CV NEWS FEED // In an interview regarding Maryland’s “Reproductive Freedom” amendment, parental rights advocate Deborah Brocato told CatholicVote how the proposal, which is supposedly focused on expanding abortion, will have a significant impact on parental rights.
Brocato, who has four children, is a retired intensive care unit nurse who has advocated for parental and family rights for 30 years. She chairs HealthNotHarmMD, a ballot initiative committee in Maryland that fights “to preserve parental rights, preserve constitutional rights, and maintain healthcare integrity by defeating the deceptive ‘Reproductive Freedom’ amendment.”
Brocato discussed the “Reproductive Freedom Amendment” on the Maryland state ballot in November, which reads,
That every person, as a central component of an individual’s right to liberty and equality, has the fundamental right to reproductive freedom, including but not limited to the ability to make and effectuate decisions to prevent, continue, or end one’s own pregnancy. The State may not, directly or indirectly, deny, burden, or abridge the right unless justified by a compelling state interest achieved by the least restrictive means.
Brocato emphasized that this measure is not a partisan issue and she does not want people to be “tricked into voting away parental rights.”
“Parental rights crosses all the political lines and ideological lines,” she explained. “I think most people agree that parents should be the authority in their children’s lives.”
Note: the following interview has been edited for brevity and clarity.
Could you speak some more about the consequences on parental rights of the reproductive freedom amendment in Maryland?
The supporters of this want people to think that this is simply about enshrining abortion in Maryland’s constitution. That is not the case. We know this for a few reasons. For one, abortion in Maryland is fully unrestricted. It’s permitted through birth and has been since 1992. Also, it’s fully funded. Voting against the amendment will not affect abortion laws. This is how we know that it’s targeting children.
We also know this because the amendment itself does not have any minimum age requirements or any parental consent requirements. When some legislators tried to change the amendment to include minimum age requirements or parental consent requirements, those efforts were completely rejected. When some legislators tried to narrow the amendment to make sure that it was only for women and about abortion, those efforts were also rejected. This amendment creates a brand new right called “reproductive freedom.”
“Reproductive freedom” is not only not defined in the amendment itself, but it is also not defined anywhere in Maryland code or Maryland law. The only clue we have in the amendment itself is that it says “reproductive freedom is not limited to…” and then the language that describes things related to pregnancy. By the amendment itself, we know it is meant to go beyond things having to do with pregnancy.
If children are given this new right, they would be allowed to go and obtain puberty blockers. They would be allowed to go and ask for a mastectomy. They would be allowed to go get birth control without parental consent or even parental knowledge. As it is right now, children, when they go to school, need written permission from their parents to take even a Tylenol or an ibuprofen. Children need written permission or consent from their parents to even have tattoos or piercings. You have to be 21 years old to purchase alcohol or marijuana in Maryland. So this is completely new.
If you think about the criminal justice system, minors are treated like juveniles, as they should be, because it’s understood that they don’t understand the consequences of their actions. It makes no sense that we would allow minor children to consent to drugs and surgeries that can permanently alter their bodies and have lifelong consequences.
With this amendment, would sex-change surgeries and hormone treatment be state-funded?
Well as it is, Medicaid is already required to cover these transition surgeries for adults. The Trans Health Equity Act of 2023 requires that and also said that it [Medicaid] should cover puberty blockers. Puberty blockers are only necessary for children because adults have already undergone puberty. Adults wouldn’t need puberty blockers. So already they’re saying Medicaid must cover it.
Now, when something becomes a right, money can’t be a burden. So the future aspect would be that then they would require that, in the same way that private health insurance companies are already required to cover abortion. (…) The next step would be to require that private health insurance companies also cover gender transition surgeries.
If parents try to resist their children’s gender changes, could they lose custody?
Absolutely. It’s already happening in other states. A Montana couple and an Indiana couple have already had their children taken out of their home because they wouldn’t use the pronouns their children were asking for.
We already had a case in Maryland where parents sued the Montgomery County Public School System because they weren’t telling the parents about things that were going on in the school. Well, a three-judge panel on a federal court ruled against the parents and in favor of the Montgomery County school system, saying that the parents didn’t have a right to know, that Montgomery County public schools did not have to inform the things going on in school, saying that kids have a right to privacy.
This is strange. When you think about it, you’re talking about random adults in the school who would know something about your children that you don’t know. Why is it okay that these random adults get to know something that you the parents don’t get to know when you are the one looking out for your child and trying to make sure that they get the best care possible? (…) Parents should always have the authority to make decisions about their child, no matter what that is. Somebody else shouldn’t be able to come in who’s known them for less time than the parents and try and direct this child for healthcare decisions or even educational decisions.
Would this amendment also have implications for so-called “gender conversion therapy”? So if there’s, for instance, a Christian therapist who wants to help a child work through gender dysphoria, do you think that would be made illegal?
They would certainly feel threatened that this amendment could be weaponized against them. And the way I understand it, therapists are actually looking for the underlying causes. They are not trying to tell their clients [what to do]. Always with therapy, they try and help their clients work through whatever it is they’re going through and make decisions for themselves. The therapist is not trying to tell people what to do. They’re trying to help them work through it.
So for them, they always want to find out what are the underlying reasons why someone doesn’t like their body. That’s what they’re usually looking at like, What’s going on? Why don’t you like the way you are? What’s going on? But if they would, could be threatened, certainly with lawsuits. If this amendment passes, it definitely could be weaponized against not only those therapists but also against anyone who expresses opposition to these ideologies, because that could be seen as getting in the way or obstructing a person in their ability to exercise this new right called reproductive freedom.
Even if those lawsuits go away or are found to be frivolous, it would certainly chill free speech if people are worried about somebody coming after them and suing them. Most people don’t have some funds set aside to make sure that they can hire lawyers for their defense.
