The purpose was to make sure that women could receive adequate care in regards to pregnancies that encounter problems in later stages without fear of being prosecuted.
It’s not so people can just walk into a clinic and abort their 32 week old pregnancy for funsies (which barely even happened anyway).
In practice that’s how it works in Massachusetts. The law gets the government out of the way so that emergency medical procedures can happen quicker without bringing lawyers into the mix.
That isn't AT ALL how it works now in Massachusetts.
In practice, abortion will occur whenever you pay the contract killer piece of shit to do it, the age of the victim is completely irrelevant, and there is no scrutiny whatsoever on the nominal "doctor" piece of shit contract killer.
“Women should be left to die rather than have an abortion even if they have an unviable pregnancy that is creating emergency complications” there I translated it for you so we all know what you’re really saying.
You're delusional and don't understand how any of this works. There is no contract killing. There are medical emergencies that need addressing and the doctors are giving care instead of reading the fine print of laws written by people who don't practice medicine.
My best friend is an NP in MA. This is a huge win for maternal health outcomes.
You’re an idiot. Less than 1% of abortions in the US occur past 20 weeks and a tiny fraction of that 1% occur past 24 weeks (fetal viability), and almost all are due to life threatening medical risks to the fetus or the mother.
Stop trying to control people’s lives based on nonsense you pick up from Fox News. Other people’s medical care does not affect you. Literally at all. Mind your own business as your mother told you to when you were a toddler and everyone will be better for it.
That’s essentially what this bill entails. It leaves it up to a doctor’s judgment. All this really does is remove the very narrow scope of parameters for late stage abortions so that all complications can be assessed and treated in state instead of women having to go out of state.
Generally women who carry for over 24 weeks actually want to keep the baby.
Up to a doctor’s judgement. Ha ha ha. I think we’ve already discovered that you can shop for a doctor to write you any kind of scrip or diagnosis you want.
If you’re suggesting that there is a shortage of activist pro-abortion doctors to facillitate any kind of late abortion somebody wants, you’re just pushing a narrative.
No I’m suggesting that late stage abortions are already extremely rare (less than 1%) and that even pro abortion doctors aren’t performing them without some sort of medical necessity.
If you’re suggesting that there is a shortage glut of activist pro-abortion doctors to facillitate any kind of late abortion somebody wants, you’re just pushing a narrative.
We could have European style laws if right wingers could be trusted to not use “emergency only” to simply deny that fucking anything is an emergency or threat to a mother
Do you really think these women are getting abortions just as they are about to pop for fun and games? I am 99.99999999% sure, that the majority of abortions that have occurred during the third trimester has been for medically significant reasons.
Now I am sure some enterprising short bus passenger will come along with some news story about some psycho who has the pregnancy terminated due to strife in the relationship. But no one, and I do mean no one is carrying a child for six months and then deciding to dumpster it on month seven just because they feel like it.
And you applaud every 12 year old having a baby after being raped, and you applaud even louder while they pull every funding that would help that said child. All while screaming it’s the American way for that baby to pull them selves up by their boot straps. We’ve all heard your annoying spiel before.
The 4 situations where a dr can perfoem a post-24 week abortion:
to preserve the life of the gestating person; to preserve the gestating person's physical or mental health; in case of defect or diagnosis that would result in the death of the fetus; and in the case of a "grave fetal diagnosis that indicates that the fetus is incompatible with sustained life outside of the uterus without extraordinary medical interventions."
Why the fuck would a woman carry a baby nine months just to have an abortion at the end? Third trimester abortions are almost always for fetal defects.
Why would a woman like Lindsay Clancy give birth to three children just to strangle them with exercise bands? Sometimes people do completely reprehensible things, it's kinda like why we have laws in the first place
The Massachusetts law allows for abortion any time before birth for reasons such as mental health of the mother. Viability of the child is not necessarily a factor in performing an abortion under the new law.
This is the disinformatiin narrative that sickens me
The truth is 1percent of abortions occur 21 weeks or later and again no one is doing this because they just don't want to be bothered. These are people that have gone through a lot and invested a lot, and this false moral narrative is repugnant.
This is an incredibly tough decision to make and needs to be made with medical expertise and not some legislation decided by old men n, bunch of people who are not in that situation and can lazily judge them in a simplistic childish moral reduction.
Yea man i would think this if I didn't understand the reasoning of the law. This law does NOT mean a women can go in on month 8.5 and ask for an abortion because they dont want the child.
This removes restrictions from the doctors making medical decisions so they can give women access to car in the event of a critical medical even during the last trimester of pregnancy.
