Pro-Life Issues and the Republican Candidates for Maryland Governor


Before I get into the details of this post, for the purposes of this conversation pro-life issues include not only abortion but also end-of-life issues, fetal stem cell research issues, rights of conscience, and other issues related to the protection of innocent life. As someone born just under a year after Roe v. Wade became law of the land, I am an early member of the generation that could have been legally aborted. Additionally, I will note I converted to Catholicism in 2012 and I just took my first degree in the Knights of Columbus last month. I was pro-life before both of those events and even before my previous job (working three years for a legally-oriented pro-life organization in DC.) I’ve blogged about pro-life issues on this site before and I will continue to do so in the future. In fact, I think I’m going to be doing more of it now in general (not just related to politics.) That’s why any notion that I wrote about Larry Hogan and abortion last week simply to try to damage him on behalf of another candidate (or to help Democrats) is ludicrous and offensive to me.

In January, my former employer (Americans United for Life) ranked Maryland the 8th least protective state (43rd overall) for protecting life. Their report card for Maryland includes a summary of current law, what happened in 2012, and recommendations for the future. Here’s a summary of current law:

Maryland provides virtually no protection for women and minors seeking abortion.  It does not have an informed consent law, and its parental notice law contains a loophole that eviscerates the protection this requirement typically provides.  It also allows and funds destructive embryo research.

Maryland Right to Life also has a summary of Maryland laws related to abortion authored by the head of the legislative department at the National Right to Life Committee.

I started researching the candidates for governor on pro-life issues after the Maryland GOP’s Oktoberfest event a couple of months ago. A few days after the event, I had a conversation with a friend who is a pro-life activist I’ve worked with on some local issues who had attended the event. It was her first MD GOP event and she encountered David Craig and Ron George simultaneously and asked them about abortion-related issues. She told me about her disappointment in how they both responded. According to her, both candidates told her that there was very little, if anything, the governor of Maryland could do about the issue.

That conversation I had with her caused me to start looking into the records and positions of all the Republican candidates for governor,which led me to doing the research contained in this post. (Despite Michael Swartz’s assertion, there’s this thing called Google that made the research easy.)

There are plenty of candidates who have taken positions in their statements that are pro-life. I’ve only been able to find recent voting records related to Ron George and Jeannie Haddaway (David Craig’s running mate.) I also need to look into David Craig’s voting record when he was delegate. I’ve included what I found and how overall the field isn’t that impressive to many pro-lifers because of the perception of past betrayal from candidates for Governor.

Almost all of the information I found below was found via Google search (with the exceptions being noted when I mention that information.) Any candidate or campaign who wants to add further information about endorsements, positions, or voting records can send me an email to

I’ll start off with David Craig and his running mate Jeannie Haddaway.


To start things off, I’ve found no mention of any pro-life issues on the campaign website.

At a Wicomico County Republican Club meeting in July, Michael Swartz wrote the following:

When queried about social issues, particularly being pro-life, Craig related that he didn’t push the issue with his children, but was pleased that they turned out as pro-life as they did. David also pointed out that he voted in a pro-life fashion during his time in the General Assembly. But he would rather have 5 million Marylanders decide than 188 in the General Assembly. Jeannie echoed the overall stance, adding for her part she was “conservative, Christian, pro-life.”

In June of this year, Greg Kline wrote the following about Craig’s campaign:

The good news for Mr. Craig, though, is that unlike Bob Ehrlich or other prior statewide MDGOP candidates, he has a solid conservative record.  He has balanced budgets, cut taxes, won elections against the odds, supported the second amendment and has firmly established pro-life and pro-traditional marriage credentials.

In 2011, Bel Air Patch reported on a Craig event for bloggers and noted that:

Pressed on social issues, Craig said he does not support abortion or gay marriage in any circumstance.

Greg Kline also wrote about the 2011 event:

Mr. Craig is fiscally conservative, pro-business and is unapologetic in standing up for life and traditional marriage.

In 2010, Craig responded to Harford County Right to Life’s candidate survey. In his answers he said that he opposes abortion with exceptions for cases where the life of the mother is threatened. Craig also said that he supports stem cell research, but not research in which human embryos are involved and/or destroyed (in other words he opposes embryonic stem cell research.)  He also said that he opposed government funding of embryonic stem cell research. Regarding assisted suicide and euthanasia,  Craig wrote that the  family should retain the right to enact a Do Not Resuscitate order if their relative is incompetent to make medical decisions. He said that he opposed government funding of abortions whether it was through subsidized health insurance, medicaid, or grants to organizations that perform or refer women to abortions. Craig also supported enforcing Maryland’s fetal homicide law while also supporting strengthening that law to make it apply to all unborn children regardless of fetal age.

