Senate debate centers on bill letting written affidavits amend birth certificates; parents could change minors’ designation

The Maryland Senate spent more than an hour debating Senate Bill 626, a measure described by the clerk as the ‘‘birth certificate modernization act’’ that would allow a written request under penalty of perjury to obtain a new birth certificate with a different sex/gender designation.

Proponents said the bill streamlines an existing process and addresses equity and access. A floor leader supporting the measure said it ‘‘streamlines the process for issuing a new birth certificate’’ and argued many residents lack ready access to a physician to sign a certification, particularly in rural areas.

Opponents questioned how the bill would be enforced and what would constitute perjury. A senator who pressed the issue asked what ‘‘the material fact’’ would be in a perjury prosecution and whether a criminal case would force the child’s private medical history into court. The committee chair replied that perjury requires intent to deceive and that any prosecution would focus on intent and the falsity of a written statement, not relitigate medical history: ‘‘It would not be litigating the individual's ***. It would be litigating the individual's intent to commit perjury to deceive or for some fraudulent purposes.’’

The bill would remove a prior statutory requirement for a physician affidavit in some cases and allow a parent to submit a written request under penalty of perjury to change a minor’s designation. Senators voiced concern about parental conflicts: one asked whether one parent could change a child’s designation without the other’s consent and whether parents could repeatedly file opposing requests. A committee member observed that current statute already allows one parent to sign and that the bill follows that statutory framework while making administrative changes.

Several senators cited the court decision referred to in the transcript as KL, which involved a minor and limits on parental authority; supporters and opponents both referenced that case when discussing whether parents should have unilateral power to alter a child’s certificate. The chair said the bill ‘‘allows parents to request a new birth certificate for their child’’ and that the written request would be subject to penalty of perjury.

The bill’s floor debate did not result in a final floor vote at the time the session moved on; senators noted the proposal raises constitutional, evidentiary and family‑law questions that may be revisited in committee or in subsequent sessions. The Senate later moved to special‑order scheduling for other items and continued its third‑reading calendar.