Massachusetts Governor Signs Law Allowing Abortion Up to Birth
Shorter Massachusetts Democratic Gov. Maura Healey: If you disagree with the law then you hate women.
Evil. Disgusting. Horrible.
Massachusetts Democratic Gov. Maura Healey signed a new law, eliminating gestational limits on abortion.
Yes, the law allows abortion up to birth.
Nine other states and DC have similar laws: Alaska, Colorado, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon and Vermont
From NBC Boston:
The law (H 5595) eliminates the existing four-pronged framework enabling abortions for pregnancies at or beyond 24 weeks in life-threatening situations for the patient or fetus, instead writing a new law that states “an abortion may be performed by a physician based upon the professional judgment of the physician.”
“We’ve heard so many stories — stories that are filled with a lot of pain and anguish and heartache and a lot of trauma. We heard stories about the worst moments of a person’s life, of a couple’s life,” Healey said, surrounded by lawmakers, advocates and physicians at a press conference she hosted in her ceremonial office. “We’re signing this law today so that new patients, people we won’t know or won’t meet, will be able to get the care that they need in Massachusetts.”
Healy tried to guilt trip everyone too:
Healey said Monday’s signing was intended to “stand with women,” arguing that those who oppose the legislation do not support women’s health.
“The bottom line for people in Massachusetts, if you care about women’s health, if you care about making sure that women are able to access the health care that they need in consultation with their doctors, should be clear,” she said. “I stand with women. My opponents do not.”
To think that a mother won’t even give her a child a chance at life.
One woman said her son had a stroke in utero at 33 weeks. The doctor told her “there was a chance he would die in utero or survive for some period of time.”
“No chance of a normal healthy outcome,” added the woman.
It sounds like a baby could survive outside the womb, but would likely have physical and/or mental disabilities.
A baby can survive outside the womb at 33 weeks. Why not give your baby a chance at a life?
This is what a 34 week old baby looks like outside the womb.
Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey just legalized killing an unborn child at this age. For no reason, just because someone wants to
They call it “reproductive rights” because they refuse to call it what it is: murder pic.twitter.com/Sr5hd7kNpA
— Anna Lulis (@annamlulis) August 11, 2026
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Lesbian family values
A Democrat through and through.
Fixed that for you.
The great deceiver
Edit: Woke lesbian family values.
Jesus Christ.
Wept.
Void where prohibited by law.
“Womens’ health, womens’ health, womens’ health.” Bull. What about the child’s health?
My mother and I almost didn’t survive her labor with me because of placenta previa and the resulting heavy bleeding. We did but I have no siblings. The doctor even came to my father in the waiting room and asked him if, it came down to it, should he save his wife or the baby (me!). This is more than just a passing topic. It’s personal.
.
And just noting, about 50 % of the babies eliminated will be female, assuming of course that some aren’t deliberately targeting a specific gender for termination. How does one “stand with women” and at the same time sanction the extermination of women? Some sick soulless progressive logic there.
And mostly black I imagine.
So, which did your father choose?
He said “Both” and the doctor did just that. So here I am. Mom graduated twenty years ago.
“What about the child’s health?”
“It’s not a child. It’s a someone did something.”
Murder is against our Laws. If an abortion is murder then the People should prosecute. To stop abortion, enforce our Lawx.
Whose laws? It’s not against the law in Massachusetts, unless the victim has been born.
Which people? You and I?! How can we prosecute crimes? Private prosecutions disappeared 200 years ago or more. Prosecution is now exclusively a function of the executive branch of government, and at its discretion.
Governor Checkbox is a horrible leader on so many levels, it’s difficult to keep up.
She’s completely ok with butchering defenseless children in the womb – half of which are female, by the way – but her administration is pillorying a mother suffering from postpartum psychosis for killing her three children.
What’s the difference, Maura? Care to elaborate? I won’t be holding my breath.
All of that said, we knew at the outset that the Dobbs decision would result in some blue states becoming more extreme. I’m ok with that as I believe in the theory of states as laboratories of democracy. I also support in the strongest terms the removal of abortion from the arsenal of weapons used by the left federally.
