Massachusetts just legalized abortion through birth. Nobody wants to say so

Massachusetts’s barbaric new law legalizes abortion up to birth, eviscerating the state’s already weak protections for the unborn. Democratic Gov. Maura Healey just aligned her state with the tiny minority of countries that allow abortion through nine months, a garish list of anti-life regimes that include communist China and Vietnam. However, Healey and other politicians, such as Lieutenant Gov. Kim Driscoll, avoided any mention of how late the new law allowed abortions in a lengthy statement on the law. In fact, the statement goes for 14 paragraphs and quotes eight prominent state Democrats without directly mentioning the exception-filled 24-week standard that Massachusetts had just abolished. Rep. Lindsay Sabadosa (D-MA) simply attacked so-called “arbitrary restrictions” without mentioning weeks or months. The first direct mention of the standard came at the bottom of the page in a quote from a board member of an abortion lobby group.And while politicians framed the law in terms of “access” and tiptoed around the reality of late-term abortion, corporate media made language choices that served to soften the law’s image. Rather than describe the radical nature of the law, The Boston Globe suggested Democrats were fighting to protect “abortion access” from President Donald Trump. After employing the minimizing headline “New law reshapes rules in Massachusetts for abortion at 24 weeks or after,” the Globe used the euphemism “terminate” to describe killing babies between 24 weeks and birth. Axios, NBC Boston, USA Today and others also cast the law in terms of preserving “abortion access” in their titles or explanations. For comparison, Fox News published an article titled “Dem Gov Maura Healey signs sweeping Massachusetts bill allowing abortions up to birth.” Democrats and their allies have an important reason to avoid such clarity.Gov. Maura Healey holds a press conference on May 8, 2026 with reproductive rights advocates and health care providers to call on the Supreme Court to protect access to the abortion medication mifepristone. (Suzanne Kreiter/The Boston Globe via Getty Images) Polling has repeatedly shown the people are not on board with abortion up to birth and Democrats are aware of this. Democrats’ poll testing demonstrates that their pro-abortion messaging only functions if members of the party “keep the conversation broad” and “avoid a discussion over the details about gestational week limits.” Notably, a leading Democrat pollster admitted at the time: “Debating weeks is not where we want to be.” Here’s why that pollster is right to be afraid. In 2023, Gallup found that 70% of the public opposes late-term abortions in the third trimester, and Americans opposed to most second trimester abortions drastically outnumbered supporters. In response to a 2024 YouGov poll, only 16% of people embraced legal abortion through birth, a minority dwarfed by the 42% willing to back protecting unborn babies before 16 weeks. YouGov also found 54% support for a 24-week standard. Additional polls (YouGov, GenNext/Marist and The Economist/YouGov) demonstrate that proponents of aborting babies through nine months are massively outnumbered. And McLaughlin & Associates released polling last month that gives Democrats good reason to tread very lightly. McLaughlin & Associates found that 52% of general election voters say abortion should not be legal, or only legal in cases of rape, incest, or to save the mother’s life. An additional 24% say that abortion should only be legal up to a certain point. Only 18% say abortion should be legal for any reason, at any time. Notably, a minority of those who identified as “Pro-Choice” actually embraced no restrictions on abortion. These numbers highlight how out of touch Massachusetts Democrats are. They replaced a 24-week standard with numerous exceptions related to the health and well-being of the mother and baby with the sentence: “If a pregnancy has existed for 24 weeks or more, an abortion may be performed by a physician based upon the professional judgment of the physician.” In other words, whether an abortion is allowable is up to the abortionist profiting from the death of the baby. Pro-life candidates have an opportunity to highlight the extremism of states such as Massachusetts and expose the radical positions of national pro-abortion politicians who refuse to identify any abortion restrictions they support. Rather than let them off the hook, pro-life candidates should be aggressive about bringing the conversation back to the grotesque and unpopular stances of their pro-abortion opponents. This represents an incredible and underutilized opportunity for anti-abortion federal candidates. When a baby can see, hear, suck her thumb, and survive outside the womb, Americans support protections for that baby. When Americans know that a baby can feel pain, they stand against subjecting that baby to suffering and death. The wind is at the back of the politician who will interrogate the stance of no-restriction Democrats. The crown is lying in the gutter waiting for the politician who will embrace a popular national standard for protecting babies. Tom Olohan is a communications strategist at Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America. He previously served as a staff writer and researcher at the Media Research Center, and his work has appeared in the New York Post, Daily Caller, Breitbart and Campus Reform. He is a graduate of the University of Notre Dame and holds a master’s degree in political philosophy from Boston College.