The U.S. Supreme Court handed down the landmark case Roe v. Wade in 1973, cementing abortion as a legal right. Now, in 2019, that ruling is on shaky ground. A law proposed in Massachusetts known as the ROE Act (S.1209 and H.3320) aims to preserve and expand a woman’s right to choose in the commonwealth despite the possibility of Roe being overturned at the federal level.
Prior to 1973, it was up to each state to legislate reproductive rights. Massachusetts was one of 32 states that did not allow abortion up until the Roe decision, permitting it only in cases of health endangerment. In an interview with the Press, state Sen. Jamie Eldridge explained, “Up until about 20 years ago, [Massachusetts] was a pro-life majority and fairly conservative on reproductive rights. I would say [the ROE Act] is sort of the first major effort to reverse that in about 20 years.”
A 2014 Pew Research poll indicates that 74% of adults in Massachusetts think that abortion should be legal in all or most cases, including 62% of Catholics. According to the Guttmacher Institute, Massachusetts accounts for only 2.2% of all abortions in the United States, and rates actually declined between 2014 and 2017. The Boston Globe reports that the majority of abortions provided in the state are for white, non-Hispanic women ages 25 to 29 who have had no prior abortions or live births, and are performed within the first eight weeks of pregnancy.
If passed, the ROE Act would serve as a backstop against conservative forces at the federal level, and also lift current restrictions placed on abortion access in Massachusetts. State law prohibits abortions after 24 weeks except to save the life of the mother or if a continued pregnancy would result in “a substantial risk of grave impairment of her physical or mental health.” This does not, however, provide for cases of diagnosed lethal fetal anomalies after week 24. In such situations, when a woman is told that her fetus will not survive after birth, or perhaps not even survive in utero, she must travel to another state to end the pregnancy. The ROE Act would allow women to receive abortions in-state under such circumstances. Current state law also mandates that minors have parental consent or be granted approval from a judge to seek an abortion. The act would remove this restriction.
Eldridge, who is one of 104 co-sponsors of the legislation, said that he could not comment too much on the bill as he co-chairs the Joint Committee on the Judiciary where the bill has sat since June. However, he did assert, “It is important for the Legislature this session to make it clear in the law that women’s reproductive rights are protected.” State Rep. Jen Benson, who is also a cosponsor of the bill, stated through her communications director, “With efforts underway to restrict reproductive rights in other states and at the federal level, there are things we can be doing in Massachusetts to safeguard a woman’s right to agency over her own body. We have some archaic policies on the books from the 1970s that need to be repealed, and we need to codify reproductive rights into state law. The ROE Act achieves this by prioritizing the health and wellness of women, and ensuring that a woman’s health care decisions stay between her and her doctor.” Eldridge said that his constituents have been “very supportive” of the measure, with a large activist presence at rallies, as well as postcard campaigns. “I think there’s an expectation that this bill will become law in this session,” he concluded.
Opponents of the ROE Act, who have termed it “the infanticide bill,” have also been out in force on Beacon Hill. On Wednesday, Oct. 30, state Rep. Marc Lombardo, R-Billerica; the Renew Massachusetts Coalition; and Massachusetts Citizens for Life hosted the third annual “celebration of life” event. According to the Gloucester Daily Times, more than 100 attendees listened to speakers, including Joe Langfeld of the Human Life Alliance, who claimed that the ROE Act was a profiteering gambit for “abortionists” who view women as “a medical product that gives [them] money.” Bill Gillmeister of the Renew Massachusetts Coalition led the crowd in a chant of “No to ROE.”
Opponents are quick to condemn the bill for its provision allowing minors to seek abortions without parental consent, claiming that parents are an essential voice in the decision-making process. However, a Guttmacher Institute literature review finds that the greatest impact of parental consent laws is minors traveling to other less restrictive states to obtain abortions. A study published in the American Journal of Public Health showed that in the 20 months following the mandate for parental consent in Massachusetts, half as many minors received abortions in the state. That reduction was not due to a reduction in pregnancies or decisions to complete pregnancies to term, but rather because more than 1,800 girls traveled to five surrounding states for the procedure during this time period. The American Academy of Pediatrics concludes in a policy statement, “Legislation mandating parental involvement does not achieve the intended benefit of promoting family communication, and it increases the risk of harm to the adolescent by delaying access to appropriate medical care.”
According to the 2018 American Community Survey, the birth rate in Harvard was 1% in the last 12 months. The mothers were all married and between the ages of 35 and 39. There were no teenage births or births of children to unwed mothers. However, the 2016 Emerson Hospital Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) indicated that 19% of high school girls and 23% of high school boys had had sexual intercourse. The 2018 YRBS, which includes data from nine school districts, including Harvard, Acton-Boxborough, and Littleton, reported that less than half of high school students (44%) who were sexually active “always” used a condom. Seven percent of all students in grades 6 through 12 said that “no method was used to prevent pregnancy.” A Guttmacher Institute report indicates that while Massachusetts has one of the lowest teen pregnancy rates in the country, with only 24 pregnancies per 1,000 girls ages 15 to 19 in the last year for which figures were reported, approximately 75% of those pregnancies are unintended.
It is unclear whether Gov. Charlie Baker will sign the bill if it reaches his desk. He has said that he generally supports a woman’s right to choose, and in March he signed a bill approving $8 million for reproductive health organizations to offset a potential loss of federal funding. However, he opposes “late-term” abortions and says that he stands behind the state’s current laws.