Craig did not respond to a question on the survey asking if he supported legislation that would require an abortion provider to offer the option to a woman seeking an abortion to see a sonogram of her unborn child.

haddaway-riccio2 Craig’s running mate, Del. Jeannie Haddaway, has a legislative record to look at on these issues. She received a 100% rating from Maryland Right to Life in the years 2008-2011. She received a 0% from NARAL Pro Choice Maryland in 2010. Maryland Right to Life endorsed her in the 2010 election.

In 2012, she voted for the Schulz Amendment to Limit Abortion Funding. This vote and a similar vote in the Senate were the only relevant floor votes in 2012. According to Maryland Right to Life, both of these votes “reflect a fundamental issue: denying taxpayer funds for elective abortions.”

More from MD RTL:

In the budget, such funding is allowed. Statistics compiled by the State over the past decade indicate that for these Medicaid-funded abortions, the only type of abortions where any data is compiled, about 99.8% were justified by the vague “mental health” reason.

Since mental health can be defined in this context as “depriving a woman of her preferred lifestyle” or requiring her to “endure the discomforts of pregnancy,” it is very clear this means abortion on demand.

In 2011, Haddaway voted for the Vitale Amendment to Limit Abortion Funding, which was similar to the 2012 vote. In 2010, she voted for an amendment that would have eliminated taxpayer funding for most abortions and for another amendment that would have directed most taxpayer funds toward ethical stem cell research. In 2009, she voted for an amendment that would have prioritized spending toward ethical stem cell research. In 2008, Haddaway voted for amendments that would have stopped taxpayer funding of elective abortions and defunded the Maryland Stem Cell Commission. There were no relevant House floor votes in 2007. She was sponsor of the Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2006. She also authored an amendment to HB 1, the Maryland Stem Cell Research Act of 2006 and voted for final passage of HB 1. Jeannie Haddaway was also a co-sponsor of HB 958, a parental notification bill.

Next let’s look at Ron George.


I was not able to find any mention of pro-life issues or abortion on his campaign website.

Ron George was given a 100% rating by Maryland Right to Life in 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011. He received a 0% rating from NARAL Pro Choice Maryland in 2010. Earlier this year, he was co-sponsor of HB 1312, which would have banned abortions after 20 weeks. George had an identical voting record to Jeannie Haddaway (see detailed information in her listing above) in the legislature from 2008-2012. There were no relevant House floor votes in 2007, which was his first legislative session after being elected in November 2006. Maryland Right to Life endorsed him in the 2010 election.

Prior to his announcement in June, Senator Ed Reilly endorsed George:

Reilly, who staunchly opposes abortion, said he believes George is more conservative than Craig, who has also said he will stress economic issues. “I know Ron George is strongly pro-life,” Reilly said.

Reilly also spoke at George’s announcement:

There is “no greater supporter of right-to-life issues” in the House of Delegates, Reilly said. He also noted that Ron and his wife Becky George had home-schooled their six children.

Brian Griffiths has more from that announcement.

A 2010 article from Human Events focused on George’s race against Democrat Judd Legum that year:

“I’m a conservative, pure and simple,” George told me during a recent visit to Human Events. At a time when many Free State Republicans shy away from cultural issues, George (who teaches Sunday school in his Roman Catholic parish) is unabashedly pro-life. In addition, the father of six (and grandfather of three) has been a strong advocate of charter schools and serves on the National Board for Homeschoolers.

In 2009, Ron George spoke at a kickoff conference for 40 Days for Life.

Charles Lollar is next up.

lollar-micI found no mention of pro-life issues on Charles Lollar’s campaign website.

However, I have heard information from sources close to the Lollar campaign that would make Lollar one of the most intriguing candidates for pro-lifers. It relates to actions Lollar would take unilaterally using executive power if elected Governor and it would make national news.

However, at this point Lollar is not a  serious candidate for governor. Maybe if he rights the ship and brings in a more professional campaign staff, he could get there. (I’m hearing more rumblings about him looking to do that but based on past reports not panning out I’m not putting any stock into them until something actually happens.)

In 2009, it was reported that Lollar said:

“I think that life starts at conception, but you don’t have to build a platform off that.”

