Well, here we go again. Another state. Another abortion fight. And this one is shaping up to be one of the most consequential legal changes Massachusetts has considered in years.
The Massachusetts Legislature has passed House Bill 5595, and it now sits on the desk of Democratic Gov. Maura Healey, who has indicated she intends to sign it. If she does, the state’s rules governing abortions after 24 weeks of pregnancy will change dramatically—and both supporters and opponents agree the stakes are enormous.
Here’s the thing. Under current Massachusetts law, abortions after 24 weeks are generally limited to specific circumstances. Those include cases involving a threat to the mother’s life, protection of her physical or mental health, fatal fetal diagnoses, or situations in which the unborn child is not expected to survive outside the womb without extraordinary medical intervention.
The new bill replaces those statutory conditions with a different standard.
Instead of listing qualifying circumstances, the legislation states that an abortion after 24 weeks “may be performed by a physician based upon the professional judgment of the physician.”
That sentence has become the center of the entire debate.
Supporters argue it gives physicians the flexibility to make complex medical decisions without rigid legislative restrictions. They say those decisions belong in the hands of doctors and patients, not politicians.
Opponents see something entirely different.
Now, stay with me, because this is where the arguments sharply diverge.
Tragically, Massachusetts already allows abortion for babies with a disability or life-limiting diagnosis after 24 weeks. But this new bill goes further: Elective abortion up to birth if one abortionist who profits from it signs off.
Watch @kelsey_pritch on @FoxNews break down… pic.twitter.com/lKc2oN6hTk
— SBA Pro-Life America (@sbaprolife) August 3, 2026
Pro-life organizations contend the revised language effectively removes meaningful legal limits on abortions later in pregnancy. Kelsey Pritchard, communications director for Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, argued that the physician performing the abortion would effectively become the final decision-maker.
“Under this law the abortionist, who profits financially from performing the abortion, is the sole approver,” Pritchard told The Center Square.
She expanded on that criticism in comments to Fox News.
“What this new bill would do is allow abortion throughout the second and third trimesters if you have an abortionist who has a medical degree who can sign off on that for you,” she said. “So essentially they’re opening the door to elective abortion at any point in pregnancy.”
Supporters of the legislation reject that interpretation.
State Rep. Lindsay Sabadosa, who sponsored the bill, defended the proposal by arguing that medical decisions should remain between patients and healthcare providers.
“Medical decisions belong between patients and their doctors, not the Legislature,” Sabadosa told The Center Square.
That exchange captures the broader national divide over abortion.
One side views the legislation as protecting medical discretion during complicated pregnancies. The other sees it as removing safeguards that previously limited abortions later in pregnancy. Both sides believe the bill represents a major turning point, but for very different reasons.
Massachusetts would not stand alone if the measure becomes law. Other states, including Maine, have adopted similarly broad legal standards governing abortions later in pregnancy following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. Since then, states have moved in sharply different directions, with some expanding abortion access and others enacting near-total bans.
