Abortion Law

Maryland voters resoundingly approved a new abortion-rights law yesterday, ending an emotional three-year battle over the measure.With most returns counted, the law was winning with more than 60 percent of the vote, far more than any public opinion polls -- or leaders in either camp -- had predicted. Voters approved the measure (Question 6 on the ballot) in all regions of the state except Western Maryland.Leaders of Maryland for Choice, who worried that voters had been confused about the law's impact, were jubilant last night.

Two doctors who recall the days when women had to seek a hospital review board's approval before an abortion yesterday endorsed Question 6, the new abortion law set for referendum Nov. 3.At a news conference called by Maryland for Choice, Dr. Harrold Elberfeld, an obstetrician and gynecologist, and Dr. Chester Schmidt, a psychiatrist, said the system was humiliating to women who already were upset by an unwanted pregnancy.Hospital review boards were required under a 1968 Maryland abortion law that has been unconstitutional since 1973.

The Court of Appeals has wisely refused to throw out Attorney General J. Joseph Curran's ballot description of the abortion law Marylanders will vote on in November. Now both sides of this divisive issue can move beyond arcane arguments about the wording of the 100-word summary that will be printed on the ballot and focus on taking their case to voters.Most people have long since made up their minds about abortion, but each side will want to make sure that voters understand the provisions of this particular law. In effect, the measure codifies the guarantees embodied in Roe vs. Wade.

Congratulations to Maria Santo for so eloquently stating the pro-life attitude toward the unconscionable killing of 55 million children over the past 40 years through abortions ("Dishonesty underlies abortion law," March 5). That it is a crime for a mother to kill her infant after its birth, but perfectly legal to kill the same child in the womb just doesn't make sense. The baby has no say in the mother's decision to exercise of her right to an abortion. The better solution is to choose life for the baby and then allow it to be adopted by a loving family.

Letter writer John Rutkowski has a right to his views, but his comments on Gary Trudeau's comic strip were infuriating and disgusting ("Idiotic 'Doonesbury' strip on abortion insults readers," March 20). First, Mr. Trudeau's comic strips on the Texas abortion law were satirical, humorous and right on the mark. Would Mr. Rutkowski like a government-mandated, invasive "wanding" of his internal parts? I think not. Second, to compare Mr. Trudeau's wonderful artistic talent to Howard Stern's crude objectification and denigration of women is completely off the mark.

Activists on both sides of the abortion issue in Maryland found reason for encouragement in Monday's federal court decision in Pennsylvania allowing restrictions on abortion.Opponents of abortion took the ruling as more evidence that the momentum in the fight is shifting dramatically to their side. Supporters of Maryland's new abortion law, set to be tested in a November 1992 referendum, said the ruling would prompt people who have never been active on the issue to join the campaign to keep abortion legal.

At Planned Parenthood of Maryland, the staff is on standby -- though it isn't sure exactly what for.At Maryland Right to Life, officials are scheduling a news conference -- though they have no idea what they'll be reacting to.At Maryland for Choice, they're planning a rally -- though no one can be sure of the date.Any day now, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule in the biggest abortion case of the term, a decision that tests whether the court is willing to overturn the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision, which guaranteed the right to abortion.

Doonesbury fans may have a hard time finding their favorite strip this week, as some newspapers shy away from Garry Trudeau's hard-edged lampooning of a Texas abortion law. In a week-long series , Trudeau takes direct aim at the law, which requires women to have an ultrasound procedure before an abortion. For some papers, phrases such as "slut" and "10-inch shaming wand" were a bit too hard to take. The harshest bit of dialogue may be the day-four bit comparing a transvaginal sonogram to rape.

Commentator Maria Santo's specious arguments for why everyone should be of the same mind about abortion only reinforces my conviction that the decision of whether to continue a pregnancy should be up to a woman and her doctor ("Dishonesty underlies abortion law," March 5). Ms. Santo's intellectually dishonest use of the word "child" in reference to the unborn is a poetic and linguistic ploy that paints everything with one long, obscuring brush stroke. We do not all agree that there is no difference between a fertilized egg, a fetus at six months and a two-year-old child.

The fight over abortion moves back to Annapolis this afternoon, as advocates on both sides of the issue gear up for the 1992 referendum that will decide if Maryland's new abortion law takes effect or is rejected by voters.At 3 p.m. today, anti-abortion activists plan to turn over to the state more than 100,000 additional signatures asking to put the new measure -- which they say is far too liberal -- on the November 1992 ballot."I think that this law is so extreme that there are people around the state who have in the past felt that abortion should be kept legal, but not under these extreme circumstances," said Art Sawyer, a spokesman for the Vote Know Coalition.