Massachusetts Strips Its Last Abortion Restriction, Because Arbitrary Lines Were Never Medicine

There is a particular kind of legislative language that reveals everything about who drafted it. The key phrase in Massachusetts Bill H.5595, the Prioritizing Patient Access to Care Act, is this: an abortion may be performed “based upon the professional judgment of the physician.” No gestational ceiling. No enumerated exceptions. No statutory definition of what constitutes sufficient judgment. The bill, passed by the House 119 to 33 on July 22 and by the Senate on July 31, simply removes the state’s 24-week restriction and hands the decision to the person with the medical degree. Governor Maura Healey, who has described herself as an outspoken supporter of abortion access, is expected to sign it.

Nicola Barts / Pexels

What we are watching is not a scandal. It is a structural correction, and a belated one. The 24-week line that H.5595 erases was never a clinical threshold. It was a political compromise dressed in medical clothing, a number legislators could cite at town halls without having to explain fetal viability, anomaly detection timelines, or the fact that perinatal palliative care and abortion care sometimes converge in the same hospital corridor. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, whose guidance Planned Parenthood cited in its July 31 press release, has said for years that trimester-based frameworks do not reflect how pregnancy complications actually present. The literature is not ambiguous on this point. Arbitrary gestational limits delay care, force travel, and produce worse outcomes for the patients who can least afford either.

And yet the opposition has settled on a familiar rhetorical posture. Kelsey Pritchard, communications director for Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, told The Center Square that the bill legalizes “abortion on demand until birth, paid for by taxpayers,” and that “the abortionist, who profits financially from performing the abortion, is the sole approver.” One appreciates the efficiency of packing three separate distortions into a single sentence. The bill does not mention taxpayer funding. It does not legalize abortion “for any reason” in the colloquial sense opponents intend; it delegates clinical authority to physicians, who remain bound by professional standards, malpractice exposure, and institutional review. And the phrase “the abortionist” as sole approver deliberately obscures the fact that every medical procedure is approved by the physician performing it. This is not a loophole. It is how medicine works.

Governors office (Public domain) via Wikimedia Commons

Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the same organization, went further, arguing that “these extreme laws that only 10% of Americans support are enabled by the ‘states-only’ philosophy on abortion” and urging the GOP to abandon leave-it-to-the-states in favor of a national ban. One almost admires the candor. The same political movement that spent a decade championing federalism as a principled defense of local self-governance now wants a national prohibition because Massachusetts, like ten other states and the District of Columbia, used its state authority to expand access. The principle was never federalism. The principle was the outcome.

The Massachusetts Catholic bishops, in a July 29 statement, called the elimination of late-term restrictions “a radical measure which is gravely immoral.” State Rep. Lindsay Sabadosa, a bill sponsor, offered the counterposition that “medical decisions belong between patients and their doctors, not the Legislature.” These are not equivalent claims. One invokes a theological framework that the state is not bound to apply. The other describes the operating logic of every licensed medical practice in the Commonwealth.

Walesjl (CC0) via Wikimedia Commons

What H.5595 does, structurally, is collapse the distance between law and clinical practice. It treats physicians as professionals rather than suspects. It removes a barrier that functioned primarily to punish the poor, the geographically isolated, and the diagnostically unlucky. And it does so at a moment when other states are moving in the opposite direction, which is precisely why it matters. Massachusetts will not be the last state to do this. It may not even be the most consequential. But the bill is a reminder that when you strip the rhetoric away, the only question that matters is whether you trust medicine or you trust the legislature. The Massachusetts Legislature just answered.