Much of what Healey does is nothing more than hysterical emoting against anything Trump. Massachusetts would be so much better off with a nominal republican as governor, even if it’s another Weld or Romney.
Electing someone based upon their gender or sexual orientation alone is a recipe for disaster.
Healey should have had the Sacred Cows there, playing their song, “Thrill, Thrill, Thrill – Kill, Kill, Kill.”
How about up to whatever age Maura is right now?
Sinful.
Abortion limits will stabilize at whatever term the fetus looks cute, owing to voter maximum agreement. The republicans tend to err too short, the dems too long. Until then look for activism.
Can we kill old people when they’re not cute? How about disabled people?
Antisemites?
It’s a fetus looking like a person not like a fish that does it. Then society takes an interest.
A shallow and childishly superficial argument. Pro life values support.., wait for it..life. It is life regardless of whether one believes subjectively that the unborn baby is “cute” or not.
He’s not wrong about the PR aspect and as distasteful or crass as it may be …the ire should be reserved for those unable to overcome their flawed human nature and not to blame the person point out the unpleasant truth about the influence photos/video to shift public opinion v stand alone moral/ethical values unaided by PR.
Uh yeah he is, and so are you. Doubling down on stupid is ultimately not a way to convince anyone. In fact, just so you know, similar fallacious superficial reasoning was used early on by the pro abortion side in Roe. They were fundamentally wrong then just like you two are now.
No, it is not about “life”, it’s about personhood. Animals are alive too. The question is when we consider a baby to be a person, and to a lot of people its appearance matters. If it looks like a person they’re more willing to accord it the rights of a person.
No Milhosuse. Most definitely and completely No. This “personhood” nonsense is a sick utilitarian idea to devalue human life. And by “life” Milhouse, I and everyone else in the world means human life. And human life begins at conception. Period. Paragraph. End of story. Now life at conception is still growing and developing but people grow and develop throughout their natural life. It’s called aging. And if you want to give the state the power to redefine some vulnerable people as not human and worthy of life, well, good look when some reprehensible communist or progressive decides that at some point people are not productive and deserving of medical care. Maybe better to remove from the population.
Concise,
Your emotional argument here is goofy. When tech advanced to show fetal development in great detail and folks could clearly see this was a baby it absolutely had a PR benefit to the pro life side. Why would you dispute that?
Pro life side very effectively rolled out ads using the images of that baby in the womb. There was one I distinctly recall with billboards and TV ads showing the baby sucking its thumb.
The adage a ‘picture is worth a thousand words’ was and remains absolutely true. It doesn’t alter the morality/ethics of the argument to make use of that picture to more effectively make the case for pro life position.
CommoChief, your objections are goofy. That life begins at conception is a biological reality grounded in science. That devaluing life or redefining human life can be a slippery slope that can and would lead to gross abuses is evidenced by history and current events. And I certainly don’t object to the use of imagery like ultrasounds to illustrate to the obvious reality of life to the oblivious, but the arguments and positions above go beyond this and reject the reality/sanctity of the unborn life itself, based on absurd premises. So I reject and refute them, although apparently you fail to understand the arguments. I suggest you try to think about it a little more before responding again.
Concise,
1.A fertilized egg aka zygote isn’t pregnancy. The zygote gotta attach to the uterus to become a normal pregnancy.
2. Abortion is the act of terminating a pregnancy aka killing the baby in the womb.
3. The zygote by definition isn’t in the womb aka uterus. Thus there’s no pregnancy.
4. You continue to use ‘life’ meaning a zygote as equivalent to pregnancy. That’s not only incorrect as a basic biological reality but logically very perilous. It leads to all sorts of problems when followed to its conclusion. If a zygote is life b/c it possesses DNA then so does hair. So no haircuts. That’s absolutely absurd and everyone knows it including you. Hair can’t become a baby. Neither can a zygote without it developing into a blastocyst and attaching to the uterus.
The position of the Roman Catholic Church as I understand it is that conception = pregnancy. Of course they also as I understand it disfavor use of contraception.
