[{"_1":2,"_124":-5,"_125":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100,112],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6636747,"mediaKeyId","2605251-4c93795c6e073fa12a617ef9858cee14","parentId",2605251,"title","House debates multiple amendments to abortion grant bill; most amendments fail and bill advances to third reading","audioSeconds",2491,"startMs",3777000,"endMs",6268000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2605251-4c93795c6e073fa12a617ef9858cee14&start=3777&end=6268","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2605251-4c93795c6e073fa12a617ef9858cee14/thumbnail_3777000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6636747/Maryland/House-debates-multiple-amendments-to-abortion-grant-bill-most-amendments-fail-and-bill-advances-to-third-reading","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6636747-c01bbc267315dd5737369b6cbfb9ab8c/orig.mp4?Expires=1776222438&Signature=cjZyunHlVz2G1ZD8G58aflR6vAhBCJxceK0QFHUBMlskTu86p9YgnDzHiHgOkTNycuL0Xp4pYo6o~7l0ARW1I3Bhv0AWcL6yI34lLGTwH-pvZf82lcCGvumQ0pmsm1dt0QCLSsXyEUqjoM-kKSuehr13FpLjh6r72u5z2KmFwxs2QhPem4CLClmyebBW8fjdkKRoyswmS6oFGAgwF7X0HhZfZrPGX~1PCD-khchNLkJb5dISGokM8jKnU0effipkXkIjwv8CqiOCZhi-9nMgWGP~i5Eb0PsRziF4WS8oFs2juaT0W7v3LSCaxp~WdUFHKOufQ72hV48WxIgr5HLgFg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Maryland General Assembly - House","date","2025-03-13T16:51:59.857Z","article","The Maryland House debated a bill to establish a public-health grant program for abortion services and considered a series of floor amendments proposed by members; the chamber rejected multiple amendments and ordered the bill printed for third reading.

During debate, one amendment sought to require annual reporting of the total taxpayer funds dispersed in the state for abortion and abortion services. Sponsors of the bill and the floor leader said that state reporting already shows Medicaid expenditures for abortion in the budget and argued the amendment was unnecessary; the amendment failed on a roll call.

A second amendment would have required entities receiving grant funds to perform a transabdominal ultrasound, institute a waiting period, estimate gestational age, and offer the pregnant person the option to view an ultrasound image, receive a printed copy, and hear the fetal heartbeat. Supporters said the measure preserved patient choice; opponents argued it would impose medically unnecessary procedures and possibly conflict with state law and the recently adopted constitutional protections for reproductive rights. That amendment also failed after a roll call.

Additional amendments included a residency test (changing the bill’s beneficiary language from “individuals” to “residents”) and an amendment requiring grant recipients to ensure staff training to identify human trafficking victims through a free University of Maryland training program. Both amendments were debated and ultimately rejected by the House. The floor also debated whether the grant funds are taxpayer funds or segregated federal premium dollars; sponsors emphasized that some grant funds are from federally segregated sources established under federal law.

The House took several recorded votes and voice votes on amendments; the transcript records multiple failed amendment motions. After the series of debates and votes, the bill was ordered printed for third reading.

Why it matters: the bill creates a public-health grant program for abortion services and prompted floor debate about disclosure, patient procedures, residency eligibility, funding sources, and whether grantees should be required to train staff to recognize victims of human trafficking. The floor decisions will shape the program’s transparency, eligibility and operational requirements.

