State House News Service | Mass. senators confident reproductive rights accord will become law

By Chris Lisinski | State House News Service

Senate Democrats are confident the compromise reproductive rights bill a team of negotiators crafted is "so good and so clear" that it will quickly win support in both branches and earn Gov. Charlie Baker's signature.

Lawmakers submitted a finalized bill Monday aimed at protecting access to abortion, other reproductive health services and gender-affirming care in Massachusetts, advancing a response to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision overturning Roe v. Wade. The issue emerged in recent weeks as a top priority for legislative leaders ahead of the impending end of formal sessions.

A conference committee filed its accord with the House clerk's office at 5:15 p.m. Monday resolving differences between the House- and Senate-approved bills (H 4954 / S 3003 ). Lawmakers could vote to accept the compromise bill as soon as Tuesday, when both branches will meet in full formal sessions.

The bill would create new legal protections for providers, who could face legal action originating in other states in a post-Roe world, require insurers to cover abortions without shifting costs to patients, and expand availability of emergency contraceptives.

And in a resolution that Democrats believe positions them to evade the threat of Baker's veto, the conference committee's deal would also clarify an existing section of state law governing late-term abortions without expanding scenarios in which they are allowed to include cases of "severe" fetal anomalies.

"I think the language is so good and so clear, I cannot imagine that somebody would find issue," said Sen. Cindy Friedman, the lead Senate conferee, when asked if she believes Baker will approve the proposal. "I can't imagine, but you never know. I'm not the governor."

Friedman had previously aired concerns that a line in the House bill explicitly allowing abortions after 24 weeks of pregnancy if a physician diagnoses a "severe" fetal anomaly could prompt Baker to veto the measure.

While Baker implemented similar legal shields for reproductive health providers via executive order, he vetoed a 2020 abortion access bill -- which became law via an override -- in part due to his concerns about expanding permission for late-term abortions.

The word "severe" does not appear anywhere in the conference committee's agreement. Instead, the compromise measure would make clear that abortions after 24 weeks are allowed for four different reasons, each of which would be sufficient on its own: if a doctor deems it necessary to preserve a patient's life, needed to preserve a patient's physical or mental health, warranted due to a "lethal fetal anomaly," or warranted because of "a grave fetal diagnosis that indicates the fetus is incompatible with sustained life outside of the uterus without extraordinary medical interventions."

Friedman said the World Health Organization defines many "severe" fetal anomalies, some of which do not mean "you can't live a fabulous life," which prompted hesitation from senators. But "extraordinary medical intervention," she said, "has a meaning to medical providers."

"We do many things and we keep people alive, and we can fix lots of things," she said. "There are things we cannot fix, and extraordinary medical intervention is when you have to do something, but you have no guarantee that it's going to change -- in fact, you have a pretty good guarantee that it's not going to change the outcome."

Stories have proliferated around Massachusetts about mothers being forced to travel out-of-state for late-term abortions, despite their children facing medical complications with significant chances of death or suffering, because of varying interpretations of existing state law.

Friedman said the new language serves to clarify, rather than expand, how existing state law enacted via the 2020 ROE Act treats late-term abortions.

"The most important clarification is that this decision must be made between the mother or the person who is pregnant and their physician, not a review panel, not somebody outside, but between the prospective mother and the physician who knows them and has their best interest," she said. "It was clear from what we learned from stories that that was not happening."

Senate President Karen Spilka added, "The Senate believes this language clarifies, rather than confuses further, the circumstances allowed for late-term abortion and clearly states the four circumstances and that the decision must rest with the physician-provider and the pregnant person and cannot be overturned by an external group or changed in any way."

Reproductive rights advocates praised the conference committee's deal, calling it a way to "make Massachusetts a beacon for reproductive equity."

"Today, Massachusetts is standing up against hostile state legislatures across the country that have passed extreme anti-abortion bans, threatened providers across borders, and made travel for abortion care more dangerous than ever before," Rebecca Hart Holder, executive director of the Reproductive Equity Now group, said. "This historic bill will protect helpers and doctors who provide lawful, lifesaving abortion and gender affirming care, expand access to emergency contraception, and ensure that no one has to leave Massachusetts to obtain abortion care -- at any point in their pregnancy."

Baker for weeks has resisted saying if inclusion of the word "severe" -- or another section of the bill -- would draw his veto or if he would sign the legislation.

He remained equally as mum about specific sections of the bill Monday before its text became available.

"I know how important this is to the House and to the Senate and to the Senate President and to the speaker," Baker said. "It's my hope that this can be something we can support because obviously this is important to many people in Massachusetts, and by the way, it won't be important just to people in Massachusetts, it'll be important to people in a lot of parts of the country."