IMO those positions while admirable in their consistency are unworkable outside the confine of their parishioners which after all is the limit their writ. Even within the org I don’t see a great deal of public condemnation of Roman Catholic parishioners by the Church hierarchy for those who violate those precepts. For that matter the Roman Catholic Church doesn’t allow divorce but there seem to be lots of divorces among the parishioners. Until I see very public, very strictly enforced refusals of communion and ultimately excommunication of those ‘Catholics’ who violate the teachings re contraception, abortions and divorce (including Priests who sign off on sham annulment that don’t follow the strict rules for granting a valid annulment, fail to refuse communion to violation of teachings on contraception/abortion) then I am wholly uninterested in being lectured with Roman Catholic talking points.
I absolutely reject your contention that should self censor until I presumably agree to spout off the policy positions you want to hear. Especially b/c they seem to be the official policy/doctrine of a faith tradition I don’t adhere to. Doubly so b/c you ain’t operating in good faith.
Commowhatever, to recognize that life begins a conception is simply to recognize a fundamental scientific, biological truth. The Catholic Church doesn’t define pregnancy. They do however recognize the fundamental truth that life begins at conception. This is not my policy. This is a fact you really do not want to acknowledge. Weird that planned parenthood would agree with. you. I do not.
Human rights are not based on looks. Otherwise you could simply vote to kill all Jews or black people or men. They’re human, they get to live. The fact that’s hard for you to understand is very telling.
There’s an argument that you still have to win, that a fetus is a human. The fetus is human (i.e. not wolf), but not a human.
The feeling is that there must be a bright line and the pro-life side picks conception. The left, and say sociologists, say that you learn to be a human, so it would be after birth. Birth is a nice bright line, the baby is visible and cute, and society takes an interest then with ordinary morality.
I’d say forget bright lines and compromise. When pictures make the fetus cute and human-like, set the abortion limit there.
Bear in mind that neither conception (what about IUDs?) nor birth works as a bright line.
Is human but not a human? So, at some point, the DNA of the unborn child is not quite human but magically transforms itself at some point into human DNA? When is that exactly? Don’t keep such groundbreaking science to yourself.
Mr. Madison, what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
And about that bright line, rhhardin. Logic says conception. Biology says conception. The Church says conception. I’m going with conception.
Concise,
IMO the ‘line’ is when the embryo is formed and that’s not ‘conception’. A zygote isn’t a fetus, it has to become a blastocyst and attach to the uterus to become viable.
There’s a roughly four day timeframe from sex (conception) as the zygote forms and becomes a blastocyst attached to the uterus which is where the fetus is developed in a viable/normal pregnancy.
If folks don’t wanna be pregnant then be abstinent, use one or more forms of birth control and just to be sure take the ‘morning after pill’. That’s plenty of opportunity to avoid, prevent and rectify ‘mistakes’. Abortion is IMO a selfish evil.
IMO, you’re throwing out a lot of terms to avoid certain biological realities. Conception is absolutely, fundamentally the point at which life is created, the rest of the biological processes by which that life is carried to term does NOT alter this fundamental reality. The unique individual human DNA of life is created upon conception. The unborn just needs to grow. Your arguments confuse process with substance and reject the reality of life at conception, as most pro abortion advocates like to do.
And commowhatever, in case it’s unclear to you (which probably is given the above), relying on institutional redefinitions of “pregnancy” to argue that using the “morning after” pill is is morally and ethically fine is quite flawed. To the extent its use terminates the conceived life, it is abhorrent.
Concise,
The moral distinction of ‘life’ would absolutely apply once the zygote becomes a blastocyst and attached to the uterus. That is the definition of a normal pregnancy. A zygote in and of itself isn’t a pregnancy. To become more than DNA it must attach.
Pregnancy has a different start point than conception aka fertilization of the egg by the sperm. They are two very interrelated but distinct things/events. That’s the biological reality.
Thus logically any efforts to avoid pregnancy are contraception. While any efforts to terminate the pregnancy are not contraception but abortion. Abortion is IMO a very selfish evil.