What’s next: HB930 proceeds to third reading on the House floor for final passage or additional amendments.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Floor Session, 3/13/2025 #1","oneSentenceSummary","The House considered a public-health grant program for abortion services and rejected several proposed amendments on reporting requirements, mandatory ultrasound and waiting periods, residency limits, and training conditions; the bill was ordered printed for third reading.","taxTitle","HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Committees, Legislative, Maryland","taxId",15055,"location","Maryland","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6636752,"House rejects amendment to restore cannabis 'kingpin' mandatory-minimum status during wider criminal law debate",904,2896000,3800000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2605251-4c93795c6e073fa12a617ef9858cee14&start=2896&end=3800","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2605251-4c93795c6e073fa12a617ef9858cee14/thumbnail_2896000.jpg","/articles/6636752/Maryland/House-rejects-amendment-to-restore-cannabis-kingpin-mandatory-minimum-status-during-wider-criminal-law-debate","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6636752-a30f17e7878ff280ef7e1469ce3bb520/orig.mp4?Expires=1776222438&Signature=Y9-2i4Lp9VH2ATqL1xhw4xl3Kb3~agfUXuY0tiXGvKZcVNfnUiV8w~lkLf-L5O8oHvh-m-OMDuRhBmlX1MaEg9kv~-oV96eslPnhOy52OKVo~GW9Gdmheq0SmRupeI8-6m0gW49HG-aWDrngrhmAJxRHRyGFA~BZ18PpbwWTzJzACd7d8u85te2n3RmZCK-ucQPzPZUpNNnBlTBirPxN3Bb4hSx~7tqcKLvPouCnBmmWqykiQD12ryHm4X7Ko1oe1mKflCwoujowNY~69B8iZvfheiPDMboIRLPsZEyL1KdRKXlx6LHfLVKY3JHDk~JViACeO2Y7mh9Dd54zSs9sTg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Maryland House debated an omnibus criminal law bill that updates multiple firearm and drug provisions, and during that debate the chamber rejected an amendment that would have restored cannabis trafficking at the 50‑pound threshold to the state’s drug‑kingpin framework.

Sponsor and supporters of the amendment argued that a revival of kingpin-level penalties for large-quantity cannabis distribution was necessary to deter violence and cash-based illegal markets. The maker cited local prosecutorial concerns and claimed law-enforcement evidence that dealers often carry 5–10 pounds and that large transactions drive violence.

The floor leader and the bill’s primary sponsor opposed the amendment, saying the omnibus bill balanced tougher penalties for firearms (raising several gun-related offenses from misdemeanors to felonies) with adjusted penalties for cannabis in light of legalization. The floor leader said the bill removes mandatory minimums for cannabis and sets a maximum penalty of up to 20 years, arguing that mandatory minimums for cannabis would be disproportionate compared with other violent crimes.

Several delegates recounted personal experiences and local law-enforcement testimony, with speakers on both sides describing community harms. A back-and-forth continued through the floor, including questions about whether a defendant involved with cannabis who distributed product that was laced with harder drugs would be treated differently. Supporters of the amendment stressed ancillary crimes and predatory behavior tied to organized operations.

When the House put the amendment to a vote, the amendment failed; the clerk called the roll and the chair declared the amendment did not pass. The transcript records the adoption vote result as failed; no subsequent change to the omnibus bill’s reported status was recorded on the floor during the session excerpt. The committee’s favorable report on the underlying bill was then ordered printed for third reading.

Why it matters: the exchange highlights the tension in post-legalization policy between removing disproportionately harsh penalties for cannabis possession and addressing criminal markets and violence tied to illicit distribution. The omnibus bill separately elevates several firearms offenses to felonies, which advocates argued would target trafficking in dangerous ways.

What’s next: the omnibus criminal bill proceeds toward third reading after the failed amendment; supporters of tougher cannabis penalties may pursue alternative approaches in committee or later amendments.","A floor amendment to reclassify large-scale cannabis distribution as a 'kingpin' offense with mandatory minimums failed after extended debate on an omnibus criminal-law bill that raises several firearm offenses to felonies and revises drug sentencing provisions.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6636756,"House approves amendments to transit-oriented development bill after local-control questions; special-ordered to next day",250,1153000,1403000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2605251-4c93795c6e073fa12a617ef9858cee14&start=1153&end=1403","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2605251-4c93795c6e073fa12a617ef9858cee14/thumbnail_1153000.jpg","/articles/6636756/Maryland/House-approves-amendments-to-transit-oriented-development-bill-after-local-control-questions-special-ordered-to-next-day","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6636756-3a1965e4fb2f613c2b563da3af83da95/orig.mp4?Expires=1776222438&Signature=QDpBMkW9HwJrp~F7RpOUvCvlc5wN-KVnUGjy8lqdDlSX~xGp1k8nC1~~oobrJDVCAwcLiZBS4KdCwg120QZvvmvLAokHnjp~EK6EflJqLyoQnX9AZSWWIAqMgbAjr3LN-rzoVXw9l2SqTBCmi8jOS~gZTojdAAU6~EG32w~W61e5ar7OkuLrq7E7PaSTO8PDMESJ0ybhQ2pokNaZNS3tg~4F1ABC8TfSbSUn2U-ifqKVhew8vPCTNoxNBZoWfdBlkBzOx0Fj~rbkG562ywfjtJLCEAQgwp0H3gWkq5u4u6rc~duYblToJPXm~ymcYRo1Cdx6WrScbKGqkdMO6jBJDA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House adopted committee amendments to a bill aimed at facilitating transit-oriented development (TOD) near high-frequency rail stations, and then agreed to place the bill on special order for the next legislative day to allow further consideration.

