Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Reproductive Health topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Delegate Congolo urges felony penalty for coercing pregnant people to ingest abortion drugs
Summary
House Bill 885 would make it a felony to cause a pregnant person to ingest an abortion‑inducing drug through fraud, coercion or force, with sponsors citing a gap in Maryland law and witnesses describing harms from nonconsensual dosing.
Get email alerts on the Reproductive Health topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Delegate Latoya Congolo asked the House Judiciary Committee for a favorable report on House Bill 885, the Women’s Freedom from Coercion Act, saying the measure closes a gap in Maryland law that now treats many cases of nonconsensual ingestion as misdemeanors. “Currently, if someone has slipped an abortion inducing drug to a pregnant person through deceit ... the offender often faces only misdemeanor charges with minimal jail time,” Congolo said in committee testimony.
Supporters told the committee the bill draws a narrow line between criminal third‑party conduct and lawful medical care. Retired registered nurse Deborah Bercato testified she’d heard accounts at a pregnancy resource center of threats, physical violence and abandonment tied to coerced abortions, and warned that pills obtained via telehealth can be misused by people who are not medical providers. “Giving them all in one big dose increases the likelihood of serious injury,” Bercato said, describing risks that include hemorrhage, sepsis and loss of future fertility.
The bill would make knowingly causing another to ingest an abortion‑inducing drug through fraud, coercion, force or threat a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison, sponsor Congolo told the committee. She emphasized the proposal does not restrict medical providers or lawful prescribing: “The scope of House Bill 885 is strictly limited to the criminal acts of third parties who act without consent,” she said.
Committee members asked no questions during the hearing and the sponsor closed the record on the bill’s testimony. The committee did not vote in the hearing; the bill remains before the Judiciary Committee for further consideration and possible amendment.

