MA Legislature Approves Highly-Controversial Abortion Bill
Massachusetts lawmakers have approved legislation that would significantly loosen the state’s restrictions on abortions performed after 24 weeks, sending the controversial proposal to Democratic Gov. Maura Healey.
Healey has consistently supported expanding abortion protections and is expected to face mounting pressure from pro-life advocates urging her to reject the measure.
Current Massachusetts law generally permits abortion during the first 24 weeks of pregnancy. After that point, a physician must determine that the procedure is necessary to protect the mother’s life or physical or mental health, or that the unborn child has a lethal condition or is unlikely to survive outside the womb.
The legislation approved by the state Senate on Friday would remove those expressly defined conditions. Instead, abortions after 24 weeks could be performed “based on the professional judgment of the physician.”
Supporters describe the change as a safeguard for women experiencing complicated medical circumstances. They argue that the existing statute can cause physicians and hospitals to delay or deny treatment because they fear violating state law.
State Rep. Christine Barber cited a case involving an unborn child who suffered a stroke and was not expected to survive. According to Barber, hospitals turned the patient away because of uncertainty about whether the circumstances satisfied the existing legal standard.
Abortion-rights advocates maintain that the legislation would allow doctors to make difficult medical decisions without being confined to a predetermined list of conditions.
Pro-life organizations, however, warn that replacing specific statutory limits with a physician’s broadly defined professional judgment effectively removes a crucial safeguard protecting viable unborn children.
Myrna Maloney Flynn, president of Massachusetts Citizens for Life, argued that lawmakers were prioritizing abortion access over women’s well-being.
“While this legislation prioritizes access, it does not prioritize a woman’s safety,” Flynn said in a video urging lawmakers to reject the proposal.
National pro-life groups also condemned the measure.
Kelsey Pritchard, communications director for Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, told The Center Square that the legislation would legalize “abortion on demand until birth, paid for by taxpayers.”
Pritchard said the proposal would place Massachusetts among a limited group of jurisdictions maintaining exceptionally broad abortion standards throughout pregnancy.
Supporters dispute that description, arguing that late-term procedures would still require a physician’s medical judgment and would not become automatically available without professional approval.
The disagreement reflects the fundamental question surrounding the bill: Whether a physician’s discretion provides sufficient protection or whether the removal of explicit legal conditions creates a pathway to abortion at virtually any stage of pregnancy.
States have adopted dramatically different approaches since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022 and returned abortion policymaking to elected legislatures.
Republican-led states have enacted stronger protections for unborn children, while Democratic-controlled states have moved in the opposite direction by expanding abortion access and shielding providers from legal consequences originating elsewhere.
Massachusetts already maintains some of the country’s strongest protections for abortion providers. Its shield laws are intended to protect physicians who prescribe abortion drugs through telehealth to patients in states where the practice is restricted.
Those provisions have generated continuing legal conflicts with officials in states that enforce stronger protections for unborn life, according to The Center Square.
If Healey signs the latest measure, Massachusetts will replace clearly defined late-term abortion conditions with a far broader standard resting primarily on physician discretion.
The decision will carry consequences beyond one state, adding to the national conflict over whether abortion laws should protect viable unborn children or allow increasingly expansive access late in pregnancy.