A member raised concerns that the bill would erode local control by transferring land-use power from locally elected officials to the state. The floor leader and sponsor repeatedly answered that the bill, as amended, does not change local zoning authority and instead sets a limited framework that prohibits local bodies from imposing limitations on mixed-use development specifically near high-frequency rail stations.

The committee amendments removed proposed alterations to local land-use authority, struck certain capital grant and revolving loan fund alterations, and removed authorization to establish TOD quarter funds. The floor adopted the amendments by voice vote and later approved the favorable report as amended.

A member asked practical questions about how zoning authority would interact with the bill’s framework. The floor leader responded: “Local zoning is still local zoning... all that it does is it prohibits a legislative body or other local agency with land use authority from imposing limitations on mixed use development near high frequency rail stations.” That exchange framed the floor’s rationale for moving the bill forward.

Outcome: favorable report adopted as amended by voice vote; the bill was special-ordered to the appropriate time tomorrow to permit further amendments or debate.

Why it matters: the measure seeks to encourage mixed-use development near transit infrastructure while sponsors said it preserves local zoning authority. Local leaders and members questioned whether the state’s framework would practically limit local discretion.

What’s next: bill returns to the House calendar tomorrow for the scheduled special order.","Lawmakers adopted committee amendments to a transit-oriented development (TOD) bill that, according to sponsors, preserves local zoning authority while enabling development near high-frequency rail stations; the bill was special-ordered for additional consideration tomorrow after questions about local control.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6636761,"House adopts amendments to building energy performance standards bill, delays enforcement and schedules further debate",358,841000,1199000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2605251-4c93795c6e073fa12a617ef9858cee14&start=841&end=1199","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2605251-4c93795c6e073fa12a617ef9858cee14/thumbnail_841000.jpg","/articles/6636761/Maryland/House-adopts-amendments-to-building-energy-performance-standards-bill-delays-enforcement-and-schedules-further-debate","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6636761-62aa6e2c010dbe3022f6e98c4c55019b/orig.mp4?Expires=1776222438&Signature=YcUgQBLlnUmQxcYr~8te2nWf0xc4FTtn~YQuBw1LJzmz2qwquEuyF2uWqcJgYH6p2-AwER8uQuv0w1co58FXkCIdORBcldhjOYTBXQK434cjrRcMB2F0KUqmGrW22Hnd4ZuAnBiF4gfm8~9c-zuGysvxkn4aR8bX9qVP2B5lt-DbE4cAcHbNtgtYCKOycDLlLjO8dPTtbt1rr-3C05JK8jTvv1ZFUb1jsk3sLB~wZnisYLYQh6pwxvqqk1S2oIZ4nVaKtdkSn1qD8TgdQhEBEPc0EoN4yvUXjo--shi~aC1iwKmQnZGGMeNpl4R-xfWukiB0fIxgMYeBr6vOrcKn2g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Maryland House adopted committee amendments to a bill that updates how the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) sets building energy performance standards for covered buildings and then special-ordered the bill to the appropriate time tomorrow for further consideration.

Floor amendments adopted in committee and on the floor added requirements and clarifications. The amendments require certain exclusions and crediting considerations for the standards, set rates for alternative compliance payments tied to energy use intensity standards, and authorize waivers in specified circumstances. The bill also requires MDE to provide training for energy auditors and to publish a list of auditors who complete the training. One floor amendment delayed certain enforcement actions until February 1, 2032, and specified how alternative compliance payments may be used (deposited into the Strategic Energy Investment Fund).

During floor questions, members asked whether specific building types were exempted. The floor leader confirmed that hospitals are expressly excluded from coverage under the amended language and said the amendment did not add other categorical exclusions beyond hospitals. The chair noted that the amendment created pathways for additional exemptions, including an economic infeasibility waiver that building owners could pursue.

The House adopted the amendment by voice vote. Later the House resolved to special-order the bill to the appropriate time tomorrow to allow additional consideration and potential further amendments.

