A House panel removed state record-keeping language Tuesday from a bill to streamline gender changes on Maryland birth certificates, after advocates raised concerns that those records could make it easier target transgender individuals in a politically tense time.
While advocates said they appreciated the quick response by the House Health Committee, the change could end up dooming the overall bill. The record-keeping language was added as a floor amendment in the Senate, where Senate Bill 626 passed with one vote to spare on March 23.
There’s less than a week left to get the bill through the House and back to the Senate to see if it will accept the changes.
“I just think it could ruin their chances of seeing it [SB 626] pass through session,” said Sen. Mike McKay (R-Western Maryland), who offered the record-keeping amendment. “I don’t believe that amendment that we did add took away from the purpose of the bill.”
SB 626, sponsored by Sen. Clarence Lam (D-Howard and Montgomery), is a renewed effort to create a new category of “X” on birth certificates, to recognize individuals who are transgender or nonbinary.
The legislation would make it easier for adults to request a new birth certificate with a gender designation different from the original document, by removing the current requirement that a physician attests to the gender transition of the individual.
The requirement for a physician statement for minors seeking the change was kept in place following discussions on the Senate floor.
When the Senate took up the bill, McKay offered an amendment requiring state health officials “to keep and maintain birth information history for each individual for whom a certificate of birth is issued.” Those records would be sealed and not subject to the state’s Public Information Act.
His amendment also called on the Health Secretary to “maintain a database of birth information histories” of those who change their gender markers.
McKay said his goal was to ensure that there is an accurate history available, in the case of genealogy research or similar situations. Despite the Senate accepting his amendment, McKay voted against SB626 when it came up for a final Senate vote.
The bill passed on a 24-16 vote, one more than needed to pass in the 47-member Senate. Four Democrats voted against the bill with all 12 Republicans present. Seven senators were absent or not in the room for the vote.
But transgender advocates raised concerns that the bill could create a database of transgender individuals in Maryland that could be easily subpoenaed by the federal government.
“The concern is that we’re basically creating a list or registry of trans- and nonbinary Marylanders,” said Del. Ashanti Martinez (D-Prince George’s), who sponsored a House version of the legislation. He said the Trump administration has taken steps to weaken protections for transgender people, particularly minors.
“I think in this climate it is irresponsible for as a state to put Marylanders potentially up on the chopping block – to be hunted, essentially – in this way,” he said.
Martinez added that the amendment is not needed, as officials with the Maryland Department of Health say that original copies are already kept at the state level when there are changes made to those documents.
He said he anticipates the bill will be considered by the House this week. If is passes the House without the McKay amendment, however, it would have to go back to the Senate, which would have to agree to the change before the bill could become law.
With a one-vote margin previously in the Senate and with Sine Die, the last day of the legislative session, looming on Monday, there’s not a lot of wiggle room for the bill.
“It’s not a slam dunk by any stretch of imagination,” McKay said. “We’re getting close to Sine Die.”
If lawmakers in the House and Senate feel strongly about the provision one way or another, they could go to conference committee on the bill until they work out a compromise. But Martinez said any version with McKay’s amendment would not be acceptable on the House side.
“I can only focus on what’s before me, and the product that we had before us was not something that the House of Delegates could support,” Martinez said Tuesday. “What we are sending back to the Senate is what I think is a workable piece of policy. And we’ll see what the Senate does once they receive it.”
