BOSTON — Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey signed the Prioritizing Patient Access to Care Act into law Aug. 10, 2026, at the State House in Boston, removing the statutory 24-week gestational limit that had governed abortion access in the state. The law gives physicians the authority to perform abortions later in pregnancy based on their own medical judgment and extends greater legal protections against penalties for doing so.
The bill passed the state House of Representatives 119-33 on July 22. The vote was largely along party lines, but nine House Democrats broke with their caucus and voted against the measure alongside all Republicans. Several of those dissenting Democrats spoke out publicly, calling the law an overreach that does not reflect the views of their constituents.
State Rep. Jeffrey Turco of Winthrop was among the sharpest critics. "This new law represents an extremist and dangerous position," Turco said. "To be clear, it allows abortion anytime, unrestricted, and in many cases, publicly funded until the moment of birth." Turco also said the bill "was rushed through the legislative process in two weeks, without an opportunity for the public to weigh in," and called it "out of step with the views of the average person in Massachusetts."
State Rep. Chris Markey of Dartmouth warned the legislation creates problems that extend beyond the abortion debate. "I am deeply disappointed in the passage of this bill. This bill creates a very slippery slope," Markey said. "I believe this law puts doctors in a very difficult ethical dilemma, as well as conflicts with long-standing criminal case law. This law, I believe, is not consistent with the beliefs of the vast majority of my constituents. While many are pro-choice, you can still be pro-choice and see this law as going beyond the norms of acceptability."
State Rep. Dennis Gallagher, a Democrat representing the 8th Plymouth District, said he struggled with the decision but concluded that changes to the existing law were not necessary. Gallagher said he supports abortion as a decision between a woman and her doctor, but argued that when the mother's health is not at risk, greater emphasis should be placed on alternatives such as adoption. He did not view the prior statutory framework as inadequate.
The bill's sponsor, State Rep. Lindsay N. Sabadosa, a Democrat from Northampton, defended the measure, saying Massachusetts has one of the best health care systems in the country and that the law trusts medical professionals to make complex decisions. Healey, who faces reelection, presented the signing as a defense of reproductive health care following the Supreme Court's 2022 Dobbs decision, which returned abortion regulation to individual states.
The rift among state Democrats reflects a tension playing out in deep-blue states that have moved to expand abortion access in the years since Dobbs. Massachusetts previously allowed abortions after 24 weeks in cases where the mother's health was at risk or in cases of severe fetal anomaly. The new law removes that statutory threshold entirely, substituting physician judgment for the legislative limit that had been in place.
Critics inside the Democratic caucus framed their objections in terms of constituent opinion as much as personal ethics. Both Turco and Markey said the position the new law staked out goes further than even pro-choice voters in their districts support. That argument — that the legislation moves beyond the mainstream of Democratic voters, not just Republican ones — is the core of the intraparty friction Healey's signing produced.
The speed of the process drew criticism independent of the policy itself. Turco said the bill moved from introduction to passage in two weeks, leaving no window for public testimony or broad constituent input. That compressed timeline, in a legislature where Democrats hold large majorities in both chambers, meant Republican opposition had no procedural path to slow the bill, and dissenting Democrats were left with a floor vote as their only point of resistance.
