State House News Service | Bill supporters cite poll results on abortions later in pregnancy
By Alison Kuznitz | Originally Published by State House News Service
Reproductive rights advocates released new poll results Wednesday that found 66% of Bay Staters support loosening restrictions on abortions performed after 24 weeks.
Two-thirds of 500 registered voters surveyed in December said they favor overhauling the criteria in state law for abortions later in pregnancy and more broadly allowing the procedure “at the professional judgement of the providing physician,” according to the poll commissioned by the Reproductive Equity Now Foundation.
The poll found 32% of respondents “somewhat” support and 34% “strongly” support changing the law. EMC Research pollsters found 14% “somewhat” oppose and 20% “strongly” oppose updating the law.
Reproductive Equity Now referenced the poll findings Wednesday as it promoted new bills this term from Reps. Christine Barber and Lindsay Sabadosa and Sen. Robyn Kennedy (HD 2651 / SD 1742), which advocates say are designed to help patients who wanted to be pregnant but are dealing with serious medical complications.
The proposals would scrap the existing criteria used to allow abortions past 24 weeks — including to save the patient’s life, as well because of a “lethal fetal anomaly or diagnosis” or a “grave fetal diagnosis.” That language was a central focus of discussion as Beacon Hill lawmakers crafted their 2022 abortion shield law.
The Massachusetts Family Institute “strongly opposes this deadly bill,” said general counsel Sam Whiting.
“The sole purpose of this bill is to enable late-term abortions of babies that can survive outside the womb just because those babies are unwanted,” Whiting said. “Massachusetts law already allows abortions after viability if a doctor determines the mother’s life or physical or mental health may be at risk, including in cases of rape and incest, or when there are lethal fetal abnormalities. This bill would eliminate even those limits, allowing the late-term termination of babies for any reason—or no reason at all.”
Sabadosa said the bill aims to ensure residents don’t have to travel out of state and pay hefty out-of-pocket costs for an abortion. The bill also better empowers physicians to make decisions about patient care, as Sabadosa said it is “extremely common” for hospital boards and lawyers to interpret existing law narrowly to avoid legal risks.
“Despite the Legislature trying to provide the greatest leeway possible, the language we have in statute currently is still preventing physicians from performing abortions later in pregnancy, in their best professional judgement,” Sabadosa said. “We are very much seeing patients being forced to travel, primarily to DC or to Maryland.”
