This week the Maryland Senate passed SB 276, a bill to repeal the death penalty. The Maryland Senate is the first legislative body in the American South to call for repeal of the death penalty!

The bill now goes to the Maryland House Judiciary Committee where it has strong support. From there it goes to the floor of the Maryland House of Delegates where it could be debated and voted on next week. Hopes are high that it will pass and be sent to Governor Martin O'Malley to sign.

Governor O'Malley, a Catholic, is opposed to the death penalty and has actively sought to end the policy in the state. If the repeal is signed into law Maryland will become the 6th state in six years, and the 18th overall, to abandon capital punishment.

The Catholic Church has long opposed the use of the death penalty because it disregards the sanctity and dignity of human life. Several Missouri lawmakers, who are active Catholics, are taking the church's teaching seriously and are promoting bills that would limit or end the use of capital punishment.

In the Senate, Senator Gina Walsh (D-St. Louis) is sponsoring SB 247 that would abolish the death penalty. Senator Joe Keaveny  (D-St. Louis) is sponsoring SB 61 that would require a study to be done on the cost of the death penalty and alternative sentences. He is also sponsoring SB 409 and  SB 162 that would enact reforms recommended by an American Bar Association (ABA) assessment team that studied the fairness and accuracy of Missouri's death penalty system.

In the House of Representatives, Representative Paul Wieland (R-Imperial) is sponsoring HB 644 that would also abolish the death penalty. Representative Galen Higdon (R-St. Joseph) is sponsoring HB 575 that would enact criminal justice reforms recommended by the ABA death penalty assessment team.

The MCC thanks these Catholic lawmakers for their leadership on this moral issue and encourages our network members to send them a note of appreciation as well.

One idea under discussion is to cut Medicaid health coverage for pregnant women with the assumption that these women will be able to buy affordable insurance through the newly created exchanges created pursuant to the Affordable Care Act. Right now pregnant women are eligible for Medicaid health coverage with incomes up to 185% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL). One idea would be to cut the eligibility to 133% of FPL.

But not so fast, say some observers. In an analysis of this issue, two attorneys with Legal Services of Eastern Missouri, Joel Ferber and Amanda Schneider, express concern that the premium pregnant women will have to pay will be too high. They report that a pregnant woman in a family of three with an income of 150% of FPL could have an annual premium as high as $1,099. This could be a challenging premium to pay for women whose household annual income is $29,295.

Another and potentially more serious concern is that there is a three-month enrollment period each year to obtain health coverage through the insurance exchange. But what if a woman gets pregnant at a time outside the enrollment period?

In a recent statement on Medicaid, the Missouri Catholic Conference (MCC) urged legislators to continue to provide "robust health coverage for pregnant women and their unborn children." The MCC noted that prenatal care promotes healthier outcomes for both mother and child and may encourage women to choose life over abortion. Stay tuned for more.

The bill, Jones said, "...is truly for the worker - for the employee. It provides a shield - not a sword - to help them protect their conscience."

The law would allow a health care professional to opt out of taking part in certain procedures they deem to be contrary to their religious or moral convictions. Jones did note that prior notice of the objection has to be given to an employer, and the law could not be used by an employee as a sword, but only as a shield.

"This is not a law that would allow an employee to suddenly wake up one day and say, 'I cannot do this,' they would have to give their employer notice," he said.

Joe Ortwerth, executive director of the Missouri Family Policy Council, testified in support of the bill. "Health care workers take their credo, 'Do no harm' seriously. But in some situations they are left with a choice of employment or going against their conscience rights," he said.

Following the hearing HB 457 passed out of committee by a vote of 5-3.

"Human beings are human beings, and whether or not they are a certain gender, or do or do not have Down Syndrome or another genetic abnormality, they are humans," McCaherty said. "There are people with Down Syndrome and other disabilities living in society today. This bill addresses the fact of whether or not we see someone as being perfect or not. A life is a life is a life."

The bill would not penalize a woman, but rather a physician who performs an abortion knowing it was because of the child's gender or a diagnosis of Down Syndrome or other genetic abnormality.

"All penalties are against the doctor and not the woman. Until Roe v. Wade is overturned, or whatever, women have a right to choose. This legislation will prevent the physician from selling abortions," McCaherty said, noting the new law would require the physician to discuss all options with the woman and not just abortion.

McCaherty testified that as many as 92 percent of children who are diagnosed prenatally with Down Syndrome are aborted.

No further action was taken on HB 386.

Numerous witnesses, including former drug users, told the committee how having food stamps would have aided them in their recovery efforts. They informed the committee that by federal law no other offender, including murderers and sex offenders, could be denied food stamps if they were eligible.

In testifying in support of the bill, the MCC reminded the committee of the economic benefit to the state, as Missouri is currently losing $7 million in federal-food stamp dollars because of the ban. It is estimated that every $1 in food stamps results in $1.79 in economic activity in the state.

The committee took no action on the bill.