Pro-life Marylanders are speaking out against an abortion amendment set to appear on the Old Line State’s ballot this November. Archbishop William Lori of the Catholic Archdiocese of Baltimore issued a letter last week, delivered to pastors and parishioners via email, urging Maryland Catholics to vote “No” on Question 1, which would amend the state constitution to enumerate a “right” to abortion.

Referring to combating abortion as the “preeminent” issue facing the nation, Lori reminded Marylanders that “every person is made in God’s image and likeness and thus has inviolable dignity and deserves respect and protection. … We are called by our faith to uphold human dignity at all stages of life, from conception to natural death.”

“Question 1 seeks to enshrine abortion in the Maryland State Constitution, an action that is both unnecessary and harmful given Maryland’s already permissive abortion laws. It is harmful because it would divert resources away from efforts that promote the well-being of women, children, and families,” Lori wrote. He continued, “By enshrining abortion in the constitution, we would fail to address the root causes why so many women feel abortion is their only option.” He added, “Rather than taking the extreme step of enshrining the legality of abortion in the Maryland Constitution, 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.”

“When we vote against Question 1, we do so not to limit anyone’s rights but to foster a society of solidarity and respect for life, one where women are honored, the gift of life is cherished, and the needs of mother and child are met,” the archbishop concluded. The Archdiocese of Baltimore is the first and oldest Catholic diocese founded in the U.S.

Follow LifeNews on the MeWe social media network for the latest pro-life news free from Facebook’s censorship!

Other organizations have also been vocal in opposing the pro-abortion amendment. Maryland Right to Life (MDRTL) has issued a “Voter Alert” warning of the dangers posed by approving Question 1. “The Constitution affirms that no one can ‘be deprived of life, liberty or property’ and deliberately echoes the Declaration of Independence’s proclamation that ‘all’ are ‘endowed by their Creator’ with the unalienable right to Life,” MDRTL explained. The group’s “Voter Alert” continued, “Any state measure to create a state Constitutional abortion right, infringes on the first and most fundamental right to life. Several other constitutional rights are at stake, including freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom to petition the government to redress grievances, free exercise of religion, Due Process and Equal Protection.”

Approving Question 1 would also, according to MDRTL, “authorize a legal cause of action for discrimination against any pro-life organization, church, official, volunteer or healthcare provider who opposes abortion. Criminal charges including for ‘hate crimes’ could follow for ‘denying abortion services’ or refusing to participate in abortion.” The pro-life non-profit further warned, “The amendment would incite increasing acts of violence and litigation against pro[-]life speech and pregnancy centers.”

The Maryland Catholic Conference also hosted a webinar last week, in which experts and legal scholars spoke of the threat Question 1 poses to unborn lives and constitutional rights. Elizabeth Kirk, a professor at the Catholic University of America’s Columbus School of Law in Washington, D.C. and co-director of the school’s Center for Law & the Human Person, warned that approving Question 1 would “enshrine” abortion in the state’s constitution “without really any meaningful limits.” She continued, “Maryland, of course, unfortunately already protects abortion to the fullest extent, but this amendment would enshrine it in the state Constitution permanently, as well as usher in a whole new set of protections for whatever else might be meant by the term ‘reproductive freedom.’”

Kirk observed that a constitutional amendment differs from a law or statute and any challenge to it would need to pass a “strict scrutiny” test instead of the “reasonable” test applied in challenges to laws or statutes. “Any existing laws would be subject to this scrutiny, and it would have a chilling effect on any future laws,” Kirk warned. She continued, “Because of this strict scrutiny standard, there’s no effective limits on whatever this extraordinarily sweeping freedom is. So other rights — such as religious freedom rights or parental rights or conscience rights of health care providers — are all going to butt up right against this newly declared fundamental reproductive freedom.” The law professor asked, “Who knows how that will shake out? But [these rights] will certainly be vulnerable to the extent that they infringe on reproductive freedom.”

“Abortion is abandoning women and their children to some sort of notion of autonomy or freedom. But it actually leaves them alone and abandoned,” Kirk concluded. Ultimately, she said, Marylanders “should vote against [Question 1] because it doesn’t meet the needs of women.”

The Maryland Catholic Conference had previously published a letter — signed by Lori, Washington, D.C.’s Cardinal Wilton Gregory, and Bishop William Koenig of Wilmington, Delaware, all of whom supervise parishes in Maryland — calling on the Old Line State’s more than one million Catholics to “oppose the ‘Right to Reproductive Freedom Amendment’ as it contradicts the fundamental principles of respect for human dignity and the inherent right to life.”

The coalition of bishops continued, “Our opposition to this initiative is rooted in our unwavering concern for the well-being of women and children. Abortion not only ends the life of an innocent child but also poses significant risks to the physical, emotional and spiritual health of women.” The letter concluded, “We urge voters to reject this ballot initiative and stand with us in upholding the sanctity of all human life, safeguarding conscience rights, and standing in solidarity with women and children in need. Together, let us work towards building a culture of life…”

In August, the organization Health Not Harm hosted an event in Annapolis, Maryland’s capitol, urging Marylanders to vote against Question 1. Jonathan Alexander, Legislative Counsel for the Maryland Family Institute, spoke at the event and called Question 1 “a wolf in wolf’s clothing.” He added, “This amendment wants to destroy children as it takes away the ability and the rights of parents to make critical medical decisions for their children.” Deborah Brocato, Chairwoman of Health Not Harm, said, “What Marylanders need to know is what is not in this amendment. There are no minimum age limits for individuals under the age of 18 in this amendment. There are no parental consent requirements in this amendment.”

The group Freedom from Violence Maryland, committed to opposing the violence of abortion, has also been active, encouraging voters to oppose the pro-abortion amendment. Chairwoman Ali Rak told The Washington Stand that the organization has “already reached thousands of voters with our message that Question 1 is too extreme and they are responding with a commitment to vote ‘No.’” Rak added, “Eight out of 10 Americans draw a line on abortion somewhere, and it’s much earlier than the media would have you believe. When voters understand late-term abortion will forever be enshrined as a right in our state constitution, it is a point of agreement for pro-choice and pro-life Marylanders.”

In comments to TWS, Mary Szoch, director of the Center for Human Dignity at Family Research Council, said, “Question 1 would enshrine abortion the legal killing of unborn children until birth in the Maryland Constitution.” She continued, “Maryland — a state founded to protect those being unjustly persecuted — would enshrine in its constitution the ability to kill completely vulnerable, completely defenseless, completely innocent unborn children. Not only this, but Question 1 would remove parental involvement form any decision children make involving ‘reproductive freedom.’”

Szoch continued, “This means a 13-year-old girl could be taken by a sex trafficker to get an abortion without her parents ever knowing, or a 12-year-old boy could decide to have gender transition surgery without his parents’ knowledge or consent.”

“Marylanders must reject this amendment,” she concluded.

LifeNews Note: S.A. McCarthy serves as a news writer at The Washington Stand.