In 2010, Lollar was endorsed by both Maryland Right to Life and Mike Huckabee when he ran for Congress against Steny Hoyer.

When he ran for Congress, Lollar authored a long position paper on life issues that was apparently posted on his campaign website.

The summary of his position:

I believe that life begins at conception. I believe that the life of the unborn is just as sacred and unique as the life of those who are already born. I believe that the unborn are deserving of the same opportunity for life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, as you or me.

His closing paragraph:

If elected as your next Congressman I will fight to defend the life of the unborn and restore your right to decide this matter, as intended under our Constitution. Regardless of how you may feel about it, this issue is too important a matter to be decided by a haphazard collection of judges on the Supreme Court. The decision to permit, restrict or prohibit abortion is literally one of life or death. It is only fitting that “We the People” have an active voice in determining the moral code that will govern that decision.

Lollar also gave his positions on abortion to Project Vote Smart in 2010. He told them he is pro-life, that he thinks abortion should be illegal in cases of rape and incest, and legal when the life of the woman is endangered. He opposed federal funding of abortion and told them that:

The real battle is for the heart to make positive and correct choices to include abstinence, bearing children in marriage, and adoption.

Jay Bala and Brian Vaeth

I have been unable to find positions from either of these candidates anywhere online on pro-life issues. I would welcome either of them contacting me to let me know this information.

And now, last but not least, is Larry Hogan

lhogan Hogan doesn’t have the online voting record, position statement, or list of endorsements that the other candidates have on pro-life issues. All I was initially able to find was a Baltimore Sun report from late October 1992:

Mr. Hogan said he supports states’ rights to limit abortions, although he favors keeping abortions legal.

Since then I’ve been told that Hogan was either misquoted or his position was mischaracterized. I attempted to find any possible correction that might have been made but was unable to find one. I also have not gotten any information about any requests for correction that were made.

I’ve also been told that Hogan was endorsed by Maryland Right to Life in 1992. I have not been able to confirm that, although I heard members of Hogan’s team were researching his endorsements from back then. I have also reached out to Maryland Right to Life for confirmation on that endorsement, which was likely made before the lae October 1992 debate story that the Sun mentioned Hogan’s remarks in.

I was also told that Hogan’s father introduced a human life amendment while serving in Congress and that his uncle was heavily involved (or even helped found) a national pro-life group.

I’ve investigated those last two statements  (which don’t necessarily translate to Larry Hogan’s position.) Defend Life’s newsletter featured a story on Dr. Bill Hogan in February 2005. He also mentioned Congressman Larry Hogan Sr. in the article.

Dr. Bill Hogan, Larry Hogan’s uncle, was a pro-life OB-GYN in the DC area. Here’s an excerpt from the article:

While Hogan and his friends were giving pro-life talks, the doctor’s brother, Larry Hogan, was elected to Congress.

“I told him, ‘We have to do something about abortion.’  He said, ‘I don’t want to touch it.’  I said, ‘Larry, you’ve got to see this.’

“I ran through the slides with him; he was mesmerized.”

For the next six years, Larry became the leading pro-life spokesman in the House and Senate.

“He introduced the pro-life amendment; he and I both defended it before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee.  I was very proud of my brother.”

Here’s the text of the Hogan Amendment from 1973:

Introduced by Rep. Lawrence Hogan (R-MD) on January 30, 1973, under H.J.Res. 261.

Section 1. Neither the United States nor any State shall deprive any human being, from the moment of conception, of life without due process of law; nor deny to any human being, from the moment of conception, within its jurisdiction, the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Neither the United States nor any State shall deprive any human being of life on account of illness, age, or incapacity.

Section 3. Congress and the several States shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Additionally, when Lawrence Hogan was county executive in Prince George’s County, he pushed for a ban on abortions in county hospitals. Even Paris Glendening, who was then a pro-life Democrat on County Council, supported this legislation. The effort was unsuccessful.

Summary of candidate positions

You can read all of the evidence I was able to compile above. If you have any other clips

Following up on my posts last week and a history lesson

I noted many of the above facts in my follow-up post last week. I still have an offer out there to run a written statement unedited and uncut that clarifies exactly what Larry Hogan’s current position is and how he was misquoted or mischaracterized by the Sun. I have received indications that I probably won’t be getting that since in the days since then aspersions have been cast about my motivations and I received a nastygram about the version of the story that apparently centered on the headline that I didn’t write.