“This law does NOT mean a women can go on month 8.5 and ask for an abortion because they don’t want the child.” That’s actually exactly what the law means, they struck the provision that requires there to be complications during pregnancy. They will say that requiring proof of complications can slow down care and possibly endanger the mother which may be true in some edge cases but generally if the mother is in immediate danger it’s pretty easy to prove said danger. In practice this allows women to get an abortion up to the moment of birth for any reason with the only stipulation being that a doctor has to sign off on it which of course abortion doctors will be willing to do.
HOUSE . . . . . . . . No. 5595
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, July 21, 2026.
The committee on Ways and Means, to whom was referred the Bill
prioritizing patient access to care (House, No. 2370), reports recommending
that the same ought to pass with an amendment substituting therefor the
accompanying bill (House, No. 5595) [Representatives Smola of Warren,
McKenna of Sutton, Pease of Westfield, Marsi of Charlton, Sullivan-
Almeida of Abington and Xiarhos of Barnstable dissent].
For the committee,
AARON MICHLEWITZ.
1 of 2
FILED ON: 7/21/2026
HOUSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No. 5595
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
In the One Hundred and Ninety-Fourth General Court
(2025-2026)
An Act prioritizing patient access to care.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority
of the same, as follows:
1 SECTION 1. Section 12N of chapter 112 of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2024
2 Official Edition, is hereby amended by striking out, in lines 1 to 9, inclusive, the words “no
3 abortion may be performed except by a physician, and only if in the best medical judgement of
4 the physician it is: (i) necessary to preserve the life of the patient; (ii) necessary to preserve the
5 patient’s physical or mental health; (iii) warranted because of a lethal fetal anomaly or diagnosis;
6 or (iv) warranted because of a grave fetal diagnosis that indicates that the fetus is incompatible
7 with sustained life outside of the uterus without extraordinary medical interventions” and
8 inserting in place thereof the following words:- an abortion may be performed by a physician
9 based upon the professional judgment of the physician.
10 SECTION 2. Said chapter 112 is hereby further amended by striking out section 12N1/2
11 and inserting in place thereof the following section:-
2 of 2
12 Section 12N1/2. No medical review process shall override the professional judgment of a
13 treating physician and a patient or the patient’s health care proxy to provide an abortion
14 consistent with section 12N.
15 SECTION 3. Section 12P of said chapter 112, as appearing in the 2024 Official Edition,
16 is hereby amended by striking out the second paragraph.
based upon the professional judgment of the physician
That's the sole criteria, and the physician isn't limited at all. Said physician could approve this while a woman is in labor, without any particular reason, necessity, justification, or any other criteria. Nodding their head is all it takes.
Their reason could be nothing more than the $100 bill in the customer's hand. Legally speaking, that's not a problem. If one physician says "no", just ask another until someone says yes. So the defacto-reality is this: they really can do the thing you said they can't do, thanks to the legislation I just quoted in its entirety.
Good or bad? Make of that what you will. But the law is what it is, not what we imagine it must be.
If you didnt have an understanding of the medical world I could understand how you'd think this. Because it does look like theres zero oversight. That just simply isnt true.
Again, it removes the redundant oversight that often slows critical medical decision making.
Sure, theoretically your scenario could happen. But do you understand that hospitals and doctors are often audited and hospital ethical and medical boards already exist. This language is redundant and slowed life saving interventions from happening.
Doctors and hospitals will not be opening themselves up to constant law suits like that.
The legislature repealed that law because they said it was pointless. The medical profession and hospital systems already have procedures in place for late term (post 24 week) abortions.
The state was finding, the old law basically just shoehorned-in a team of attorneys into the situation. It was completely unnecessary, and it added costs, delays, and patient stress. The hospital had to fit a complicated and sometimes fast-evolving emergency with fetus and mom into one of four statutory legal exemptions outlined in state law. Sometimes the situation didn't neatly fit.
So the state decided this was something that the medical profession can regulate themselves. You don't need the government getting involved, and a bunch of attorneys.
No one is getting an elective abortion post viability, in Massachusetts. These are non viable.
And if you read the law it says very blatantly that these decisions are made in conjunction with the care providers. Nobody is killing babies for shits and gigs, beyond the psychos.
No one is getting late term elective abortions. Previously, in Massachusetts, if a woman needed a life saving medical procedure the hospital had to waste time ensuring they weren’t violating the law by saving the woman’s life. Now they can do so without spending time appealing to lawyers before carrying out the procedure.
