Gov. Maura Healey signed a bill eliminating Massachusetts's gestational limits on abortion, and at least nine Democrats in her own party voted against it, with one calling the new law "barbaric."
Healey put her signature on the Prioritizing Patient Access to Care Act at the Massachusetts State House in Boston on August 10, stripping away statutory restrictions that had governed abortions past 24 weeks of pregnancy. The law now allows physicians to perform later abortions based on their own professional medical judgment and shields them from legal penalties that previously applied.
The bill cleared the state House of Representatives on July 22 by a vote of 119, 33, largely along party lines, but with a notable crack in Democratic ranks. Nine House Democrats crossed their own leadership to vote no alongside Republicans, and several went public with sharp criticism that broke well beyond the usual intraparty grumbling.
Rep. Jeffrey Turco, a Democrat representing Winthrop, did not hold back. He told Fox News Digital that the legislation marks a radical departure from where most of his constituents stand.
"This new law represents an extremist and dangerous position."
Turco went further, arguing the law's practical effect is unrestricted, taxpayer-funded abortion through the end of pregnancy.
"To be clear, it allows abortion anytime, unrestricted, and in many cases, publicly funded until the moment of birth."
He did not stop there. Turco called the law "barbaric" and accused Democratic leadership of ramming it through without public input, claiming the bill was "rushed through the legislative process in two weeks, without an opportunity for the public to weigh in" and was "out of step with the views of the average person in Massachusetts."
Two weeks. No public hearing. On a bill that rewrites the state's entire framework for late-term abortion. Whether voters in deep-blue Massachusetts agree with Turco's conclusion or not, the process complaint alone deserves scrutiny. Legislation that touches questions this serious, the point at which the state recognizes a limit on ending a pregnancy, ought to get more than a legislative fast-track.
Rep. Chris Markey, a Democrat from Dartmouth, echoed the alarm from a different angle. He focused on what the law means for physicians and for existing legal standards.
"I am deeply disappointed in the passage of this bill. This bill creates a very slippery slope."
Markey argued the new statute puts doctors in an impossible position, forcing them to navigate between the law's expanded permissions and what he described as conflicting criminal case law already on the books.
"I believe this law puts doctors in a very difficult ethical dilemma, as well as conflicts with long-standing criminal case law."
He also pushed back on the idea that opposing the bill means opposing abortion rights altogether, a distinction that Democratic leadership in Massachusetts appears uninterested in drawing.
"This law, I believe, is not consistent with the beliefs of the vast majority of my constituents. While many are pro-choice, you can still be pro-choice and see this law as going beyond the norms of acceptability."
That last line is the one the bill's backers will have the hardest time dismissing. Markey is not a Republican. He is not a pro-life activist. He represents a district in a state where support for legal abortion runs high. And he is saying, plainly, that this law goes too far for the people he serves.
Rep. Dennis Gallagher, a Democrat from the 8th Plymouth District, described a personal struggle with the vote. Under the prior law, Massachusetts permitted abortions after 24 weeks to protect the health of the mother or in cases of severe fetal anomalies. Gallagher said he saw no reason to go further.
"At that point in a pregnancy, if the health of the mother is fine and the baby's health is fine, I just think alternatives should be encouraged for that baby."
He added: "So that's what I struggled with. But it should always be between a woman and their doctor." Even in dissent, Gallagher tried to hold both positions, opposing the bill while affirming the broader principle. The tension in that stance reflects the bind facing Democrats who do not share their party's maximalist direction on abortion but have no institutional home for a moderate position.
Rep. Alan Silvia, a pro-life Democrat from Bristol, was more direct. He framed his opposition in moral terms and did not hedge.
"My position has been consistent: I believe in protecting human life, including the life of the unborn."
Silvia then offered a comparison that will resonate with voters who feel the political class applies its compassion selectively.
"We go to extraordinary lengths as a society to protect vulnerable life, saving whales and saving strays, yet when it comes to an unborn child, that same sense of protection too often seems to disappear."
He closed with a statement that read less like a press release and more like a line in the sand.
"As a legislator, I cannot support policies that continue to expand abortion, particularly in the later stages of pregnancy. This is not an issue I take lightly, and I understand there are deeply held views on both sides, but I will continue to stand by my convictions and vote accordingly."
Gov. Healey defended the law at the signing, arguing it ensures families facing medical complications late in pregnancy can obtain abortions in Massachusetts rather than traveling out of state. Her office did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital's request for further comment.
Rep. Lindsay N. Sabadosa, the Northampton Democrat who sponsored the bill, framed it as a patient-access issue.
"Massachusetts has one of the best health care systems in the country, and patients should be able to rely on their providers to deliver medically appropriate care without restrictions that can fail to account for the complexity of individual medical circumstances."
Sabadosa added: "By removing those barriers, we can ensure that no one has to leave Massachusetts to receive the care they need."
That framing, removing "barriers" so patients do not have to leave the state, sounds reasonable in isolation. But it sidesteps the core objection raised by the law's Democratic critics: the bill does not simply address rare medical emergencies. It eliminates all gestational limits and leaves the question of when an abortion may occur entirely to a physician's judgment, with no statutory guardrail at any stage of pregnancy.
Only four of the nine dissenting House Democrats have been named publicly: Turco, Markey, Gallagher, and Silvia. The identities and reasoning of the other five remain unreported. Whether the bill passed the Massachusetts Senate, and by what margin, is also unaddressed in available reporting, a gap that matters, because the Senate vote would reveal whether the dissent extended beyond the House.
Turco's claim that the law allows publicly funded abortions "until the moment of birth" is his characterization, not a direct quote from the statute. The bill's actual text has not been quoted in detail on the question of public funding. But the law's core mechanism is not in dispute: it removes the gestational limits that previously existed and replaces them with physician discretion. That is what Healey signed. That is what nine members of her own party refused to support.
When members of a supermajority party break ranks to call their own governor's signature legislation "extremist" and "barbaric," the question is not whether the critics are right or wrong on the policy. The question is whether the party's leadership even noticed, or cared, that it left its own moderates behind. In Massachusetts, the answer appears to be no.