Michael Swartz, who says he is pro-life seeks to apparently continue these aspersions against me:

So I got to wondering who was the one that went way back to 1992 and started the meme which Jeff Quinton reported on regarding Hogan’s position on abortion? One has to take this in context, though: Hogan was running for a Congressional seat at the time (as opposed to a state office) and there was a ballot question regarding abortion law which was petitioned to referendum but handily kept in place by state voters at the time. (Question 6 of 1992 passed by a 62%-38% margin, and was the last referendum until 2012.) Being pro-choice was perhaps the safer electoral move at the time – besides, it took less than four years for Barack Obama to do an about-face on gay marriage so it’s possible Larry has gravitated to a more pro-life perspective in the last 22.

Of course Democrats know that the Republican base is primarily pro-life, so what better way to sow seeds of discord among a select group of GOP primary voters than to bring up the abortion issue? Frankly, that’s not a top-drawer concern for many voters, even in the GOP,  but that five percent who identify it as their key issue can make a difference in a multi-person primary. (Aside from the notion that Hogan favored keeping abortions legal, he’s right on the money about overturning Roe v. Wade and sending the issue to the states. It’s a battle best fought in Annapolis…and Dover, and Columbus, and Austin, and so forth.)

But if someone is digging that deep to find dirt about Larry Hogan, perhaps there’s something to the notion that we weren’t buried face-down as deep as some would have thought eight years ago. 2014 seems like a nice time to emerge.

As I mentioned before, I found the 1992 story through a simple Google search last week. It’s really not that hard to do. I’ve also done a great deal of research on Maryland abortion laws since 1968 in the past few days. I would find it odd if Hogan took the safer political position to support keeping abortion legal if he had already been endorsed by Maryland Right to Life that cycle. That’s why nailing down the information on that endorsement is a critical piece of all this – althought Swartz seems to be jumping to the conclusion that Hogan was just taking the safe pro-abortion position.

Also, I gave Hogan the benefit of the doubt in saying that the states’ rights part of what the Sun reported he said in 1992 was exactly what overturning Roe would do. However, the law that was signed into law in 1991 by Gov.Willie Don Schaefer had its own ramifications for the eventuality of Roe being overturned. A report from earlier in the 1992 cycle pointed out that the 1991 law was on hold pending the referendum and if Roe were to be overturned before the election, then Maryland’s 1968 case law would be the law of the land.

That 1968 law liberalized the existing abortion laws in Maryland and it was signed by Spiro Agnew, a Republican. After Agnew left to become Nixon’s VP (Nixon supported abortion in the case of interracial children and in the case of rape and also favored it as population control for “the blacks and the poor.”)

Agnew’s successor, Gov. Marvin Mandel (a Democrat) vetoed one bill further liberalizing Maryland abortion laws. However, Mandel was in negotiations to pass a more liberal abortion law that fixed his concerns with the one he vetoed. I’ve found no evidence of that law going anywhere before the Roe and Doe decisions opened the floodgates. Mandel and Agnew also had another thing in common – they both were convicted of corruption or fraud charges (Mandel’s were later overturned after he served his jail time.)

Making a long story short, if the Sun was right in their characterization of his 1992 remarks, then Larry Hogan was not only supporting the prevailing position of that referendum,but he was supporting enshrining the legality of abortion into Maryland law in the eventuality Roe is ever overturned. Since then, Maryland passed a Freedom of Choice Act that further guarantees abortion remains as-is here if Roe is overturned. That’s why it’s puzzling to me that the Hogan team seems so scared of clarifying things if the Sun got his position so wrong.

It has been 21 years since 1992 (not 22 as Swartz says) and I realize that Hogan’s position could be totally different now than what it is now,but we have nothing to validate that thought at all. Barack Obama’s gay marriage position is better classified as a flip-flop than a change of heart – much like John Kerry’s waffling on the war in Iraq – so I’m not sure that’s a valid comparison by Swartz.

As for Swartz’s claim that even Republicans don’t care much about the issue, polling data on Maryland GOP primary voters exists as recently as 2008 (maybe from 2012 as well but I have yet to find it) that provides some insight on more recent positions on abortion than 1992. Exit polling in the 2008 primary showed 56% of Maryland Republicans identified themselves as pro-life. Additionally, 84% of those polled in the exit poll favored restrictions on abortion. Two separate polls taken before that primary showed that 55% and 59% of Maryland Republicans identified themselves as pro-life. It’s an important constituency in a primary even if candidates don’t need to base their whole campaign around the issue.