Instead of accepting/granting these biological realities you do dismiss them. Even then when we seem to agree that no pregnancy should be terminated and no baby aborted you attack me, call me names.
Bruh, we are on the same side and are in 100% agreement about the evils of abortion terminating pregnancy. I don’t understand why you’d attack someone you agree with on the central issue. Successful Politics is about addition not subtraction. Deliberately alienating people who 100% agree with you that no pregnancy should be aborted b/c you insist on applying an incorrect start point to pregnancy is …not helpful to the cause of ending the evil of abortions.
Bruh, we are not 100% in agreement. “A zygote isn’t a fetus, it has to become a blastocyst and attach to the uterus to become viable.” (courtesy of Google AI may I hazard a guess?) What the @$#? Have I even broached these topics? What are you trying to avoid in this clumsy medical dictionary vomit? I’ll make it easy. That would be the term “conception.” By the way, that’s where egg and sperm meet to create LIFE. Enough with the zygote fetus blastocyst attaching to the uterus. Fundamentally, conception is when life is created.
And, bruh, I draw the line at any actions that end this newly created life whether deemed “abortion” or the “morning after” pill (to the extent it operates this way although I also have other objections). Interesting that you don’t.
And just have to address again this silly “to become more than DNA it has to attach”. Nah Bruh, that doesn’t define life. Again, that’s conception. Attaching to the uterus is part of the growth process, IT DOES NOT REDEFINE THE FUNDAMENTAL SUBSTANCE OF THE CONCEIVED LIFE. Nothing new is added to the core DNA created at conception. Are you pretending not to understand this? It almost seems so. Are you by chance, a democrat?
Sweet Sister Josephine!
Cute?!?!?!!!
I am tired of both sides trying to draw lines of personhood, viability, humanity blah blah blah.
There is no point when a fetus becomes a human. When two humans continue a life in the womb, that is a continuation of the lives of the two humans that created the next life.
There was no stop or delay until something magical happens. A waiving of a wand, a snap of the fingers, an intervention.
An abortion stops that human continuation for that life and every other life that could have been created in all following generations.
evil
josef mengelee
A woman
If you look closely you’ll see she was surrounded by women. There might have been 1 or 2 men at the periphery, This was AWFUL driven. There are a bunch of ghouls.
Funny how all of those proponents of abortion prior to birth were never subjected to the procedure they so brazenly support and protect.
If anyone deserved to be aborted, it would be these AWFULs.
I’ll piggyback on this note because there is another issue winding its way through the MA legislature. They are going to enact a commission of muslims to influence government recruiting and “Identify and recommend qualified American Muslims for appointive positions at all levels of government.”
Isn’t that special.
Which will occur first?
A) People’s Commonwealth of Massachusetts
B) Islamic Commonwealth of Massachusetts
It’s a race!
God just insane
Doesn’t she need to define what a woman is before she can stand with women?
The vile, stupid and evil Dhimmi-crats are the pro-death party:
Pro=infanticide; pro-genocide of Jews and Christians; pro-illegal alien criminal; pro-domestic criminal; pro-murder of CEOs, business executives and the “wealthy;” etc., etc.
I refer to them as abortion enthusiasts. It is their sacrament and part of their war on children; abortion, maleducation, gender mutilations (human vivisection), freely available gateway drugs, child trafficking, and the misinformation (under maleducation) that socialism is a viable means of government that has NOT caused misery, poverty, starvation and death. EVERY time it is tried.
Somewhere, Kermit Gosnell is smiling.
Marines coming ashore on Iwo Jima had a better chance of survival than babies coming out of the womb in Massachusetts.
Look like all are Euro ethnicity caucasian women – AWFLs probably. You better believe Muslims along with other 3rd world cultures won’t participate. For some cultures, their families are large, just another way to control their actions; for the desired caliphate?
Too many people on earth, attention Bill Gates, You eliminate the cultures that created beauty, education, opportunity, freedom, choice, work, learn, earn – etc. won’t be a pretty world for long.
This is not the right time to be a fetus. On one hand you have no due process for your right to life if your mother is inconvenienced but have loads of due process for your mother and her extended family’s convenience as an anchor baby.