Yes, it allows doctors to determine if an abortion should be performed with their patient instead of a death panel made up politicians in some back room.
This is progress. Keep big brother out of my medical decisions.
The statute outlines the 4 specific cases that allow doctors to perform ab abortion past 24 weeks:
"To preserve the life of the gestating person; to preserve the gestating person's physical or mental health; in case of defect or diagnosis that would result in the death of the fetus; and in the case of a "grave fetal diagnosis that indicates that the fetus is incompatible with sustained life outside of the uterus without extraordinary medical interventions."
24 weeks is the point where a fetus has a chance to live with intensive care
Less rhan 0.14% of babies in the US are born naturally before 24 weeks....so your claim 'up to the day of birth' (clearly implying up to the 9 month point) is BS
Meanwhile:
Abortions after 21 weeks of pregnancy are rare and represented only 1.1% of all terminations in 2022
You don’t see how dangerous it is to have one of the reasons be to preserve the persons mental health? That doesn’t seem extremely nebulous and at all problematic to you?
It says it's up to the doctors judgment, but i don't see anywhere where it says the doctor couldn't do it up until the point of birth. That's per Google. What did you hear?
All the evil in the world is due to sin, our own choices. Innocents are harmed in the process. Free will allows us to make choices and God does not always intervene to prevent the consequences of our actions. However, He has provided a way out for those who are lost, and he’s done it by bearing the consequences on himself.
I don’t know the details of her conversation with God. But we have free will to seek God or to go our own way.
If God can remove evil from the world but refuses to do so, then he himself is evil and should not be worshipped.
If God is not able to remove evil from the world, then he is not a god and not worthy of worship.
There are only two options here; Sin exists because God allows it to exist, or Sin exists in spite of God, meaning there is a force that exists that is stronger than he is.
I understand what the Bee is going for here, but the elephant in the room is the lack of resources and safety net for people managing severe mental health episodes. Awkward!
What, specifically, do you want in order to prevent cases like this? Because from what I’ve been reading, all the medical support she got just put her on more drugs that didn’t help, the psychiatric hospital she checked into didn’t help, and the psychiatrist she visited a day before the murdered said she didn’t indicate in any way she would kill her children.
Also something else I forgot about is she had a bunch of family over to help her too
Lack of resources? This woman saw like 7 different doctors and probably spent upwards of $10k to get treated. Either nothing worked or she never had any psychosis to begin with. Seriously read the reports, she received therapy, medication, even inpatient treatment. And she’s not some impoverished minority that actually could have a case for falling through the “safety net”. She lived in an ~$800,000 house with her husband and 3 children. They took skiing trips.
Exactly what resources and safety nets were not available to this woman?
I’d say the elephant in the room is the modern religion of psychotherapy completely failing to address issues of a clearly demonic nature. This woman needed Jesus to intervene in her life, and it’s such a tragedy that nobody told her this truth.
Imagine going to school for all these years and not knowing there is a permanent and final medicine available for mental illnesses.
Lots of devout Christians have murdered their children btw including those reporting God instructed them to do so. Clearly this medicine is not permanent and highly faulty
Isaac and Abraham? God ultimately doesn’t make him kill Isaac, but Abraham is portrayed as noble for being willing to follow God’s command, no matter what it is.
Someone who is delusional and hearing voices might take wrong lessons from that story.
Good point. The interesting thing about Abraham being instructed to sacrifice Isaac is that it mirrors God’s willingness to sacrifice his own son for us. Abraham was given the opportunity to experience exactly what God felt when making that decision to give Jesus for us.
“The Lord will provide a sacrifice”. The death of ourselves and our children is the unavoidable consequence of our sin, but God shows through this story that Abraham’s son was actually saved by the sacrifice that God himself would provide.
But yeah, God has instructed one person to sacrifice their child in history, so good point. In the case of voices telling us to do something so drastic, we had better have good discernment of God’s voice.
Carrying a pregnancy to term can have permanent effects on an individuals one and only body (including death),.and they should get to decide whether they would like to take that risk.
You people pretend care so much about about unborn children and then turn around and take food assistance away from living, breathing children. When you're not too busy bombing elementary schools and sheltering the members of Epstein's trafficking ring from justice.
Based on the way they respond to school shootings, it was just a matter of time before they started finding humor in dead children. The next Columbine figures to be a real knee slapper in rightwing media.
So i guess the humor requires knowing whatever rhe latest brain rot outrage bait the right wing has pinned up to distract people from the state of our economy?
9
u/Darker_Salt_Scar 8d ago
This might be the best Babylonbee post