Where do the Candidates Stand on the Question of Abortion Rights?

Jan Plotczyk • September 27, 2022

Abortion is the hot button issue for the 2022 gubernatorial and federal midterm elections. In Maryland we have stark choices. This article will look at abortion positions of candidates for four races on the ballot in November: governor, attorney general, U.S. Senate, and U.S. House of Representatives.

Republicans:

The Republican candidates for these four offices are cut from the same cloth: ultra-right-wing MAGA. All four Republican candidates listed below are endorsed by the Maryland Right to Life PAC.

Daniel L. Cox is the Republican running for governor. Until he won the July primary election, his website boasted that he was 100% pro-life, and listed instances where he acted to oppose abortion access. His website stated that he opposed a bill in the Maryland House that would allow Maryland to become a sanctuary state for abortion seekers. He also voted against a bill earlier this year that would expand abortion care access. He campaigned on dramatically curbing access to abortions in Maryland. Cox has sponsored many unsuccessful anti-abortion bills in the Maryland legislature.

Now that Cox is attempting to appeal to a wider cross-section of voters for the general election, most of the anti-abortion, pro-forced birth rhetoric has been scrubbed from his website. Little is now visible of his extremist anti-abortion positions. Cox may have changed his website, but he has not changed his views on abortion.

Michael Peroutka is the Republican running for attorney general. Unlike Cox, Peroutka apparently sees no need to try to hide his true feelings on abortion or anything else.

The attorney general is the chief legal officer of the state, and as such is responsible for upholding the laws of the state of Maryland. But Peroutka has stated publicly that he will not defend any state law that he deems to be “not harmonious with God’s law.” He believes that abortion violates “God’s law.” He has pledged to protect the lives of the “pre-born.”

Chris Chaffee is the Republican running for U.S. Senate. He has no campaign website. These passages, taken verbatim from his Facebook page, exhort us to “Save the unborn,” and to “Save The Unborn Gives the rights back to the unborn children as they are alive. God is watching.” When the draft Supreme Court abortion ruling leaked in May, Chaffee wrote, “God is happy today. Save the unborn.” Other Facebook posts include: “I would of thought Joe would of stood for the unborn? God did.” And, ”Maryland is a on demand abortion state this needs to change taken life means exactly what it is taken life. Only God Should do this.”

Andrew P. Harris (incumbent) is the Republican candidate for U.S. Congress, Maryland First District. Harris has said he would support a federal abortion ban. He is a co-sponsor of the Life at Conception Act, which would ban abortion nationwide, with no exceptions. He said: “I’m on record. I would support a heartbeat bill. I think we should protect infant lives after the heartbeat is detected.” He applauded the Supreme Court ruling on Dobbs, saying, “As I have long said, human life should be protected from conception until its natural end, and I am thankful that this ruling now affirms that.”

Harris is a co-chair of the Congressional Pro-Life Caucus. He has a long history of pro-forced birth votes, voting NO recently on the Right to Contraception Act, the Women’s Health Protection Acts of 2022 and 2021, the Ensuring Access to Abortion Act of 2022, and the Equal Access to Contraceptives for Veterans Act.

Democrats:

In contrast, the Democratic candidates for the same four offices have well thought out declarations on the issues of abortion, reproductive rights, and women’s health, and have presented issue briefs and policy statements.

Wes Moore is the Democratic candidate for governor. He says, “all Marylanders deserve the autonomy to make their own decisions about their reproductive healthcare, and I will fight to make access to reproductive care more affordable and accessible in every corner of our state.” He believes that the right to abortion should be included in Maryland’s Constitution, and that Maryland should be a safe haven for reproductive health care. Read his one-page issue statement.

Anthony Brown is the Democratic candidate for attorney general. His website states: “Abortion and reproductive health care rights are under attack. Maryland and our next attorney general must be ready to protect these rights in our communities and fight for Americans around the country.” He pledges to “stand firm and defend the rights of individuals to make their own reproductive decisions.”

As a member of Congress, Brown was a sponsor of the Women’s Health Protection Act of 2021 and the Access to Contraception for Servicemembers and Dependents Act of 2021, and signed onto the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization Congressional amicus brief filed in the United States Supreme Court.

Read Brown’s statement on abortion and reproductive rights.

Chris Van Hollen (incumbent) is the Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate. His campaign website states that he is “a fierce defender of a woman’s right to reproductive choice and an original sponsor of the Women’s Health Protection Act.” He has consistently voted YES on women’s health and reproductive rights legislation, and NO on legislation that would curb a women’s right to choose. He has been endorsed by NARAL Pro-Choice America, the National Organization of Women PAC, and the Planned Parenthood Action Fund; he is rated 100% by Planned Parenthood.