I have a simple response to Swartz wringing his hands about the Democrats possibly trying to sow seeds of discord among Republicans over the abortion issue (and the implication being that I am going along with it.) My response is to quote Swartz’s own words from earlier this year:

But going back to my previous paragraph where I alluded to Rush, one has to ask: how often do you hear the Democrats talking about Republicans in this state? I don’t really hear them talking about us too much, which seems to indicate to me they’re not really scared of us.

And when they do talk about us, they generally say that we shouldn’t be as strident on social issues. How often would you take advice from someone who wants to beat your brains in? Sounds to me like they have no answers for the logical arguments we give for these issues, so they’re just going to tell us we shouldn’t bring it up.

Why all of this matters

ehrlichsThe thing I keep hearing from pro-life activists and from other pro-life Republicans is that they don’t trust any candidates on pro-life issues. Even when they have a paper trail of positions like Lollar and Craig or voting records like Haddaway and George, there is trepidation about people doing the politically expedient thing to get elected (as Swartz seems to think Larry Hogan did in his post I quoted above.)

The fact that Hogan has close ties to Bob Ehrlich (and to a lesser extent Marvin Mandel) also has caused some concern among some pro-lifers. As I noted above, Mandel vetoed one bill liberalizing abortion laws as governor but was prepared to go along with a revision of it.

Mandel, Bruce Bereano (a Mandel confidante with his own federal fraud convictions), and Kendel Ehrlich (Bob wasn’t there) were at a Change Maryland event in June at Hogan’s home.

Change Maryland’s website bio of Hogan notes that:

Former Gov. Bob Ehrlich has even called Hogan “the only Republican in the state with a chance to win.”

Red Maryland also agrees with this assessment:

However, we will continue to ascribe to the Buckley Rule and support the most viable right candidate who can win. And that candidate is Larry Hogan.

Even without connecting Ehrlich to Hogan, it has caused a general mistrust of any Republican candidate by some pro-lifers.

A Baltimore Sun piece in 2010 about Ehrlich’s regular lecture to Richard Vatz’s class at Towson University might be a good example of why the mistrust of Ehrlich is there:

 In a trick he uses every semester, Mr. Ehrlich asked the students to raise their hands if they are pro-life. About a third of the class did so. He asked them to raise their hands if they’re pro-choice. The other two-thirds did. “You’re all wrong,” Mr. Ehrlich said, noting that such black-and-white responses fail to capture the complexity of an issue. He said they also make for an easy weapon for opponents to paint you in an unfavorable light.

Despite the fact that Ehrlich took a middle of the road position on abortion during his tenure in Congress, I’ve been told that in 2002 he reached out to pro-life activists to attempt to gain their support. In fact, I’ve heard that on a bus tour in southern Maryland that year, Ehrlich promised that, if elected, he would favor parental consent laws, favor a ban on partial-birth abortions, and oppose public funding of abortions.

This came on the heels of an aggressive campaign by pro-lifers lobbying Ehrlich that year, because of their disdain for Kathleen Kennedy Townsend. Apparently, Ehrlich spokesman Paul Schurick confirmed that Ehrlich heard the tape pro-lifers were using to lobby him. That’s the same Paul Schurick who was convicted in the robocall case following the 2010 elections (when he was Ehrlich’s campaign manager) and Ehrlich used unused campaign money to pay his legal fees.

A 1999 Washington Post article pointed out Ehrlich’s position on abortion way back then:

Coming off last November’s elections, which devastated Maryland’s fledgling GOP, many Republicans are pinning a lot of hope on Ehrlich, 41, a former state delegate and photogenic three-term member of Congress. He’s trying to broaden his appeal by carving a reputation as a moderate in a party that has been defined by its conservative wing in recent years.

He supports abortion rights and, though first elected in 1994’s GOP congressional tidal wave, has managed to vote against enough of the GOP’s Contract With America to offer a rebuttal to likely Democratic charges that he’s a Republican revolutionary in the mold of former U.S. House speaker Newt Gingrich.

Ehrlich also complained that his position on abortion caused him problems with other Republicans in Congress.

The current situation


Earlier this year, a young woman from New York died from a botched 33-week abortion that took place at a clinic in Germantown operated by notorious abortionist Leroy Carhart. Carhart was already under investigation in Maryland after a complaint filed against him in 2011. Carhart was given a medical license in Maryland despite his lies and omissions on his application.