Wonder if we’ll get a statement from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops or Pope Prevost or if they’ll just look the other way and remain silent as they usually do. We most assuredly will not be getting any statements from the liberal Protestant mainline denominations. That’s for sure.
I am betting on silence.
‘Nothing to see, move along’ is the best we’re gonna get from organized religion. I’ve come to believe the leadership of our organized religious denominations are much like a YouTube content creator in that they’re worried they’ll get de-monetized if they take up ‘controversial’ opinions/stances and their gravy train will get derailed. So instead of truth telling and strict adherence to/expression of supposedly core beliefs/principles they obfuscate, excuse and ignore to avoid losing ‘followers’, revenue and clout.
Had a couple teenagers I wasn’t sure were human, much less normal.
What a despicable human being. To bad her mother didn’t abort her, we wouldn’t have to put up with her evilness. This animal is brought to you by the democratic party of mental illness.
Same for Hilldog Clinton and Wretched Gretchen Whitmer.
While I agree with all the vitriol directed at the Governor, the bill was passed by the Legislature. All of whom were elected by the people of Massachusetts.
(I live in California; we put “elected” in quotes for a reason)
“women’s health, if you care about making sure that women are able to access the health care that they need in consultation with their doctors, should be clear,” she said.”
This is neither women’s health or health care
This is murder
Funny how their feminist stance on women’s reproductive freedom/health never seems to make the simultaneous logical connection that if an unplanned/unwanted pregnancy can be terminated by the woman alone that should also mean no child support obligation since preserving the ‘woman’s right to choose’ is paramount and they’ve removed any authority from the man. Instead they want to assign responsibility to the man but refuse to grant him any authority …which some might call a form of slavery.
Demonrats have always loved slavery. Covid gave them a shot at total slavery of the nation by the ruling class of idiots.
If demonrats put honest labels on things, they wouldn’t have as many buyers.
Alaska
Really?
In which Massachusetts secedes from civilized society.
Idaho has a similar initiative on our November ballot. IDAHO
Potatoheads.
CRUEL VIEW: As it is more likely (though not a certainty) that Leftist Loons will raise more Leftist Loons, maybe we should allow these Leftist Loons to kill their unborn children . . .
Truth to tell, while I don’t support abortion, sometimes I am inclined to look the other way as the leftists reduce their supply of more leftists of the future.
I wonder how long it will take them to allow post birth abortion, and the proposed length of time permitted. Will it be 24 months or 24 years?
If they keep it up, the population in blue states may be reduced through birth prevention, and medically assisted suicide for the elderly and infirm.
Ultimately, perhaps they will achieve a utopia of selected populations of “perfect” people. Devoid of conservatives, elderly, children, blacks, Hispanics, whites, and any other perceived undesirable demographics.
I am waiting for the first trans “woman” abortion.
MA just keeps on giving, e.g. the Kennedy Crime family, John F’n Kerry, Liawatha Warren, “Mr. Softee” Markey, Healey, “electeds of color” Wu, Barney Frank, Gerry Studds, etc. The list is long and dishonorable.
Moloch smiles
Healey went Full Aktion T4 National Socialist PDQ, huh?
Further fun fact: blacks comprise 7% of MA population, but are 45% of homicide victims and have 25% of abortions. The Klan couldn’t have dreamed up a better way to control the MA black population than MA Donks if it tried.
Marget Sanger smiles and says “I built that”.
If we called the fetus a sea turtle, a whale, a dolphin, or other protected species, would it have a better chance of survival?
Register it as a Democrat voter…
The evil of this is staggering.
Perhaps MA can pass a law in the future, one declaring certain undesirable people as “assault fetus”. Then it will be within the law to just kill said people without further discussion. Since MA has so many completely illegal laws on the books, what is the problem with one more.
Sure, said law might be litigated for 20 years. Meanwhile there will be “fetus control” keeping the people safe… or whatever.
These people are absolute monsters….serial killers with a blood lust for unborn babies. Just imagine killing a full term baby…..and they are actually proud of allowing this to happen.