In a press release, Van Hollen said: “For three decades I’ve fought in the trenches alongside these partners to … protect access to safe, legal abortion. With the stakes so high before the Supreme Court and rights under attack in state legislatures, I am committed to our work in the Senate and in Maryland to continue the path of progress for reproductive health, rights, and justice.”

Read the press release.

Heather Mizeur is the Democratic candidate for Congress in Maryland’s First District, running to oust Rep. Harris.

During her eight years in the Maryland state legislature, Mizeur was a consistent champion for reproductive rights, which she views as critical to a woman’s health and autonomy. She is endorsed by the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, the National Organization for Women Political Action Committee, and EMILY’s List.

From Mizeur’s website: “I have always supported, and will continue to support, every woman’s right to make the most personal decisions regarding her own body. In Washington, I will work tirelessly to protect and expand the right to choose.”

Mizeur stated on Twitter: “Women everywhere need a fierce advocate, one who will stand up for them and won’t compromise when fundamental rights are on the line. I want you to know that I will give it everything I have to protect women’s reproductive health choices. Always.”

Read more about Mizeur’s position on reproductive rights here and here.

Jan Plotczyk spent 25 years as a survey and education statistician with the federal government, at the Census Bureau and the National Center for Education Statistics. She retired to Rock Hall.

< Older Post

Newer Post >

Mail

Common Sense for the Eastern Shore

Megan Outten Launches Campaign for Wicomico County Council, District 7

By Friends of Megan Outten • July 29, 2025

Megan Outten, a lifelong Wicomico County resident and former Salisbury City Councilwoman, officially announced her candidacy recently for Wicomico County Council, District 7. At 33, Outten brings the energy of a new generation combined with a proven record of public service and results-driven leadership. “I’m running because Wicomico deserves better,” Outten said. “Too often, our communities are expected to do more with less. We’re facing underfunded schools, limited economic opportunities, and years of neglected infrastructure. I believe Wicomico deserves leadership that listens, plans ahead, and delivers real, measurable results.” A Record of Action and A Vision for the Future On Salisbury’s City Council, Outten earned a reputation for her proactive, hands-on approach — working directly with residents to close infrastructure gaps, support first responders, and ensure everyday voices were heard. Now she’s bringing that same focus to the County Council, with priorities centered on affordability, public safety, and stronger, more resilient communities. Key Priorities for District 7: Fully fund public schools so every child has the opportunity to succeed. Fix aging infrastructure and county services through proactive investment. Keep Wicomico affordable with smarter planning and pathways to homeownership. Support first responders and safer neighborhoods through better tools, training, and prevention. Expand resources for seniors, youth, and underserved communities. Outten’s platform is rooted in real data and shaped by direct community engagement. With Wicomico now the fastest-growing school system on Maryland’s Eastern Shore — and 85% of students relying on extra resources — she points to the county’s lagging investment as a key area for action. “Strong schools lead to strong jobs, thriving industries, and healthier communities,” Outten said. “Our schools and infrastructure are at a tipping point. We need leadership that stops reacting after things break — and starts investing before they do.” A Commitment to Home and Service Born and raised in Wicomico, Megan Outten sees this campaign as a continuation of her lifelong service to her community. Her vision reflects what she’s hearing from neighbors across the county: a demand for fairness, opportunity, and accountability in local government. “Wicomico is my home; it’s where I grew up, built my life, and where I want to raise my family,” Outten said. “Our county is full of potential. We just need leaders who will listen, work hard, and get things done. That’s what I’ve always done, and that’s exactly what I’ll continue to do on the County Council.” Outten will be meeting with residents across District 7 in the months ahead and unveiling more details of her platform. For more information or to get involved, contact info@meganoutten.com

“Turtles All The Way Down”

