the 24th week of gestation, the baby can sneeze and react to loud noises, according to the Charlotte Lozier Institute. At the 24th week, the baby’s brain is quickly growing, with tastebuds forming, and lungs further developing, according to the American Pregnancy Association.
Maryland law says that abortion after viability is unrestricted if it is “necessary to protect the life or health of the woman” or if the child “is affected by genetic defect or serious deformity or abnormality.”
In some cases minors are not required to notify a parent prior to an abortion. Minors don’t have to inform parents or guardians for several reasons such as if “notifying your parents/guardian would not be in your best interest” or the doctor makes a judgment that the minor is “mature and capable of giving informed consent.”
Marylanders haven’t elected a staunchly pro-life governor since prior to Roe v. Wade’s passage in 1973.
In 2015, voters did elect Republican Gov. Larry Hogan. He described himself as personally pro-life but vowed not to change state law on abortion in Maryland while in office.
The last time the state voted for a pro-life presidential candidate was in 1988 for Republican President George H. W. Bush.
A 2014 Pew Research Center poll indicated that 64% of Maryland adults believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases. One-third of those polled said that abortion should be illegal in all or most cases.
A 2022 poll conducted by Braun Research found that 78% of registered voters would support a state constitutional amendment protecting the right to abortion. Only 16% of registered voters said they would oppose the amendment.
That poll was conducted over the telephone with a “random sample” of 810 registered voters in the state.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Dainelys Soto, Genesis Contreras, and Daniel Soto, who arrived from Venezuela after crossing the U.S. border from Mexico, wait for dinner at a hotel provided by the Annunciation House on Sept. 22, 2022 in El Paso, Texas. / Credit: Joe Raedle/Getty Images
CNA Staff, Sep 9, 2024 / 06:00 am (CNA).
Long a champion of immigrants, particularly those fleeing war-torn countries and impoverished regions, Pope Francis last month delivered some of the clearest words in his papacy yet in support of migrants — and in rebuke of those who turn away from them.
“It must be said clearly: There are those who work systematically and with every means possible to repel migrants,” the pope said during a weekly Angelus address. “And this, when done with awareness and responsibility, is a grave sin.”
“In the time of satellites and drones, there are migrant men, women, and children that no one must see,” the pope said. “They hide them. Only God sees them and hears their cry. This is a cruelty of our civilization.”
The pope has regularly spoken out in favor of immigrants. In June he called on the faithful to “unite in prayer for all those who have had to leave their land in search of dignified living conditions.” The Holy Father has called the protection of migrants a “moral imperative.” He has argued that migrants “[must] be received” and dealt with humanely.
Migrants aboard an inflatable vessel in the Mediterranean Sea approach the guided-missile destroyer USS Carney in 2013. Carney provided food and water to the migrants aboard the vessel before coordinating with a nearby merchant vessel to take them to safety. Credit: Commander, U.S. Naval Forces Europe-Africa/U.S. 6th Fleet, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
The Catholic Church has long been an advocate and protector of immigrants. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) notes on its website that “a rich body of Church teaching, including papal encyclicals, bishops’ statements, and pastoral letters, has consistently reinforced our moral obligation to treat the stranger as we would treat Christ himself.”
The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that prosperous nations “are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin.”
Popes throughout the years, meanwhile, have expressed sentiments on immigration similar to Francis’. Pope Pius XII in 1952, for instance, described the Holy Family’s flight into Egypt as “the archetype of every refugee family.”
The Church, Pius XII said, “has been especially careful to provide all possible spiritual care for pilgrims, aliens, exiles, and migrants of every kind.”
Meanwhile, “devout associations” throughout the centuries have spearheaded “innumerable hospices and hospitals” in part for immigrants, Pius XII said.
Implications and applications of Church teaching
Chad Pecknold, an associate professor of systematic theology at The Catholic University of America, noted that the catechism “teaches that nations have the right to borders and self-definition, so there is no sense in which Catholic teaching supports the progressive goal of ‘open borders.’”
