Massachusetts' Democratic governor signs a law allowing abortion up until the moment of delivery

Massachusetts' Democratic Gov. Maura Healey signed the bill rushed through the state legislature to legalize abortion up until the moment of delivery. Healey had no qualms about resorting to every pro-abortion cliché to justify her decision, without providing any medical rationale to support it, and adding the partisan jab of accusing Donald Trump of trying to attack so-called "reproductive rights."

With her signature, Massachusetts now allows a mother to terminate a pregnancy at any stage of gestation, even in the absence of any life-threatening medical condition. In other words, a completely healthy unborn child can be sacrificed in the name of a radical ideology.

It should be noted that methods for aborting larger babies are particularly cruel, including dismemberment or decapitation after inducing premature labor. Children who have survived an attempted abortion are even left to die by being denied medical care. However, for the governor and the radical congressmen who have pushed this measure through, it is a matter of "progress" and "rights."

The loophole of "endangers the health, though not the life, of the mother"

Of course, at the pro-abortion coven that the signing of Bill H.5595 turned into, there was no shortage of references to Donald Trump as the boogeyman of women's rights, as well as the classic pro-abortion clichés without a single mention of medicine or science. In short, women's rights over their own bodies, without any mention of fully formed children who are even capable of surviving outside the womb.

The ploy used in the new law to allow late-term abortions is to keep abortion legal for any reason up to the 24th week and, beyond that point, to include as a reason that the mother's health (not just her life, note that this is a key detail) is at risk. This wording could mean anything, making it an ideal loophole. Abortion is also permitted beyond this deadline if the baby is unlikely to survive outside the womb.

Furthermore, the newly signed law changes the criteria required to authorize a late-term abortion, shifting from a list of specific medical conditions to a more flexible criterion based solely on the abortion provider's approval.

"That is not compassion, nor is it healthcare"

The pro-life movement was quick to denounce the atrocity approved by Healey. Thus, Carol Tobias, president of National Right to Life, expressed her horror at the cruel treatment of "unborn children who can feel pain," making it clear that "this is not health care":

"Governor Healey and the Massachusetts Legislature have erased the final protections for unborn children who can feel pain and who could survive outside the womb. At the very stage when premature babies are receiving lifesaving care in neonatal intensive care units, Massachusetts will permit abortionists to end the lives of children of the same age, and even older. That is not compassion, and it is not health care."

"This law exposes the dishonesty behind the claim that no one supports abortion until birth. When lawmakers remove every objective limitation and authorize an abortion provider to decide whether an abortion may be performed at any point in pregnancy, abortion until birth is precisely what the law allows."

The life of the unborn, in the hands of abortion providers

Another critical aspect of the law is that, although its supporters claim it protects the patient-doctor relationship, in reality, it places the life of the unborn in the hands of abortion providers, as denounced by Myrna Maloney Flynn, president of Massachusetts Citizens for Life:

"Legalizing elective abortion up to birth on healthy mothers and healthy, pain-capable unborn children is not about protecting the doctor-patient relationship. It is about abortionists normalizing the deaths of fully developed infants and pressuring vulnerable women to permit their unborn children to die in heinous acts of violence. These abortions represent among the most severe human rights abuses permitted in only a few places around the world, including China and North Korea."

The president of Massachusetts Citizens for Life also refuted the lie that the bill seeks to help women facing genuine complications:

"Women experiencing unimaginable, heart wrenching pregnancy complications absolutely deserve all the support they need, but that support is not what this bill provides. Instead, this bill ensures increased abortion industry profits and taxpayer-funded late-term procedures. We encourage those celebrating Governor Healey’s politically-motivated signature to learn not only about late-term and ‘dismemberment’ abortions, many of which Massachusetts taxpayers will fund, but also about perinatal hospice, palliative care options and other resources available to women faced with devastating, but never hopeless, fetal diagnoses."

Abortions outside hospitals

The law also poses another danger, as pro-life groups have denounced. Michael King, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, notes: "This bill basically allows abortion at any time of the pregnancy and for any reason, so it is absolutely egregious. The measure would also take this whole process of abortion outside of the hospital. So a doctor could do this perhaps anywhere they think is viable to do this kind of procedure and take out the safeguards of a hospital."

Flynn echoed this sentiment, emphasizing that the new law allows a single doctor "to subjectively decide that any fetus can be killed, both inside and outside a hospital."

Doctors reject the idea that abortion is necessary to save a mother's life

In addition, LifeNews cited several medical experts who debunked the myth that an abortion is necessary to save a mother's life. In the words of Christina Francis, a board-certified obstetrician-gynecologist and executive director of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

"It is never medically necessary to purposely end the life of a pre-born child in order to save her mother. In true emergencies, a physician must separate the mother from the baby when necessary, but that is not an abortion: AAPLOG recommends referring to these interventions as ‘maternal-fetal separations’ given the clear difference of intent between those lifesaving treatments and induced abortion.”