BOSTON — Outside the Massachusetts Statehouse on Monday, rally attendees leveled charges of infanticide against those who support expanding abortion rights. Inside, supporters touted their bill as a compassionate way to help a small number of women in tragic circumstances.
Lawmakers on the Judiciary Committee held a hearing Monday on the ROE Act, a controversial bill to expand access to abortion sponsored by House Speaker Pro Tempore Patricia Haddad, D-Somerset, Rep. Jay Livingstone, D-Boston, and Senate President Emerita Harriette Chandler, D-Worcester.
The bill, H.3320/S.1209, would remove an existing requirement that a minor get parental consent or a judge’s approval before getting an abortion. It would allow an abortion after 24 weeks in the case of a fatal birth defect, expanding current law that only allows abortion after 24 weeks to protect the health or life of the mother.
It would make other smaller changes to the law, enshrining the federal protections guaranteed by Roe v. Wade, the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion, into state law, and eliminating language supporters say is unenforceable, medically unnecessary or inflammatory.
For example, it would change the definition of pregnancy from a mother carrying an “unborn child” to a person carrying an “implanted human embryo or fetus.”
Jim Lyons, chairman of the Massachusetts Republican Party, has dubbed it the “infanticide bill.”
“This is pure evil,” said Jonathan Alexandre, senior counsel for government affairs at Liberty Counsel in Washington, D.C., who opposes abortion rights, speaking at the Statehouse rally.
Haddad called those accusations “outrageous.”
“We’re trying to create a compassionate situation for a very small number of families who receive a diagnosis that is absolutely impossible to wrap your head around,” she said.
One part of the debate is around the expansion of access to abortion after 24 weeks in cases of fatal birth defects. The bill would also eliminate a requirement that abortions after 24 weeks take place in a hospital, rather than a clinic or doctor’s office.
Kathi Aultman, a Florida OB-GYN who used to perform abortions and is now an outspoken opponent of abortion rights, said at the Statehouse rally that the bill would lead to “allowing abortion for any reason until birth.” She said it would “remove important safeguards” to protect women’s safety by not requiring that these abortions be performed in a hospital, where more equipment and expertise is available in case of complications.
The bill’s language allows for abortion after 24 weeks “to protect the patient’s life or physical or mental health, in cases of lethal fetal anomalies, or where the fetus is incompatible with sustained life outside the uterus.” It defines physical and mental health in a way that is broader than in current law, but mirrors language in a federal court decision.
According to the Department of Public Health, in 2018, 14 abortions in Massachusetts occurred after 24 weeks.
Rebecca Hart Holder, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts, said today, women carrying fetuses that will not survive after birth, who find out after 24 weeks, must either carry the baby to term or travel out of state for an abortion. “Forcing women to travel out of state, away from family support and their faith community, is indefensible,” Hart Holder said. “It means this care is inaccessible to those who don’t have significant means.”
Another point of controversy is removing the requirement that teenagers get parental consent or judicial approval before getting an abortion. According to DPH, of more than 18,000 abortions performed in Massachusetts in 2018, 334 were to teenagers under 18.
Supporters of the bill say eliminating the requirement helps a small segment of teenage girls who cannot safely tell a parent about a pregnancy, for example if they are being abused at home. They say going before a judge can be humiliating and can delay an abortion, causing additional risks.
“The vast majority of young people already turn to a parent for support when seeking care,” said Jennifer Childs-Roshak, president of the Planned Parenthood Advocacy Fund of Massachusetts. “We must keep in mind those who are unable to do so.”
Childs-Roshak said a teenager who cannot turn to a parent should be able to make a health decision with their doctor, rather than a judge.
But Sharon Keefe, of Wilmington, who held a sign outside the Statehouse promoting adoption over abortion, said she worries about what would happen if, for example, her 15-year-old granddaughter got an abortion without telling her parents and did not tell her doctor about her preexisting condition.
“She could die on the table,” Keefe said.
Opponents of the bill say parental consent laws lower abortion rates for minors and spare teens future regret. They also raise issues of parental rights.
Opponents dubbed the bill the “infanticide” bill because it removes language from state law requiring a doctor to “take all reasonable steps … to preserve the life and health of the aborted child,” an apparent reference to the possibility that a baby is born alive during an abortion.
“The Infanticide Act will justify more late-term or partial birth abortions, and even opens the way to born-alive victims suffering painful post-abortion deaths — something that until recently was universally condemned as infanticide,” Lyons wrote in an email.
But Childs-Roshak and other supporters of the bill say having a baby born alive is an impossibility that never happens during an abortion. They say if a live baby is born, the doctor would be ethically obligated to care for that child.
Massachusetts’ consideration of the bill comes as other states, like Alabama and Georgia, are restricting access to abortion.
“At a time when several other states are moving aggressively in the wrong direction, Massachusetts has this opportunity and responsibility to lead the way forward by removing barriers to safe and legal abortion,” said Carol Rose, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts.
Some advocates for abortion rights worry that Roe v. Wade could be overturned as more conservative justices are appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
“We must enshrine Roe into statute,” Chandler said. “A court’s guarantee is not a guarantee in these times.”
State Attorney General Maura Healey and U.S. Rep. Lori Trahan are among those scheduled to testify in support of the ROE Act.