Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Md. House Debates Abortion, Er, Tattoos

Rosalind Helderman

The Maryland House of Delegates spent more than a half an hour this morning engaged in a procedural debate that was, essentially, about abortion--yet the delegates managed to do so without once mentioning the word.

At issue was a bill sponsored by Del. Sue Kullen (D-Calvert) that would require a parent or legal guardian's written consent before a minor can get a tattoo, body piercing or other branding.

The bill has already passed the House Judiciary Committee and today was up for second reading discussion and amendment on the floor of the House. That's when Republican Gail H. Bates (Howard) proposed an amendment: She suggested expanding the bill to require parental consent for all "medically invasive" procedures.

What medically invasive procedure might she be trying to get at? She never said it on the floor, but delegates understood what the amendment was all about.

What followed was a lengthy procedural debate about whether such an amendment violated two House rules, one that says that bills can only address a "single subject" of the law and another that says amendments cannot change the original purpose of the bill.

Republicans brandished a letter indicating that an assistant attorney general had ruled Bates' amendment would not violate the single subject rule. House Parliamentarian Kathleen M. Dumais (D-Montgomery) agreed but ruled that the amendment would change the bill's purpose. On that basis, House Speaker Michael E. Busch ruled the amendment was out of order.

Republicans then challenged Busch's ruling, meaning he had to step down from the rostrum and let speaker pro tem Adrienne A. Jones (D-Baltimore County) lead a debate on the issue. Ultimately the House backed its leader on a 103 to 35 vote. But not before debate got pretty heated.

Del. Michael D. Smigiel Sr. (R-Cecil) insisted ruling the amendment out of order represented "nothing more than the tyranny of the majority." House Minority Whip Christopher B. Shank (R-Washington) said the ruling on the amendment represented an unwillingness to "at least debate the issue."

Democrats responded the bill before the House was about tattoos and body piercing. The House could have a full debate on the merits of requiring parental consent for other procedures--if a delegate proposed a bill on the topic. "This bill was very specific--it deals with tattoing," said Dumais.

At the end of the day, Shank asked to put off the bill's second reading until tomorrow while he worked to craft an amendment that might pass House muster. Upshot? Delegates may get to have the whole debate over again tomorrow.

By Rosalind Helderman  |  February 19, 2009; 2:10 PM ET
Categories:  General Assembly , Rosalind Helderman  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: O'Malley: Stimulus Could Erase Layoffs, Restore College Funds
Next: Police Disability Retirements "Spike" As MoCo Seeks Changes

Comments

If the Maryland Assembly can not even talk about abortion, how do they expect kids to be able to talk to their parents about it.

Posted by: mdembski1 | February 19, 2009 3:59 PM | Report abuse

Don't these people have budget, transportation, education, environment, and healthcare issues to deal with?

-Marc

Posted by: mkorman92 | February 19, 2009 3:59 PM | Report abuse

We're in economic free-fall and they waste an entire day on innuendo?

What's the matter, can't she figure out how to write a bill that specifically addresses minors seeking abortions? Or is she betting that being coy will net her the result she wants?

Posted by: Skowronek | February 19, 2009 4:18 PM | Report abuse

abortion is a consitutional right and so is tatoos, therefore this law is unconstitntional

Posted by: foobar2 | February 19, 2009 4:25 PM | Report abuse

Interesting.

If the bill passes, a minor would require a parent's or legal guardian's approval to get a tattoo.

If President Obama signs the "Freedom of Choice Act" (FOCA), that same minor would not require a parent's or legal guardian's approval to get an abortion.

Something is very wrong here.

Posted by: furtdw | February 19, 2009 7:56 PM | Report abuse

hmm... i believe that minors do need parental consent when considering a piercing or tattoo because they can both potentially result in infection... and if the parents are paying the medical bills or buying the antibiotics and such, the parents should have a say in the decisions their children make...

Posted by: evee3 | February 19, 2009 8:55 PM | Report abuse

If a law were to be passed in Maryland that forced minors (which includes 17 year old high school graduates) to get parental consent when having an abortion then the parents who do not provide consent should be forced to raise the child.

Posted by: ProfessorWrightBSU | February 19, 2009 9:30 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company