ACLJ Tells Maryland Senate: Protect Women From Coerced Abortion and the Conscience Rights of Religious Healthcare Providers

State legislatures around the nation are in session and are considering new legislation addressing a variety of issues. The Maryland Senate is considering a pair of bills governing abortion: One, SB 169, would essentially require hospitals in Maryland to provide abortions as required healthcare regardless of the hospital or healthcare provider’s religious beliefs; and two, SB 302, would criminalize coercing or tricking a woman into taking an abortion pill.

On behalf of over 641,000 Americans who’ve signed our Petition to Stop Barbaric New Abortion Laws, including nearly 8,500 Marylanders, our team at the ACLJ just submitted testimony opposing SB 169and supporting SB 302 – and explaining why.

We’ll start with SB 169. This bill is a rerun of last year’s SB 447, which we also opposed. As we explained in depth then:

This bill is ostensibly modeled after the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) – which federal courts have described as having nothing to do with abortion. But of course, in Maryland, it’s got everything to do with abortion. The bill’s sponsor, in fact, characterized it that way. The testimony presented in support of the bill characterized it that way. No matter how it is dressed up, this bill is intended to require people to commit abortions in violation of their own consciences.

Like we warned last year, if the bill’s

backers have their way, medical providers who refuse could face all kinds of consequences, ranging from losing their jobs or even their license and crippling fines. This means that in its race to become the abortion mecca of the United States, Maryland intends to violate federal law. Abortion or else. Following the fall of Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood, leaders in states like Maryland tirelessly endeavor to expand abortion “access” – in many cases, and ironically, even far beyond what Roe and Casey actually allowed. Enforcement of the federal conscience protections is becoming more important than ever.

Now, this year, we explained in our testimony:

Under SB 169’s provisions, a hospital with an emergency department must screen patients presenting with emergency pregnancy-related conditions and, importantly, allow the termination of a pregnancy via abortion in certain circumstances as part of that treatment. This provision is more than a general stabilization requirement — it attempts to mandate specific medical procedures as a matter of state statutory obligation.

Federal EMTALA, by contrast, sets only minimal structural obligations on hospitals: to conduct an appropriate medical screening examination and then stabilize an emergency medical condition before transfer or discharge. EMTALA was enacted to prevent hospitals from refusing emergency care to indigent patients, not to prescribe particular medical treatments. 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd. SB 169’s language goes far beyond this framework.

We presented a few more reasons why Maryland’s SB 169 is misguided and why its supporters’ talking points are false, and we encourage you to read them here.

Next, we filed testimony in favor of SB 302. In the new era of abortion by pill, and in keeping with the nature of abortion being a tool to exploit women, state Senators Carozza, Folden, McKay, Ready, Salling, and West have advanced the Women’s Freedom From Coercion Act, a bill that would criminalize coercing or tricking a woman into taking an abortion pill.

As we explained in summary,

SB 302 is a measured, commonsense legislative response to well-documented harms associated with chemical abortion drugs—harms that fall disproportionately on vulnerable women. The bill does not prohibit medical care. Rather, it reflects the State’s legitimate interest in protecting women from physical danger, coercion, and abuse, particularly given the current climate where abortion pills are most often used outside of any medical supervision.

We pointed out that:

Chemical abortion—typically involving mifepristone followed by misoprostol—is increasingly marketed as safe, routine, and empowering. But that narrative collapses under scrutiny. Indeed, chemical abortion is inherently harmful, frequently underreported in adverse outcomes, and uniquely susceptible to coercive and criminal misuse. Unlike surgical procedures performed in clinical settings, abortion pills can be obtained and administered in isolation—making them a tool not only for self-harm, but for exploitation by third parties.

SB 302 responds to these realities. It reflects Maryland’s legitimate police-power interest in safeguarding women’s health and safety, particularly where federal regulators have relaxed protections without adequate regard for real-world consequences.

We explained how complications arising from abortion pill usage are real and, given ease of access and lack of medical supervision in the process, can be severe and are underreported. We also explained how these facts contribute to abortion pill usage as tools of exploitation and abuse of often vulnerable women. So we provided in our testimony some statistics to illustrate the truth:

One study found that 64% of the American women surveyed reported feeling pressured by others to obtain an abortion. Vincent M. Rue, et al., Induced Abortion and Traumatic Stress: a Preliminary Comparison of American and Russian Women, 10 Med. Sci. Monitor 9 (2004). Another study, published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, found that nearly 74% of the post-abortive women surveyed admitted “that their decision to abort was [not] entirely free from even subtle pressure from others to abort,” over 58% “reported aborting to make others happy,” and 28.4% of the women specifically chose abortion “out of fear of losing their partner if they did not abort.” Priscilla K. Coleman, Ph.D., Women Who Suffered Emotionally from Abortion: A Qualitative Synthesis of Their Experiences, 22 J. Amer. Physicians & Surgeons 113, 115 (2017). Sixty-six percent of the women reported “know[ing] in their hearts that they were making a mistake when they underwent the abortion.” Id. . . .

This becomes even clearer when examining specific types of coercion to abort:

• Human traffickers, who force abortions to maintain control over victims and conceal ongoing sexual exploitation;
• Sexual predators, who use abortion to erase evidence of abuse;
• Domestic abusers, who pressure or force women to terminate pregnancies under threat of violence;
• Irresponsible partners, who use abortion to avoid financial or parental responsibility; and
• Employers, who view pregnancy as an inconvenience to be eliminated rather than accommodated.

SB 302 tackles the problem head-on and criminalizes this type of exploitation precisely. It is within a state’s power – and duty – to protect patients and women in this manner. The bill does not regulate or criminalize healthcare. It protects women.

Please stand with us as we engage the Maryland legislature on these important issues, standing for life and protecting women from exploitation. We can’t do it without you. If you’ve signed our petition, we thank you. If you have not yet, we urge you to sign it now. If you live in Maryland, let your legislators know where you stand. Be heard.