Massachusetts Senate Moves to Let Doctors Decide on Late-Term Abortions

The bill now heads to Democratic Governor Maura Healey for signature. Proponents argue the change will stop hospitals from refusing care to women who need late-term procedures, while opponents warn it could permit abortions up to birth, even in healthy pregnancies.

The Independent

Under existing state law, abortions are legal through 24 weeks. After that point they are allowed only if a physician determines the procedure is necessary to preserve the woman’s life or health, to address a lethal fetal anomaly, or when the fetus is unlikely to survive outside the uterus. The proposed revision would eliminate these specific criteria. Nationwide, the post-Roe environment remains fragmented: 13 states enforce bans at all stages of pregnancy, and another four prohibit abortions after roughly six weeks, often before many women realize they are pregnant. Several Democratic-controlled states, including Massachusetts, have enacted “shield” laws protecting providers who offer telehealth abortions to patients in restrictive states.

UsNews and World ReportThe Independent

• Scope of change: Removes the enumerated exceptions for post-24-week abortions, leaving the decision entirely to the attending physician.

The Independent

• Impact estimate: Lawmakers say the reform will affect only a small number of cases but is intended to close gaps that have left some women turned away by hospitals.

UsNews and World Report

• Political context: The bill follows a series of state actions since the 2022 Supreme Court decision that overturned *Roe v. Wade*, which sparked both restrictive bans and protective measures across the country.

The Independent

State Representative Christine Barber highlighted instances where hospitals have denied late-term abortions, citing a case involving a fetal stroke and a prognosis of non-viability. Governor Healey has not yet issued a public comment, but the measure awaits her decision. Opposition leader Myrna Maloney Flynn, president of Massachusetts Citizens for Life, argues the legislation “prioritizes access” without safeguarding women’s safety.

The Independent

• “While this legislation prioritizes access, it does not prioritize a woman’s safety,” — Myrna Maloney Flynn, president of Massachusetts Citizens for Life

UsNews and World Report