Marvin Mandel, Governor                       2157

subtitle "Practitioners of Medicine," subheading "Abortion," repeal-
ing IN PART the abortion laws of the State AND STATING THE
EFFECT THEREOF ON THE COMMON LAW.

May 26, 1970.

Honorable Thomas Hunter Lowe
Speaker of the House of Delegates
State House
Annapolis, Maryland

Dear Mr. Speaker

In accordance with Article II, Section 17, of the Maryland Con-
stitution, I have today vetoed House Bill 489.

Two years ago, Maryland was hailed as being in the vanguard
of states that enacted liberal abortion laws.

Now Maryland is once again being asked to take another legal
step that would leave us with no abortion law at all.

This, in effect, is what the legislation before me would do. It has
been referred to as an abortion bill. But for all practical purposes it
is a negative law. The legislation enacted by the 1970 Maryland Gen-
eral Assembly would remove all laws, all controls over abortion, from
the lawbooks.

At the outset, let me state that the decision I am making today
is mine—and mine alone. I share the burden of this responsibility
with no one. The General Assembly has acted. And now I must act,
and I must act on the legislation as it was written and presented to
me by the General Assembly.

I have before me today companion bills enacted by the 1970
Maryland General Assembly. The first is Senate Bill No. 257, the
"Medical Practices Act." The second is House Bill No. 489, the so-
called "Abortion Bill."

Both of these measures were subjected to exhaustive public
hearings on April 23, 1970, and extensive legal review by the Attorney
General of Maryland.

The Attorney General advised me in a 76-page opinion that both
bills meet the test of constitutionality despite legal vagueness and con-
fusion. Furthermore, his opinion stated that the Medical Practices
Act, by itself, meets all tests of legal sufficiency. However, the At-
torney General and his assistant who researched the legal questions
could not agree—and so stated—on whether the bill would become
effective. The action I am taking today is not a reflection of personal
attitude or philosophy, but rather is based on a thorough considera-
tion of the merits of the legislation before me.

Immediately after enactment of the bill to repeal all abortion
laws, I expressed concern about its legal merits on three separate
grounds.

First, I noted that the bill contained no residency requirement.

Second, I expressed concern that the measure made no provision
for the knowledge of a husband prior to the performing of an abor-