Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey signed legislation Monday that eliminates the state’s 24-week limit on abortion, making the commonwealth the latest jurisdiction to permit the procedure through all nine months of pregnancy at a physician’s discretion.
The law, titled the Prioritizing Patient Access to Care Act, strips away the previous framework that generally prohibited abortions after 24 weeks except under limited circumstances. In its place, health care workers gain broad discretion to determine whether to perform a later abortion without facing the legal penalties that applied under prior state law.
Massachusetts now joins a small but growing list of states, including Alaska, Colorado, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, and Vermont, plus the District of Columbia, that impose no gestational age limit on the procedure. The law takes effect in 90 days.
Under Massachusetts’ previous statute, abortion was generally permitted up to 24 weeks of pregnancy. AP News reported that abortions after that threshold were allowed only under a specific list of conditions, including lethal fetal anomaly or a direct threat to the mother’s life or health. The new law replaces that defined list with a single standard: a physician’s “professional judgment.”
That shift is the heart of the controversy. Supporters say it keeps medical decisions between patients and their doctors. Opponents say it effectively permits elective abortion at any point in pregnancy, including on healthy, viable babies.
Just The News reported that the bill, designated H.5595, passed the Massachusetts House on July 22 and the Senate on July 31 before landing on Healey’s desk. The legislative vote count was not disclosed in available reporting.
At the bill signing ceremony, which Fox News Digital reported was met with applause and smiles, Healey cast the law as a defensive measure against what she described as national threats to abortion access from President Trump, congressional Republicans, and the Supreme Court.
“It is up to the states to lead. And as governor, I promise that no matter what Donald Trump or Republicans in Congress or the Supreme Court does, we’re going to continue to make sure that women and families have access to the health care that they need, right here in Massachusetts.”
Healey also framed the law as a practical response for families facing medical complications late in pregnancy, arguing they should be able to obtain care in Massachusetts rather than traveling to another state.
“We believe that health care decisions should be made between women and families and their doctors, not politicians.”
The governor drew a sharp political line, adding: “I stand with women. My opponents do not.”
The response from pro-life organizations was immediate. SBA Pro-Life America President Marjorie Dannenfelser issued a statement condemning the signing in stark terms.
“It should shock the conscience that tens of thousands of unborn Americans are barbarically dismembered limb by limb and torn apart every single year. Sadly, that number will only increase with Gov. Healey’s approval of the Abortion Up Until Birth Bill.”
Dannenfelser went further, calling on the Republican Party to abandon the “leave it to the states” position on abortion, a stance she said “permits egregious late-term abortion laws like this one”, and instead push for national protections for unborn children. She noted that without a minimum national standard, the United States remains one of only eight countries worldwide that allows abortion at any point in pregnancy. SBA Pro-Life America listed the others as Australia, Canada, China, Guinea-Bissau, Mexico, South Korea, and Vietnam.
That is not flattering company for a nation that styles itself as a leader in human rights.
Republican state Rep. Alyson Sullivan-Almeida offered a pointed response, as Breitbart reported.
“It’s a very sad day in the commonwealth of Massachusetts. The precedent that we’re setting is that a mother can get an abortion up until the moment of birth for a healthy, viable baby.”
Myrna Maloney Flynn, president of Massachusetts Citizens for Life, raised a different concern, the safety of the women the law purports to help. “While this legislation prioritizes access, it does not prioritize a woman’s safety,” Flynn said, pointing to the argument that later abortions carry greater medical risks.
The central policy question the new law raises is what, exactly, constrains a physician’s decision to perform a late-term abortion once the 24-week threshold and its defined exceptions are gone. The answer, based on the law’s framework, appears to be: the individual doctor’s professional judgment. No specific medical conditions are required. No second opinion is mandated in the reporting. No gestational ceiling applies.
Supporters, including bill sponsor state Rep. Lindsay Sabadosa, have argued this is appropriate. “Medical decisions belong between patients and their doctors, not the Legislature,” Sabadosa said. That framing echoes Healey’s own rhetoric almost word for word.
But the “trust the doctors” argument sidesteps a basic question that opponents have raised: if the law imposes no objective standard beyond one physician’s discretion, what prevents an abortion at 30 weeks, 35 weeks, or 39 weeks on a healthy fetus carried by a healthy mother? The legislative text, as described in available reporting, does not appear to answer that question. And Healey’s administration has not offered a public answer either.
The pattern of blue-state governance expanding the boundaries of progressive policy through legislative action, while framing it as a response to conservative overreach, is by now familiar. It mirrors recent court-ordered expansions of gender medicine for minors in Colorado, where institutions have similarly invoked physician discretion and patient autonomy to override legislative guardrails.
Healey’s explicit invocation of Trump, congressional Republicans, and the Supreme Court at the signing ceremony made clear that this law is not merely a health care measure in her eyes. It is a political statement, and, she hopes, a rallying point for Democratic voters.
That calculation is not lost on pro-life leaders. Dannenfelser’s call for national protections reflects a growing frustration on the right with the post-Dobbs landscape, in which the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade returned abortion policy to the states, only to watch blue states race to eliminate every remaining restriction.
The “leave it to the states” framework was supposed to let democratic majorities set their own standards. In practice, it has produced a patchwork in which states like Massachusetts now sit alongside China and Vietnam on the short global list of jurisdictions with no gestational limit whatsoever.
Meanwhile, the political dynamics around policy conflicts between red and blue states continue to sharpen, with governors on both sides using state law as a weapon in national ideological battles.
Several questions remain unresolved. The precise legislative text of the Prioritizing Patient Access to Care Act has not been publicly detailed in the reporting examined here. It is unclear whether any conditions, reporting requirements, or procedural safeguards apply to abortions performed after viability. The methodology behind SBA Pro-Life America’s claim that the U.S. is one of only eight countries permitting abortion throughout pregnancy has not been independently verified. And no reporting has surfaced the actual number of late-term abortions performed annually in Massachusetts under the old law, a figure that would help gauge the real-world impact of the change.
Kelsey Pritchard, communications director for Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, offered a blunt summary of the opposition’s view: “Massachusetts’ new abortion bill is very extreme, legalizing abortion on demand until birth, paid for by taxpayers.”
Whether taxpayer funding is explicitly addressed in the bill remains among the unanswered questions.
Gov. Healey signed this law with applause and smiles. She framed it as standing with women. But the law she signed does not merely protect women facing tragic medical emergencies late in pregnancy. It removes every objective legal standard that previously distinguished those cases from elective procedures, and replaces the law’s judgment with a single doctor’s.
Healey says she trusts doctors over politicians. Fair enough. But the people of Massachusetts might reasonably ask: if the law no longer draws any line at all, who exactly is being protected, and from what?
When a state puts itself on the same list as China and North Korea in how it treats unborn life, the word “progressive” starts to sound less like a compliment and more like a warning.
By signing up, you agree to receive newsletters and promotional content from American Frontline News and selected publications in the American Digest Media Network, operated with Patriot Mom Digest LLC, and you accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time.
By signing up, you agree to receive newsletters and promotional content from American Frontline News and selected publications in the American Digest Media Network, operated with Patriot Mom Digest LLC, and you accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time.