A bill in the Maryland General Assembly would allow people with a terminal illness six months from the estimated time of their death to end their lives with a lethal dose of prescribed medicine.

Individuals should have the right to choose when they die, supporters said, while opponents of the measure — known variously as “death with dignity,” “physician-assisted suicide” and an “end-of-life option” — said public safety could be put at risk if the legislation passes.

An individual would need to consent three times, twice orally and once in writing. At least two doctors would have to confirm that person is of sound mind, if a physician deems a psychological evaluation necessary, under the bill.

“Lethal injection, mercy killing, or euthanasia,” would not be legalized, and people who falsify requests or coerce others into ending their lives would be penalized with felony charges under the bill.

Lawmakers in a Senate committee heard testimony on Tuesday on Senate bill 311; delegates heard testimony on its twin, House bill 399, on Feb. 15.

Senate bill 311, or the “End of Life Option Act,” was heard in a Senate committee on Tuesday.

California, Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Vermont and Washington, as well as the District of Columbia, have legalized physician-assisted suicide, and Montana has no law prohibiting it.

“I’m going to give a lot of heartfelt and thoughtful consideration,” to the act, Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan said last week.

Seventy-two percent of Americans would support ending a terminally ill patient’s life, according to a 2018 Gallup poll.

The act will “bring about tremendous relief during the most difficult time in a person’s life,” at almost no cost, Kim Callinan, CEO of Compassion and Choices, told lawmakers.

The Department of Legislative Services estimated costs to the state of $173,700 for fiscal year 2020, and around $80,000 per following year.

The legislation would give people a tool to control not if, but rather how they die, said lead sponsor Delegate Shane Pendergrass, D-Howard.

“I believe people have the right,” Pendergrass told Capital News Service. “Why should I stand in their way?”

There are religious arguments for and against the act, but the element of compassion and understanding is not talked about as much, said lead sponsor Sen. William Smith Jr., D-Montgomery.

“If you have a personal reservation for it, then that’s fine,” said Smith. “But we should still go ahead and make sure that that’s available for other folks.”

“He was ready to die,” said Diane Rehm, former radio host of “The Diane Rehm Show” on WAMU and NPR, speaking of her husband who she said died of Parkinson’s disease after refusing to eat, drink and take medication for 10 days due to pain and loss of motor functions.

“Why did laws infringe on an individual’s decision to die peacefully, when dying was inevitable within a few months?” Rehm asked lawmakers.

What is being argued for is the right of an individual who is psychiatrically together to make a personal decision, said Rabbi Emeritus Donald Berlin from the Temple Oheb Shalom congregation in Baltimore.

“The end of life is coming soon, the option is just to not make it linger indefinitely,” said Berlin, who has testified on the legislation in the past.

A significant update from the last version of the bill, in 2017, states “one of the oral requests must be made while the individual is alone with the attending physician.”

However, this year’s legislation has not fixed the concerns that have prevented its passing in previous years, opponents said.

Oregon, the first state to legalize assisted suicide, found being a burden to one’s family is the most common reason for death, not pain, said Kate Alexander, director of communication and engagement for Maryland Catholic Conference.

Of 143 patients who died in 2017 from lethal medication in Oregon, 55.2 percent reported concerns of being a burden on family, friends or caregivers, according to a report from the Oregon Health Authority. The most common concern reported (more than one could be selected), by 88 percent of patients, was “decreasing ability to participate in activities that made life enjoyable.”

A psychological evaluation is very fluid, and a doctor who does not know a person may only see them for the first time in a fragile state, said Therese Hessler, associate director of the Maryland Catholic Conference.

“There is no kind of mental evaluation that could attest for that,” Hessler said.

The bill is bad public health policy, said Annette Hanson, chair of the Maryland Psychiatric Society Legislative Committee.

The law would apply to everyone in the state, including people in the public health system who are not educated, lack social support and do not have financial resources, Hanson said.

