BOSTON — Democratic Gov. Maura Healey on Monday signed legislation that removes the state’s enumerated limits on abortion after 24 weeks and places decisions about later procedures squarely with licensed physicians.
What the law changes
The measure, known as the Prioritizing Patient Access to Care Act, replaces the prior statutory framework that permitted abortions after 24 weeks only under narrowly defined circumstances — such as threats to a patient’s life or health or in the case of lethal fetal anomalies. Under the new language, physicians may provide abortion care after 24 weeks based on their professional medical judgment.
| Before | After |
|---|---|
| Abortions after 24 weeks allowed when necessary to preserve life, physical or mental health, or for lethal fetal anomalies | Abortions after 24 weeks permitted based on the professional judgment of a licensed physician |
At a bill-signing event, Healey framed the change as a restoration of medical authority over complex, late-pregnancy decisions. "We believe that health care decisions should be made between women and families and their doctors, not politicians," she said.
Supporters and rationale
Supporters of the law said it was necessary because some Massachusetts hospitals were declining to perform abortions even when patients met the previous law’s narrow exceptions, forcing some families to travel out of state for care. State Sen. Robyn Kennedy said the revision returns such decisions to clinicians rather than the courts, emphasizing that it "prioritiz[es] health and safety during challenging circumstances."
Katie Dineen, who spoke at the signing with her husband, recounted learning late in her pregnancy that her son had suffered an in utero stroke and that the diagnosis did not fit the prior statute’s exceptions. Supporters said the new standard prevents similar cases from being denied care within Massachusetts.
Protections for providers and patients
The legislation also strengthens the state’s Shield Law protections intended to limit investigations into care that is lawful in Massachusetts. Backers say those provisions are aimed at safeguarding clinicians and patients from out-of-state legal actions or investigations tied to reproductive care provided here.
Opposition and national reaction
Not all reaction was favorable. National anti-abortion groups condemned the measure. Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of SBA Pro-Life America, said in a statement that the law will increase late-term procedures and criticized the change in stark terms.
"It should shock the conscience that tens of thousands of unborn Americans are barbarically dismembered limb by limb and torn apart every single year," Dannenfelser said, adding that the number will increase with the new law.
Local opponents have indicated they will continue to press their case through advocacy and political channels. Supporters responded that the law reflects Massachusetts’ longstanding commitment to expanding reproductive health access after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in 2022 led many states to tighten restrictions.
Practical implications for patients
Health care providers and legal experts say the change clarifies doctors’ authority in time-sensitive clinical situations and could reduce the need for patients to travel for care when complications arise late in pregnancy. The bill’s shield provisions are designed to reduce legal uncertainty for clinicians who provide care consistent with Massachusetts law.
- Who decides: Licensed physicians determine whether later procedures are medically appropriate under the new standard.
- Where it applies: The change governs care provided in Massachusetts; it does not alter federal law or other states’ rules.
- Protections: Enhanced shield provisions aim to limit out-of-state investigations into care lawful in Massachusetts.
The state Senate sent the bill to Healey’s desk on July 31. Healey, who has been governor since 2023 and is a vocal supporter of abortion access, signed the measure on Aug. 10. The change is likely to shape reproductive health care delivery and the political debate in Massachusetts in the months ahead.
Reporting from the State House continues to monitor how hospitals, physicians and legal actors interpret and implement the new standard as the law takes effect.
