Maryland Considers Bill Shielding Infanticide and Other Criminal Conduct From Investigation

It’s March, and the abortion industry is back in Annapolis at the Maryland Capitol, pushing for the next big expansion of abortion. So the American Center for Law and Justice went back to Annapolis too. We’d submitted testimony only a few weeks ago, opposing another radical abortion bill and supporting a life-affirming bill. But now there’s a new bill, H.B. 1131, and this one shields perpetrators of exploitation and infanticide from criminal investigation. Of course, we went to Annapolis and testified against the bill and submitted written testimony.

Infanticide? No way, that’s too extreme, you’re thinking. How could this be? Here’s how:

Maryland H.B. 1131 makes it a crime for medical providers to report an infant death absent clear evidence of coercion or external abuse related to the pregnancy loss, or, as relevant here, unless there is clear evidence of independent evidence of criminal wrongdoing unrelated to the pregnancy. In other words, something that a medical provider or staffer sees, knows, or participates in and that would be a crime cannot be reported by a medical provider if it is not “independent evidence of criminal conduct unrelated to the pregnancy loss.” (Emphasis added.)

Just how would this bill shield infanticide? Because a baby born alive could still be intentionally killed during labor to ease the burden and complete the intention of ending the life of the baby, and this bill blocks reporting that death to law enforcement. The key is in the bill’s definition of the term “pregnancy loss” as “the unintentional or intentional death of a fetus or embryo during pregnancy or labor.” (Emphasis added.) The term “labor” has an established meaning in medical care: Labor is not complete until “placental delivery,” which does not happen simultaneously with the child’s birth, and, according to some sources, not until as long as 30 minutes to an hour later. That the bill excludes reporting “a death that occurs after a live birth” from its coverage does not change this reality, as “live birth” means “the complete expulsion or extraction from the mother of a product of human conception.” (Emphasis added.) Clearly, this bill intends to block the reporting of an infant’s death unless the death occurs  after the placenta is delivered, which can be up to an hour after the baby’s birth.

Take action with the ACLJ. Sign the petition: End Infanticide – Protect Babies Born Alive.

Indeed, a medical staffer (for instance, a staffer in the room or who learns about what happened) who reports that infant death could be subject to criminal penalties and fines, while giving no definition or explanation of “clear evidence . . . of coercion” or “independent evidence of criminal conduct unrelated to the pregnancy loss,” leaving providers and investigators without much guidance on what they should consider before subjecting themselves to potential criminal charges and penalties.

Also, as we explained in our written testimony:

Maryland law includes in the defining of “born,” “regardless of the period of gestation, if, after the expulsion or extraction, [the unborn child] breathes or shows any other evidence of life, such as heartbeat, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscle . . . . ” [Md. Code Ann., Health § 20-401]. Cardiac activity for an unborn child begins with a pulse at five weeks, umbilical vein pulsations are present in the first trimester, and “quickening” occurs at around twelve weeks. All of these are present for a baby as late as thirty-five weeks and six days (which has happened in Maryland) and babies can be born alive as early as before twenty-four weeks gestation, and survive.

This legislation does not provide protections for born-alive infants and does not remain consistent with what Maryland law considers as “born.” It would only serve the role of removing needed protections for babies born alive in Maryland who need medical intervention and care as soon as possible.

This leads to another question: When an infant dies (or is intentionally killed) during the pregnancy or delivery (at any point before placental delivery), what independent evidence of criminal conduct unrelated to the pregnancy loss could a medical provider potentially want or need to report to law enforcement? In other words, what “evidence” is this bill intentionally trying to block the reporting of? Beyond infanticide, abortion pills are certainly related to pregnancy loss. This bill would shield unlawful acts involving abortion pills from investigation, at least unless the medical provider has “clear evidence of external abuse or coercion related to the pregnancy loss.” If there’s any doubt on that front, the bill’s definition of “pregnancy loss” expressly includes a “self-managed abortion.” The sheer uncertainty of the language this bill uses is enough to discourage a medical office from reporting.

Again, this bill prohibits medical providers from reporting in any of these situations unless the evidence of abuse or coercion is “clear.” “Clear evidence” is an awfully high standard to impose on non-law enforcement personnel from even making the initial report to law enforcement, keeping in mind it is law enforcement that investigates evidence of criminal conduct to determine if the evidence is clear enough to merit further investigation or to charge someone with a crime. That’s literally what they do. Then the jury makes the final call about the weight of the evidence as a matter of fact. This bill intentionally stops the investigation before it starts. Medical personnel would be gambling an awful lot to make a report. It would be a crime. Do you think the logical result of this bill will be more protections for women? We don’t.

But what if a law enforcement agency or official still somehow receives information that would ordinarily trigger an investigation? The bill blocks law enforcement from investigating the baby’s death unless “there is independent evidence of criminal conduct unrelated to the pregnancy or pregnancy loss” without the mother’s consent. Note here that they’ve added “pregnancy” to the “unrelated to the pregnancy or pregnancy loss” phrasing. What evidence would ever be relevant here that is “unrelated to the pregnancy or pregnancy loss”? Criminal conduct related to a pregnancy (as opposed to a “pregnancy loss”) sure seems to address rape, as it is difficult to imagine other relevant conduct that could fit that description. So the police would be barred from investigating someone other than the mother unless they obtain the mother’s consent “to investigate suspected criminal conduct of another person related to the pregnancy or pregnancy loss.” But women victimized by sexual assault, coercion, and trafficking are often threatened (or prevented) from reporting. That’s why we warned in our testimony that

H. B. 1131 protects nefarious actors who pressure or force women into these dangerous self-managed abortions. It is well known that human traffickers, sexual predators, and domestic abusers often force women into having an abortion. Survivors of sex trafficking report “that they often [do] not freely choose the abortions they [have] while being trafficked.” Sexual predators will use abortion as a means to conceal obvious evidence—pregnancy and childbirth—of their exploitation. Women of domestic abuse have reported that they [have] been forced by their abusers to ingest abortion pills.

As we said in our testimony, “Instead of protecting women and making abortion safe for them, H. B. 1131 would expand Maryland’s permissive abortion laws to remove critical protections for women and effectively legalize infanticide and abuse for nefarious actors exploiting these women.”

As our friends at Maryland Right to Life put it:

HB-1131 would undermine those protections by shielding third parties from responsibility if a newborn infant or abortion survivor is denied appropriate medical care after birth and left to die. It would make it nearly impossible for state authorities, who could be charged with a misdemeanor offense, to investigate the death of an infant born alive during an attempted abortion. It would gag medical providers from doing their duty as mandatory reporters of suspected abuse or homicide.

The abortion industry and its proponents are crafty. Of course, this bill does not say, “Infanticide is legal in Maryland” or some other obvious or straightforward variation of that. “There’s nothing to see here.” “Move along!” No, we’ve got to remember that the devil is often in the details. Legislation like this is no exception. Lawyers (and legislators) know that how a word is defined can make all the difference. Anyone looking at abortion-related legislation must look beneath the surface. We must connect the dots.

Stand with us as our legal teams analyze bills like Maryland’s H.B. 1131 to expose what the abortion industry and its backers are really up to. It takes critical time and resources, but the consequences are, quite literally, life and death.

Take action with the ACLJ. Sign the petition: End Infanticide – Protect Babies Born Alive.