There is no requirement that a patient’s decision-making capacity be assessed at the time of taking the lethal medication, instead it is only once when the medicine is initially prescribed, Hanson said.

A patient must ask twice verbally and once in writing to obtain the medicine, but after a prescription is sent to a pharmacist, the bill does not mandate any further contact between physician and individual.
This session’s bill was first introduced in 2015, and was titled the “Richard E. Israel and Roger ‘Pip’ Moyer Death with Dignity Act.”

Israel was a Maryland assistant attorney general and Annapolis alderman, and Moyer was an Annapolis mayor. Both died in 2015 following battles with Parkinson’s disease.

Israel was an outspoken supporter for the bill’s first introduction to the legislature.

“As the body continues to fail to respond to the mind, life loses its meaning, purpose and hope,” Israel said in written testimony to a House committee.

The legislation was an effort to make humanity the master of science in an age when, “modern medicine can keep the heart and lungs working long after the brain has ceased to function,” said Israel.

“I can appreciate the irony that if my advocacy is successful … my voice will be forever stilled,” Israel wrote. “So be it.”

Former felons could have more success securing employment under bipartisan legislation introduced Thursday that would bar federal employers from asking requests for applicants’ criminal histories before conditional job offers.

Reps. Elijah Cummings, D-Baltimore, and Doug Collins, R-Georgia, joined with Sens. Cory Booker, D-New Jersey, and Ron Johnson, R-Wisconsin, to propose the Fair Chance Act, an attempt to decrease rates of recidivism by helping ex-convicts secure jobs.

The bill would “ban the box,” directing employers to discontinue applications requiring candidates to check a box indicating their criminal records.

“This bill would give individuals who are reentering society from prison a fair chance at truly achieving the American dream and becoming contributing members of our communities,” said Cummings, chairman of the House Oversight and Reform Committee.

“We have a criminal justice system where the collateral consequences for Americans with a criminal conviction are like getting a life sentence — affecting their ability to vote, to get housing and critically, to get back to work,” Booker, a presidential candidate, said in a statement.

Thirty-three states and more than 150 cities and counties have adopted laws or policies that “ban the box,” extending the jurisdiction of such policies to almost three-fourths of the U.S. population, according to the National Employment Law Project.

The Fair Chance Act specifically prohibits the federal government and federal contractors from making inquiries into the criminal histories of ex-offenders before the conditional offer stage.

This follows President Donald Trump’s Tuesday State of the Union address in which he spotlighted criminal justice reform, saying “America is a nation that believes in redemption.”

Trump invited a former inmate to the address who was directly affected by the First Step Act, a bill Trump signed in December that seeks to help nonviolent offenders readjust to society.

“This legislation reformed sentencing laws that have wrongly and disproportionately harmed the African-American community,” Trump said.

Similarly, Cummings’s panel noted that black men with a criminal record “have been 60 percent less likely to receive a callback or job offer than those without records.” That is nearly 10 percentage points higher than the callback rate for male felons in general.

“Getting people back to work improves the safety of our communities, strengthens families, and reduces government dependence – goals that all Americans share,” Johnson said in a statement. “If someone getting out of prison wants to work and be a productive member of society, we should do everything possible to facilitate that. The Fair Chance Act is an important step in that direction.”

By Ambriah Underwood

After a comprehensive law overhauled the state’s criminal justice system, Maryland has seen a decline in the state’s prison and jail populations and more streamlined treatment for addicts who are charged with crimes, but advocates want to add to the law to keep inmates from returning behind bars.

Signed into law in 2016, the Justice Reinvestment Act is a thorough criminal justice system reform that focuses on increasing supervision and treatment and decreasing incarceration rates in Maryland prisons.

Described by Sen. Bobby Zirkin, D-Baltimore County, as the “most comprehensive reform” he’s seen while serving in the Senate, the law has significantly reformed many criminal justice policies since becoming fully effective on Oct. 1, 2017. But some of its provisions are up in the legislature again.