“There is a ‘duty of care’ which is owed to those fleeing from danger,” he told CNA, “but citizenship is not owed to anyone who can make it across a national border, and illegal entry or asylum cannot be taken as a debt of citizenship.”
Paul Hunker, an immigration attorney who previously served as chief counsel of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in Dallas, agreed.
“States have to have responsibility for their own communities, they have to look out for them,” he told CNA. “So immigration can be regulated so as to not harm the common good.”
Still, Hunker noted, Catholic advocates are not wrong in responding to immigration crises — like the ongoing irregular influx through the U.S. southern border — with aid and assistance.
Paul Hunker, an immigration attorney and former chief counsel of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in Dallas, says Catholic advocates are not wrong in responding to immigration crises — like the ongoing irregular influx through the U.S. southern border — with aid and assistance. Credit: Photo courtesy of Paul Hunker
Many Catholic organizations offer shelter, food, and legal assistance to men, women, and children who cross into the country illegally; such groups have been overwhelmed in recent years with the crush of arriving migrants at the country’s southern border.
“It’s the responsibility of the federal government to take care of the border,” he said. “When the government has created a crisis at the U.S. border, Catholic dioceses are going to want to help people.”
“I completely support what the Catholic organizations are doing in Mexico and the United States to assist people who are there,” Hunker said. “The people responding are not responsible for these crises.”
Latest crisis and legal challenge
Not everyone feels similarly. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has launched an investigation of multiple Catholic nonprofits that serve illegal immigrants in the state. Paxton alleges that through the services it provides to migrants, El Paso-based Annunciation House has been facilitating illegal immigration and human trafficking.
A lawyer for the group called the allegations “utter nonsense,” though attorney Jerome Wesevich acknowledged that the nonprofit “serves undocumented persons as an expression of the Catholic faith and Jesus’ command to love one another, no exceptions.”
There are considerable numbers of Church teachings that underscore the need for a charitable response to immigrants. In his 1963 encyclical Pacem in Terris, Pope John XXIII argued that man “has the right to freedom of movement and of residence within the confines of his own state,” and further that “when there are just reasons in favor of it, he must be permitted to emigrate to other countries and take up residence there.”
In the encyclical Caritas in Veritate, meanwhile, Pope Benedict XVI in 2009 acknowledged that migration poses “dramatic challenges” for nations but that migrants “cannot be considered as a commodity or a mere workforce.”
“Every migrant is a human person who, as such, possesses fundamental, inalienable rights that must be respected by everyone and in every circumstance,” the late pope wrote.
Edward Feser, a professor of philosophy at Pasadena City College in California, noted that the Church “teaches that nations should be welcoming to immigrants, that they should be sensitive to the hardships that lead them to emigrate, that they ought not to scapegoat them for domestic problems, and so on.”
Catholic teaching does not advocate an ‘open borders’ policy
Yet Catholic teaching does not advocate an “open borders” policy, Feser said. He emphasized that the catechism says countries should accept immigrants “to the extent they are able,” and further that countries “may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions.”
There “is nothing per se in conflict with Catholic teaching when citizens and politicians call on the federal government to enforce its immigration laws,” Feser said. “On the contrary, the catechism backs them up on this.”
In addition, it is “perfectly legitimate,” Feser argued, for governments to consider both economic and cultural concerns when setting immigration policy. It is also “legitimate to deport those who enter a country illegally,” he said.
Still, he acknowledged, a country can issue exceptions to valid immigration laws when the moral situation demands it.
“Of course, there can be individual cases where a nation should forgo its right to deport those who enter it illegally, and cases where the manner in which deportations occur is associated with moral hazards, such as when doing so would break up families or return an immigrant to dangerous conditions back in his home country,” he said.
“Governments should take account of this when formulating and enforcing policy,” he said.
The tension between responding charitably to immigrants and ensuring a secure border was perhaps put most succinctly in 1986 by the late Father Theodore Hesburgh, who served as chairman of the U.S. Select Commission for Immigration and Refugee Policy that was created by the U.S. Congress in the early 1980s.