Why it matters: the bill sets state-level performance expectations for large buildings and establishes compliance pathways, auditor training, and an alternative compliance payment mechanism that directs funds to the Strategic Energy Investment Fund. The exemptions and waiver mechanisms discussed on the floor (hospitals, SCIFs, economic infeasibility) limit how the standards would apply in practice.

What’s next: the bill returns to the House calendar tomorrow for the scheduled special order; committee-reported language and the floor amendments are now part of the bill as printed for third reading.","Lawmakers adopted amendments to a Department of the Environment bill on building energy performance standards, added training, alternative compliance rules and exclusions for hospitals and sensitive compartmented information facilities; the bill was special-ordered to the next legislative day for further consideration.",{"_33":113,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":114,"_41":115,"_43":116,"_45":117,"_47":118,"_49":119,"_51":120,"_53":121,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":122,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":123,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6636765,"House panel advances bill changing selection process for Maryland Parole Commission",336,486000,822000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2605251-4c93795c6e073fa12a617ef9858cee14&start=486&end=822","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2605251-4c93795c6e073fa12a617ef9858cee14/thumbnail_486000.jpg","/articles/6636765/Maryland/House-panel-advances-bill-changing-selection-process-for-Maryland-Parole-Commission","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6636765-8aac07ecd8a398e5e9ad97c34177cab3/orig.mp4?Expires=1776222438&Signature=Ji-o50En3EyjYtegULWKXpNPUzcy9k6QsUR7eAN1vY0rkaUkF8Oafkn8hw155QiASbnhPSsJm7XpP-2Kiw~DM5MgMMHkhsxROtmxwZfT3KEx4-G3THkMs7N1c9CrVO2Ut~BLHU1vgGbe7FmU7nJ86OIApFTxJ2X5OMfFYUAcLfHFr~daS85SBOfZqfZiZOvMqzKw60lbUv-yqeIGocOyl6NUOHsYlnAe-w-qIJ3pyW2jLDqgt5J0eG7~9iVkpWR5Il6AtnBFBXq~n6y62fRoe9CfvNnHZO1Mr2pQpgI1yjjlaw~IXJvUGSq92i9IKtiPggBQF-sCzgK5et3P6NhDhQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Maryland House adopted a favorable committee report and ordered printed for third reading a bill that would change how members of the Maryland Parole Commission are selected.

The bill would replace the current system, in which the secretary appoints parole commissioners, with a nominating commission that would vet candidates and present three names to the governor. Floor discussion described the nominating commission as a statewide panel with specific seats.

The floor leader summarized the commission’s proposed composition, saying it would include “the executive director of the Maryland training and standard commission, the public defender’s office, the president of the Maryland state’s attorneys, three service providers, the state superintendent of education, the president of the National Association of Social Workers, three members of the general public, and one prisoners’ rights advocate.” A member on the floor asked whether the nominating commission would require representation from the public defender’s office; the floor leader confirmed that it would.

Supporters said the change was intended to make the selection of commissioners more like the judicial nominations process, with a commission screening candidates before the governor selects among recommended nominees. A member asked whether the bill specifies requirements for who sits on the nominating commission; the floor leader said details of the nominating commission membership are included in the bill text and noted that the bill would set the selection model similar to how judges are selected.

Outcome and procedure: the House adopted the committee’s favorable report by voice vote and the bill was ordered printed for third reading. No amendments recorded on the floor changed the core nominating-commission concept.

Why it matters: the bill alters the appointment pathway for parole commissioners, shifting from an executive-only appointment to a screened recommendation process. That change affects how parole decisionmakers are vetted and could change the mix of expertise represented on the commission.

What’s next: the bill proceeds to third reading on the House floor.","Lawmakers advanced a bill that would change how parole commissioners are selected, creating a nominating commission with specified seats including a public defender representative and a prisoners’ rights advocate; the favorable report was adopted and the bill was printed for third reading.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

House debates multiple amendments to abortion grant bill; most amendments fail and bill advances to third reading

House rejects amendment to restore cannabis 'kingpin' mandatory-minimum status during wider criminal law debate

House approves amendments to transit-oriented development bill after local-control questions; special-ordered to next day

House adopts amendments to building energy performance standards bill, delays enforcement and schedules further debate

House panel advances bill changing selection process for Maryland Parole Commission