The law aims to keep spots in prison beds open for serious, repeat violent offenders while also enforcing mandatory minimum sentences for high-level drug dealers.

It also places caps on maximum sentences for nonviolent offenders who violate probation on a technicality.

About 700 inmates have been screened for administrative release since the legislation went into effect, with 21 percent, or 147 inmates, being found eligible. Of those, 60 percent have been released and the rest are fulfilling their minimum length of stay, according to a report from the Governor’s Office of Crime Control and Prevention.

The state’s prison population dropped 1.8 percent in fiscal year 2018, and the local detention population dropped 10.3 percent, according to the report.

The bill also emphasizes treatment over incarceration for individuals struggling with addiction and has sparked a drastic drop in wait times for psychiatric beds.

Between fiscal years 2012 and 2014, placement times averaged around 167 days, dropping to 91 days in fiscal year 2017. With the Justice Reinvestment Act’s new 21-day deadline adding pressure, average placement times dropped to just 10.6 days for the 788 individuals placed in treatment in fiscal year 2018, according to the report from the Governor’s Office of Crime Control and Prevention.

For those returning to life outside the correctional system, the law states that the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services must issue a certificate of rehabilitation to specified individuals.

Professional licensing boards then can’t deny occupational licenses or certificates to former convicts solely based on the fact that the individual had previously been convicted of a crime.

But for some individuals, return to life outside is complicated by how the state categorizes and links related charges.

Under the Justice Reinvestment Act, expungement is permitted after 10 years of good behavior, including any parole, probation or supervision, for misdemeanor charges.

After 15 years of good behavior, expungement is permitted for second degree assault, felony theft, intent to distribute controlled, dangerous substances and burglary in the first, second and third degrees.

Before the law was enacted, only nuisance crimes such as public urination or other activities not normally done in public were eligible for expungement through the Justice Reinvestment Act.

Under current state law, a charge is not eligible for expungement if one conviction in a group of convictions is not eligible for expungement.

However, House Bill 13, sponsored by Delegate Erek Barron, D-Prince George’s, seeks to repeal that provision, and would authorize a person to file a petition for partial expungement of certain criminal records under certain circumstances.

The bill, previously introduced in the 2017 General Assembly, has been a topic in the legislature since 2012, and is scheduled to be heard in the Senate on Thursday.

Alphonso Smith of Baltimore wrote to lawmakers this year that he has been working at the Maryland Transit Administration as an operations instructor for 20 years. He submitted written testimony that he is an ex-offender, and described the 34 years following his conviction, which he did not detail, as “somewhat successful.”

“There are many limitations and road blocks in place due to prior, non-expungeable convictions preventing any further advancement in law enforcement, child care and many other career paths,” he said Jan. 22 in a written testimony supporting the bill. He added that the bill’s passage would clear a path for himself and others to begin the expungement process and to advance in his career without convictions weighing them down.

Along similar lines, House bill 19, sponsored by Delegate Cheryl Glenn, D-Baltimore, seeks to authorize individuals to file a petition for expungement if the person was convicted of a nonviolent crime.

For former convicts entering the workforce again, employers also don’t often understand the difference between conviction and non-conviction dispositions, said Delegate Darryl Barnes, D-Prince George’s, the chair of the Legislative Black Caucus of Maryland.

Non-conviction dispositions are standard police records listing an individual’s involvement with courts or law enforcement, and conviction dispositions are criminal records with formal penalties.

Even if a charge receives a non-criminal disposition, under the Justice Reinvestment Act, if it’s in the same unit of charges as a criminal one, it can’t be expunged.

“Even when they understand these differences, employers often draw negative impressions about job applicants who have been involved with the criminal justice system, regardless of case outcome,” Barnes stated in his written testimony supporting House bill 13.

Another factor to consider is race, Barnes said. Black residents make up 28 percent of the state population, yet they comprise over 70 percent of the incarcerated population.

With higher conviction rates for persons of color, these individuals face exclusion from the job market, challenges finding stable housing, and other cyclical problems affecting communities of color, according to written testimony from the American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland.

