Out of order

I thought this would happen.

My committee had just taken preliminary action on House Bill 45, Crimes - Tattooing, Branding, and Body Piercing - Parental Consent.

Someone could offer a floor amendment requiring parental consent before a minor could obtain an abortion, I commented to some of my colleagues last Friday.

My next step was to ask the Attorney General’s Office for advice.

Such an amendment would not violate the requirement in the Maryland constitution that a bill deal with a single subject, began the response.

However, when the abortion issue was raised in an amendment to a bill requiring parental consent before a minor could use a tanning bed, the Senate President ruled last year that it violated the Senate rules because it changed the purpose of the bill.

I shared that legal advice with appropriate delegates and staff.

Today, a floor amendment was offered to HB 45 that would require parental consent for “any invasive medical or surgical procedure.”

The Speaker ruled the amendment out of order because it changed the purpose of the bill.

In response to some of the comments made by supporters of the amendment, I rose to explain my vote.

“No one will be silenced and prevented from having a full hearing on this issue if this amendment is ruled out of order,” I declared. “Put in a bill and it will be considered by the appropriate committee, like any other piece of legislation.”

The Speaker’s ruling was upheld, 103-35.