💛 A quick favor, if you've got a second.
We're really happy that you chose to read one of our stories and sincerely hope you'll stick around to read more. We took our paywall down — for now — but that won't last forever, and when the gate goes back up, we'd love for you to already be on the inside.
It's free. So please enter your email here and don't forget to like and follow us on all of your favorite Social Media platforms!
Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey signed the Prioritizing Patient Access to Care Act into law this week, marking a significant shift in the state’s abortion regulations. The legislation passed the House of Representatives 119-33 on July 22, removing the previous 24-week restriction on abortion and permitting physicians to perform the procedure later in pregnancy based on their medical judgment.
Nine House Democrats broke party ranks to oppose the measure, joining all Republicans in voting against it. The dissenting lawmakers expressed concerns that the bill lacks public input, moves too quickly through the legislative process, and extends beyond what constituents support on the abortion issue.
State Rep. Jeffrey Turco of Winthrop characterized the law as “extremist and dangerous,” noting it permits abortion without restriction until birth and in many instances with public funding. He argued the bill was “rushed through the legislative process in two weeks” and contradicts views held by most Massachusetts residents.
State Rep. Chris Markey of Dartmouth warned the law establishes dangerous precedent and places physicians in an ethical bind. He said the measure conflicts with established criminal law and extends beyond acceptable norms, despite acknowledging that many constituents support abortion access generally.
State Rep. Dennis Gallagher of the 8th Plymouth District said existing law already permitted abortions after 24 weeks when maternal health or severe fetal anomalies were involved. He advocated for emphasizing alternatives like adoption when both mother and fetus are healthy.
Pro-life Democrat Alan Silvia from Bristol opposed the expansion, questioning why lawmakers protect endangered animals while offering less protection to unborn children. He pledged to continue voting against abortion expansion measures in later pregnancy stages.
Healey defended the legislation as necessary to allow families confronting medical complications late in pregnancy to remain in Massachusetts rather than traveling elsewhere for procedures. Her office declined immediate comment to news outlets regarding the Democratic opposition.
More Stories
School Choice Model Shows Better Results Than Spending Alone, Experts Argue
Lynch Backs Norman in South Carolina GOP Senate Runoff Against Graham
U.N. Watchdog Condemns Iran’s Expected Selection to Human Rights Policy Committee