Ex-offenders who are employed are much less likely to commit new offenses than those who are unemployed, according to a 2017 Greater Baltimore Committee report that described employment as the “single largest determinant of rearrest and reconviction.”

The expungement legislation faces opposition from the Maryland Judicial Conference, Maryland Chiefs of Police Association and the Maryland Sheriffs’ Association.

Law enforcement officials generally oppose legislation that increases categories for expungement because it could interfere with access to prior criminal information and be a safety factor for law enforcement personnel, according to written testimony from co-chairs Chief David Morris of the Maryland Chiefs of Police Association and Sheriff Darren Popkin of the Maryland Sheriffs’ Association.

Technological roadblocks are also a reason for opposition, according to representatives of the Maryland court system.

Online access to case records in Maryland are available through the Maryland Judiciary Case Search website, which currently has no functionality to remove single records at the charge level from the website, according to written testimony from the Maryland Judicial Conference.

Each charge is also assigned an individual number for each case. If a partial expungement is granted for one charge of a two-charge case, the system can’t renumber the charges to appear as if only one charge exists, according to written testimony from a Maryland court system representative.

“A missing numbered charge could raise more questions and red flags, therefore, nullifying the purpose of the expungement,” the Legislative Committee of the Maryland Judicial Council, the main policy advisory body to the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals, said in written testimony opposing the bill.

Led by chants of “moms demand action” and “gun sense is common sense,” dozens of red-shirted volunteers from the Maryland chapter of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America lobbied in Annapolis to support stricter gun laws Thursday.

The members of the gun-control advocacy group, along with several legislators and survivors of gun violence, expressed their desire for bills banning ghost guns and 3D printed guns and enforcing background checks for purchasing long guns and shotguns in Maryland.

The ban on “ghost guns” and 3D printed guns are among the top legislative priorities for Maryland Democrats this session.

Ghost guns are undetectable, untraceable and disguised firearms without serial numbers that can be built at home from parts and kits available online.

The online kits allow for the purchase of 80 percent of the lower parts of the gun, which needs the other 20 percent to be legally considered a firearm. The other 20 percent can be purchased from gun shops, said Delegate Kathleen Dumais, D-Montgomery.

“Bare minimum is no 3D guns in Maryland and no ghost guns,” Dumais said.

Obtaining 80 percent of a ghost gun doesn’t require a criminal background check, meaning that they can be obtained through a loophole by felons, domestic abusers and other individuals who are legally prohibited from owning or accessing firearms.

However, some opponents said the bills are unnecessary.

Sen. Michael Hough, R-Frederick and Carroll counties, told Capital News Service that he doesn’t know of a crime in Maryland that’s been committed with a ghost or 3D printed gun, but can think of plenty of crimes with illegal handguns that have killed children in Baltimore recently.

While there may have not been crimes involving 3D printed guns in Maryland yet, creating legislation on them is proactive, said Danielle Veith, the leader of the Maryland chapter of Moms Demand Action.

Hough added that 3D printed guns can cost thousands to manufacture, a prohibitive amount of money when normal guns can be assembled or purchased for less.

Estimated costs for the guns can be anywhere from two- to five-figure sums, varying depending on the gun’s material and type of printer used.

“Our time is better spent on other things,” he said.

Laws concerning long guns and shotguns are another topic in the General Assembly this session following several fatal local shootings.

It was a shotgun that fired through the glass door of the Capital Gazette newsroom in Annapolis in June when five staff members were fatally shot.

Criminal background checks are not required to purchase long guns or shotguns in Maryland. An individual only needs to fill out a form and pass an instant background check.

Senate Majority Whip Susan Lee, D-Montgomery, plans to introduce a bill that will require background checks for shotguns and rifles.

Delegate Vanessa Atterbeary, D-Howard, voiced her support for a bill requiring the background checks.

“I am a mom and I demand action,” she said. “We are going to close the loophole.”