Massachusetts is on the verge of a significant change to its abortion laws after the state legislature approved a bill that would broaden access to abortions later in pregnancy by revising the legal standard physicians must meet before performing the procedure.
House Bill 5595 has now passed both chambers of the legislature and awaits the signature of Democratic Gov. Maura Healey, who has indicated she supports the measure.
Under current Massachusetts law, abortions after 24 weeks of pregnancy are generally permitted only under specific circumstances. Those include cases in which the mother’s life is at risk, when the procedure is considered necessary to protect her physical or mental health, when the unborn child has been diagnosed with a fatal fetal anomaly, or when the child is not expected to survive outside the womb without extraordinary medical intervention.
The new legislation would replace those criteria with a broader standard, allowing a physician to perform an abortion after 24 weeks based on the physician’s professional judgment.
Supporters argue the change gives doctors greater flexibility to respond to complex medical situations without being constrained by statutory language. Opponents contend that removing the existing requirements effectively allows elective abortions much later in pregnancy by leaving the decision almost entirely to the physician performing the procedure.
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
Among the critics is Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, which argues the legislation dramatically weakens protections for unborn children.
“Under this law the abortionist, who profits financially from performing the abortion, is the sole approver,” Kelsey Pritchard, the organization’s communications director, told The Center Square.
In a separate interview with Fox News, Pritchard said the legislation would allow abortions throughout the second and third trimesters if a physician approved the procedure.
“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 bill reject that characterization. State Rep. Lindsay Sabadosa, the legislation’s sponsor, has argued that medical decisions should remain between patients and their healthcare providers rather than being dictated by lawmakers.
“Medical decisions belong between patients and their doctors, not the Legislature,” Sabadosa told The Center Square.
For pro-life advocates, however, the central issue is the unborn child. They argue that the legislation removes meaningful legal limits on abortions performed after viability and shifts life-and-death decisions almost entirely to the physician conducting the procedure.
The proposal has also renewed debate over the moral dimensions of abortion. Opponents view the bill as another step away from protecting unborn life, while supporters maintain that it preserves physicians’ ability to respond appropriately in difficult medical circumstances.
If Healey signs the measure, Massachusetts will join a small group of states that permit abortions later in pregnancy under broadly defined legal standards. Maine has enacted similar legislation in recent years, reflecting a wider divide among states following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.
