2158                                      Vetoes

tion. Even the parents of an unmarried minor girl would not be re-
quired to give their consent to, or have knowledge of, an abortion
under this measure.

My third concern—and perhaps the gravest one—was that the
bill repealing the present abortion law would allow an abortion even
in the eighth or ninth month of a pregnancy.

Since the Maryland General Assembly enacted the pending bill,
three other states have adopted new abortion laws which are now
being recognized as the most liberal in the nation.

New York, Alaska and Hawaii have adopted new abortion laws,
but each of them has some safeguard—a residency requirement, a
limit on the period of time during which an abortion can be legally
performed, or parental consent when a minor female is involved.

As I have stated, these three states are now considered to have
the most liberal abortion laws in the nation, and it is imperative to
note that each of these laws contains some safeguards to protect the
mother, the doctor and the rights of the unborn child.

While the existing Maryland law contains some safeguards—
such as the ones I have illustrated—all would be repealed under the
proposed law. Maryland would stand alone as the only state in the
nation whose abortion law contained no safeguards.

The legal guidance I have received shows that it cannot be
stated with certainty that the proposed abortion repeal bill will, in
fact, become effective even if both companion measures are signed.
The effectiveness of the abortion bill is contingent upon the enact-
ment of a measure requiring that abortions be performed only by
licensed physicians within licensed hospitals.

Beyond a doubt, the Medical Practices Act requires that an
abortion can be performed only by licensed physicians. But it does
not require that abortions be performed in hospitals.

If I were to sign the pending legislation, a physician, acting
under the authority to perform abortions granted by that measure,
could not so act with the certain knowledge that he was operating
within the protection of a valid and effective law.

It is patently unfair to ask the medical doctors of this State to
run the risk—however slight—of criminal prosecution, or of incurring
civil liability, because of the vagueness of the proposed abortion law's
provisions.

Many physicians who originally were in favor of the proposed
law now have grave doubts about its worth as a Maryland statute.
In fact, the members of the Commission on Medical Discipline—all of
whom are medical doctors—have publicly asked me to veto the
measure.

It is obvious that the proposed law protects no one—neither the
mother, nor the doctor, nor the unborn child.

I am fully convinced, after careful review of the bill before me,
that House Bill No. 489 would allow the abortion of a fully formed
and healthy fetus, even in the ninth month. And there would be no
provision for criminal punishment of the individual who performed
the abortion.