Life News reported the following:

The Maryland Attorney General’s office is not specifically looking into Morbelli’s death but it is looking at illegal dumping by the abortion clinic that could result in fines or other form of punishment.

In a new report on her blog, pro-life writer Jill Stanek has posted images of documents retrieved by pro-lifers from Carhart’s trash that advise patients to not go to the local emergency room if facing medical problems following an abortion

More from Jill Stanek:

Also collected between August 2011 and May 2012 were Carhart’s (pictured right) instructions to patients. There were three sheets found, all on the same color blue paper, two of three stating they were revised in October 2010. Since the previous revision was made 16 years earlier, it is reasonable to expect Morbelli was given these same instructions.

Of greatest interest, particularly in the wake of Morbelli’s tragic death, which came after the abortion of her 33-wk-old baby Madison Leigh, were Carhart’s instructions not to go to the ER in the event of an emergency, but instead to “call and we will meet you at the clinic,” which is clearly dangerous medical advice.

Furthermore, who is “we”? Carhart left the state the afternoon Morbelli’s abortion was completed.

In addition, if it is true, as was maintained by an informant close to the situation, that Morbelli’s family tried several times to unsuccessfully contact Carhart before going to Shady Grove Adventist Hospital’s ER, then this document is at the very least misleading, stating, “One of our staff is on-call 24 hours a day.” Again, that staff does not necessarily include the doctor himself.

In this case, Carhart’s self-serving motive at the expense of patient safety is to contain publicity about negative reactions to abortions.

In 2011, an incident happened at an abortion clinic in Elkton:

Two Maryland doctors face murder charges related to abortions performed on late-term fetuses that were viable, authorities said Friday.

Steven Brigham and Nicola Riley are in jails in New Jersey and Utah, respectively, awaiting extradition hearings to bring them back to Maryland, police in Elkton, Maryland, said in a news release.

The two face identical charges — five counts each of first-degree murder, five of second-degree murder and one of conspiracy to commit first-degree murder.


The investigation began August 13, 2010, when Riley brought a woman into an Elkton hospital due to a “complication resulting from a medical procedure,” police said. The woman had driven from New Jersey to Maryland for an abortion, investigators later determined.

Days later, Elkton police searched the abortion clinic where Brigham and Riley work and found several fetuses “in a freezer chest.” The fetuses were taken to a medical examiner’s office in Baltimore, according to the news release.

The murder charges were eventually dropped. Just last week, Riley was issued a public reprimand and fined $5,000 while Brigham is facing more charges.

Here’s why Brigham was operating in Elkton:

New Jersey technically has no abortion statutes on its law books and abortion is legal there throughout all stages of pregnancy. Brigham was not able to perform abortions after 14 weeks, however, because his New Jersey facilities do not meet the state’s safety regulations for outpatient surgery, the state attorney’s general office said.

Meister believes this may be one reason why Brigham would choose to run facilities in Maryland for late-term abortions.

“Abortion facilities basically get a pass from the regulatory laws on Maryland’s ambulatory surgical centers,” Meister said. “(Brigham) is using our lack of oversight to perform these procedures without the safety net the regulations would supply.”

Brigham retains a medical license in New Jersey after losing his medical licenses to revocation, forfeiture or expiration in New York, Pennsylvania, Florida, Georgia and California.

He currently owns a chain of 15 American Women’s Services abortion clinics in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland and Virginia.

I’ve also seen information recently about an abortionist licensed in Maryland who is still apparently practicing at two Baltimore-area clinics. His name is Delhi Thweatt. In 1998, Thweatt was sued in Pennsylvania after a patient died – allegedly as a result of his actions.

What’s Next?

When Republican politicians promise to do something about the parental notification laws here, that basically allow an abortionist (who is making money on the procedure) to get minors out of telling their parents they are getting abortions, we have a problem when those politicians don’t lift a finger to do anything about it. The same goes for all of the other problems detailed above.

I am a realist on these things. I don’t agree with absolutists like the Maryland Pro-Life Alliance (which is closely associated with Campaign for Liberty and the National Pro-Life Alliance – two groups that are tightly allied with Ron and Rand Paul.) Incremental progress saves innocent lives.