“It is not enough to sympathize with the aspirations and plight of illegal aliens. We must also consider the consequences of not controlling our borders,” said the late Father Theodore Hesburgh, who served as chairman of the U.S. Select Commission for Immigration and Refugee Policy that was created by the U.S. Congress in the early 1980s. Credit: Photo courtesy of University of Notre Dame
Writing several years after the commission, Hesburgh explained: “It is not enough to sympathize with the aspirations and plight of illegal aliens. We must also consider the consequences of not controlling our borders.”
“What about the aspirations of Americans who must compete for jobs and whose wages and work standards are depressed by the presence of large numbers of illegal aliens?” the legendary late president of the University of Notre Dame reflected. “What about aliens who are victimized by unscrupulous employers and who die in the desert at the hands of smugglers?”
“The nation needn’t wait until we are faced with a choice between immigration chaos and closing the borders,” Hesburgh stated nearly 40 years ago.
Denver Newsroom, Jul 15, 2022 / 20:00 pm (CNA).
Pope Pius XII said, “The devotion to the Carmelite scapular has brought down on the world a copious rain of spiritual and temporal graces.”On the feast of Our Lad… […]
San Antonio, Texas, Aug 23, 2018 / 02:13 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- Before being allowed to celebrate Mass for families housed at a migrant detention center in south Texas, a local priest was made to sign a confidentiality agreement promising that he would n… […]
1 Comment
Deja Vu! About the majority-vote on all things large and small…
Maryland was almost uniquely the colony with freedom of religion…until the Anglicans became the majority. Like the Puritans and Quakers, the English Catholics sought relief from persecution. The English King James I’s Secretary of State, George Calvert, converted and then was given a peerage, and later was given a charter from Charles I (after declining to settle at the Jamestown location where he refused to sign the Protestant Oath of Supremacy). In 1633 George’s son, Cecilius Calvert, the second Lord Baltimore, organized Maryland for both Catholics and Protestants. Religious tolerance was formally but only temporarily established under the Act of Toleration of 1649. . .
A Quote: “Maryland was founded on the broad principles of religious freedom, and Puritans expelled from Virginia found shelter there. During the period of the Commonwealth, however, the very men who had sought an asylum in Maryland overthrew the authority of Lord Baltimore and passed severe penal laws against the Catholics [NOW a radically secularist amendment against all of the unborn!], sending all the priests as prisoners to England [and the preborn to the incinerator]. In a few years they returned and resumed their labors [a pregnant term!] under great disadvantages. Though a law of toleration was passed in 1649, it was of brief duration [until 1654].”
(John Gilmary Shea, “Our Faith and Its Defenders,” New York: Office of Catholic Publications, 1896).
Deja Vu! About the majority-vote on all things large and small…
Maryland was almost uniquely the colony with freedom of religion…until the Anglicans became the majority. Like the Puritans and Quakers, the English Catholics sought relief from persecution. The English King James I’s Secretary of State, George Calvert, converted and then was given a peerage, and later was given a charter from Charles I (after declining to settle at the Jamestown location where he refused to sign the Protestant Oath of Supremacy). In 1633 George’s son, Cecilius Calvert, the second Lord Baltimore, organized Maryland for both Catholics and Protestants. Religious tolerance was formally but only temporarily established under the Act of Toleration of 1649. . .
A Quote: “Maryland was founded on the broad principles of religious freedom, and Puritans expelled from Virginia found shelter there. During the period of the Commonwealth, however, the very men who had sought an asylum in Maryland overthrew the authority of Lord Baltimore and passed severe penal laws against the Catholics [NOW a radically secularist amendment against all of the unborn!], sending all the priests as prisoners to England [and the preborn to the incinerator]. In a few years they returned and resumed their labors [a pregnant term!] under great disadvantages. Though a law of toleration was passed in 1649, it was of brief duration [until 1654].”
(John Gilmary Shea, “Our Faith and Its Defenders,” New York: Office of Catholic Publications, 1896).