By John Christie • July 29, 2025

Way back in 1935, the Supreme Court determined that independent agencies like the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) do not violate the Constitution’s separation of powers. Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935). Congress provided that the CPSC, like the NLRB and MSPB, would operate as an independent agency — a multi-member, bipartisan commission whose members serve staggered terms and could be removed only “for neglect of duty or malfeasance in office but for no other cause.” Rejecting a claim that the removal restriction interferes with the “executive power,” the Humphrey’s Court held that Congress has the authority to “forbid their [members’] removal except for cause” when creating such “quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial” bodies. As a result, these agencies have operated as independent agencies for many decades under many different presidencies. Shortly after assuming office in his second term, Donald Trump began to fire, without cause, the Democratic members of several of these agencies. The lower courts determined to reinstate the discharged members pending the ultimate outcome of the litigation, relying on Humphrey’s , resulting in yet another emergency appeal to the Supreme Court by the administration. In the first such case, a majority of the Court allowed President Trump to discharge the Democratic members of the NLRB and the MSPB while the litigation over the legality of the discharges continued. Trump v. Wilcox (May 22, 2025). The majority claimed that they do not now decide whether Humphrey’s should be overruled because “that question is better left for resolution after full briefing and argument.” However, hinting that these agency members have “considerable” executive power and suggesting that “the Government” faces greater “risk of harm” from an order allowing a removed officer to continue exercising the executive power than a wrongfully removed officer faces from being unable to perform her statutory duty,” the majority gave the President the green light to proceed. Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, dissented, asserting that Humphrey’s remains good law until overturned and forecloses both the President’s firings and the Court’s decision to award emergency relief.” Our emergency docket, while fit for some things, should not be used to “overrule or revise existing law.” Moreover, the dissenters contend that the majority’s effort to explain their decision “hardly rises to the occasion.” Maybe by saying that the Commissioners exercise “considerable” executive power, the majority is suggesting that Humphrey’s is no longer good law but if that is what the majority means, then it has foretold a “massive change” in the law and done so on the emergency docket, “with little time, scant briefing, and no argument.” And, the “greater risk of harm” in fact is that Congress provided for these discharged members to serve their full terms, protected from a President’s desire to substitute his political allies. More recently, in the latest shadow docket ruling in the administration’s favor, the same majority of the Court again permitted President Trump to fire, without cause, the Democratic members of another independent agency, this time the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). Trump v. Boyle (July 23, 2025). The same three justices dissented, once more objecting to the use of the Court’s emergency docket to destroy the independence of an independent agency as established by Congress. The CPSC, like the NLRB and MSPB, was designed to operate as “a classic independent agency.” In Congress’s view, that structure would better enable the CPSC to achieve its mission — ensuring the safety of consumer products, from toys to appliances — than would a single-party agency under the full control of a single President. “By allowing the President to remove Commissioners for no reason other than their party affiliation, the majority has negated Congress’s choice of agency bipartisanship and independence.” The dissenters also assert that the majority’s sole professed basis for the more recent order in Boyle was its prior order in Wilcox . But in their opinion, Wilcox itself was minimally explained. So, the dissenters claim, the majority rejects the design of Congress for a whole class of agencies by “layering nothing on nothing.” “Next time, though, the majority will have two (if still under-reasoned) orders to cite. Truly, this is ‘turtles all the way down.’” Rapanos v. United States (2006). * ***** *In Rapanos , in a footnote to his plurality opinion, former Supreme Court Justice Scalia explained that this allusion is to a classic story told in different forms and attributed to various authors. His favorite version: An Eastern guru affirms that the earth is supported on the back of a tiger. When asked what supports the tiger, he says it stands upon an elephant; and when asked what supports the elephant, he says it is a giant turtle. When asked, finally, what supports the giant turtle, he is briefly taken aback, but quickly replies "Ah, after that it is turtles all the way down." John Christie was for many years a senior partner in a large Washington, D.C. law firm. He specialized in anti-trust litigation and developed a keen interest in the U.S. Supreme Court about which he lectures and writes.

“Andy Harris Just Made the Most Dangerous Vote of His Career”

By Shore Progress, Progessive Maryland, Progressive Harford Co • July 15, 2025

Marylanders will not forget this vote.

How Many Will Be Kicked Off Medicaid in MD-01 Because of Andy Harris?

By Jan Plotczyk • July 9, 2025

More than 30,000 of our neighbors in Maryland’s first congressional district will lose their health insurance through the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid because of provisions in the GOP’s heartless tax cut and spending bill passed last week.

Six Reasons Why the House Budget Bill Will Hurt Rural America

By Michael Chameides, Barn Raiser • May 21, 2025

Right now, Congress is working on a fast-track bill that would make historic cuts to basic needs programs in order to finance another round of tax breaks for the wealthy and big corporations.

Who Will SNAP Cuts Affect in Maryland? On the Eastern Shore?

By Catlin Nchako, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities • May 21, 2025

The House Agriculture Committee recently voted, along party lines, to advance legislation that would cut as much as $300 million from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. SNAP is the nation’s most important anti-hunger program, helping more than 41 million people in the U.S. pay for food. With potential cuts this large, it helps to know who benefits from this program in Maryland, and who would lose this assistance. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities compiled data on SNAP beneficiaries by congressional district, cited below, and produced the Maryland state datasheet , shown below. In Maryland, in 2023-24, 1 in 9 people lived in a household with SNAP benefits. In Maryland’s First Congressional District, in 2023-24: Almost 34,000 households used SNAP benefits. Of those households, 43% had at least one senior (over age 60). 29% of SNAP recipients were people of color. 15% were Black, non-Hispanic, higher than 11.8% nationally. 6% were Hispanic (19.4% nationally). There were 24,700 total veterans (ages 18-64). Of those, 2,200 lived in households that used SNAP benefits (9%). The CBPP SNAP datasheet for Maryland is below. See data from all the states and download factsheets here.