I realize that no candidate for the Republican nomination for Governor in Maryland is going to base their campaign around their pro-life positions. However, when pro-life activists and voters ask you about the issues, you need to be educated enough on them to not come off badly like Ron George and David Craig did when talking to my friend. Additionally, you need to be open and honest about your positions on things when talking to them behind the scenes. The damage that politicians in the past have done is working against you, but it can be overcome.

Dodging the issue and getting defensive while shooting the messenger is probably not a smart idea either. I leave all of the above information for you the reader to make a judgement on. I’m not going to judge who is the most or who is the least pro-life by any of the information written in this post. That’s not my role.

Even if you have a paper rail of pro-life positions (and possibly even votes), your promises alone won’t necessarily prove anything. To borrow the motto of the USS Gettysburg – the key is Deeds Not Words. This motto was also one of George Washington’s favorite sayings and it has a basis in scripture in 1 John 3:18.

I will likely be breaking this long post up into some smaller posts for easier reading. Stay tuned for that.

Jeff Quinton

Jeff Quinton

Jeff Quinton is an award-winning blogger who has been aggregating and blogging since 1998. He has worked as a reporter, in government, and as a communications professional in Columbia, SC and Washington, DC.

Quinton is a native South Carolinian who has lived in Baltimore since 2006. He is a recent convert to the Catholic Church and is active in the Knights of Columbus. He has been involved in the pro-life movement nationally and locally since 2010.

Quinton is a veteran who served as an intelligence analyst in the Army National Guard. He is also an Eagle Scout.
Jeff Quinton


  1. So tell me. Bob Ehrlich has lost 2 election runs for Governor. How does he determine or know what a viable candidate looks like? And making this assertions without said candidate even announcing his run is ludicrous…as are any endorsements at this stage of the process for an un-announced candidate.

    I vote Pro-Life…and only Pro-life. As do many GOP’s and anyone with political savvy in the state of Maryland knows that a candidate needs practically all GOP’s voting for them to win a General. Ehrlich is done and his regime is done…while I can’t support Lollar at this time I can agree that it is time to move forward in MD. Once Lollar get’s his campaign team organized he MIGHT be a viable candidate – until then, I agree with Jeff’s assessment, meanwhile – it’s time for me to take a closer look at Ron George.

  2. A few things:

    Someone dug up the nugget on Hogan that you reported on. The statement you quoted wasn’t so much about your report but that source.

    But more importantly, you’re taking my post somewhat out of context. The original premise behind it was one that this will be a very dirty 2014 campaign, particularly if people are digging back to 1992 for opposition research. (I think in terms of electoral time, which is why I wrote Larry Hogan had 22 years to reconsider instead of 21.)

    I also should point out that I realize a majority of Republicans are pro-life, which I am. It’s my strong preference that candidates I support feel the same way, but it’s not a complete deal breaker – I’m not among the five or ten percent who feel so strongly pro-life that they’ll stay home rather than vote for someone who isn’t for banning all abortions. That five or ten percent is who I was alluding to, and just the allegation that Larry Hogan is perhaps pro-choice is already bearing fruit among that crowd, which is probably the desired effect from whoever did the research.

    And obviously the political landscape has changed since 1992, as the former pro-choice majority of the time is now a minority. ( So the pro-life politican isn’t necessariily a pariah anymore, and in some circles the pro-choice one may be the outcast.

    Overall, I think this is a very good, well-researched summary of the abortion issue. And really, I know all about Google, but your snide remark shows you missed the point I was trying to make in my post.

  3. Someone did dig it up. That someone is me. That’s what you’re missing from my statements in this post.I have mentioned multiple times that I worked as a paid researcher for campaigns and campaign consultants before in the past – and this was in the days before the internet. That’s why I made the comment about Google. You seem to laboring under the illusion that I’m not capable of digging up that sort of thing on my own. My comment about Google related to exactly how I dug it up.

    As I said, I had been working on the research that went into this post for a bit now and came across the orignal nugget last week. I know all about that Gallup poll and almost all of the polling in past five years on the subject as well since it was my job to know them for three years.

  4. Even though “Pro-choice” is at an all time low, those that think abortion should be illegal in all cases is only 20% (per Gallup). So a true “Pro-Life” candidate only gets 20% of the vote, good job in isolating your party. But even if the Gallup poll is your basis, that is a national poll, not a state representation. If you want to see the local perspective, look at the statewide election results of prolife candidates recently. Bongino vs Cardin… And that’s about it because most pro-life candidates don’t even make it that far. Still looks to me like you won’t clear 35%.