Massachusetts Democrats Revolt Over ‘Barbaric’ New Abortion Law

A sweeping new abortion law in deep-blue Massachusetts is causing an unusual political revolt, with several Democrats joining Republicans in warning that the state has gone too far.

Democratic Gov. Maura Healey signed the Prioritizing Patient Access to Care Act into law this week after it passed the Massachusetts House 119-33 on July 22.

The controversial measure removes the state’s previous statutory restrictions on abortions after 24 weeks of pregnancy and gives physicians greater discretion to perform abortions later in pregnancy based on their medical judgment. It also expands legal protections for doctors and other providers.

While most Democrats backed the legislation, nine House Democrats broke with their party and voted against it alongside Republicans.

Some of those lawmakers are now using unusually harsh language to describe the new law.

State Rep. Jeffrey Turco, a Democrat from Winthrop, called the measure “extremist” and “dangerous,” arguing that it goes far beyond what most Massachusetts residents support.

“This new law represents an extremist and dangerous position,” Turco told Fox News Digital.

Turco claimed the legislation allows abortion “anytime” and said some procedures could be publicly funded through the end of pregnancy.

He also accused state leaders of rushing the bill through Beacon Hill without giving residents enough time to weigh in.

Turco said the legislation moved through the process in roughly two weeks and argued that it was “out of step with the views of the average person in Massachusetts.”

“The new law is barbaric,” he added.

Another Democrat, State Rep. Chris Markey of Dartmouth, said the legislation could create a dangerous precedent.

“I am deeply disappointed in the passage of this bill. This bill creates a very slippery slope,” Markey told Fox News Digital.

Markey said he believes the law could place doctors in difficult ethical situations and potentially collide with longstanding criminal case law.

He also argued that many voters can support abortion rights while still believing lawmakers have gone too far.

“While many are pro-choice, you can still be pro-choice and see this law as going beyond the norms of acceptability,” he said.

State Rep. Dennis Gallagher, another Democrat who opposed the legislation, said the decision was difficult for him.

Gallagher stressed that he believes abortion decisions should generally remain between a woman and her doctor, but questioned why Massachusetts needed to loosen rules that were already in place.

Previous state law allowed abortions after 24 weeks when necessary to protect the mother’s health or when severe fetal abnormalities were diagnosed.

Gallagher said that when both the mother and baby are healthy late in pregnancy, alternatives such as adoption should be encouraged.

“At that point in a pregnancy, if the health of the mother is fine and the baby’s health is fine, I just think alternatives should be encouraged for that baby,” he said.

Still, Gallagher reiterated that the ultimate decision should involve a woman and her physician.

State Rep. Alan Silvia, a pro-life Democrat representing Bristol, was even more forceful in his opposition.

Silvia said his position on abortion has remained consistent and argued that society often goes to extraordinary lengths to protect vulnerable animals while failing to extend similar concern to unborn children.

“My position has been consistent: I believe in protecting human life, including the life of the unborn,” Silvia said.

“We go to extraordinary lengths as a society to protect vulnerable life, saving whales and saving strays, yet when it comes to an unborn child, that same sense of protection too often seems to disappear.”

Silvia said he understands abortion remains one of the country’s most bitterly divisive political issues but insisted he could not support expanding access later in pregnancy.

“As a legislator, I cannot support policies that continue to expand abortion, particularly in the later stages of pregnancy,” he said.

Supporters of the law argue the changes are necessary to protect women facing devastating medical complications.

State Rep. Lindsay Sabadosa, a Northampton Democrat who sponsored the legislation, said Massachusetts patients should be able to trust doctors to make medically appropriate decisions without rigid government restrictions.

“Massachusetts has one of the best health care systems in the country, and patients should be able to rely on their providers to deliver medically appropriate care without restrictions that can fail to account for the complexity of individual medical circumstances,” Sabadosa said.

She argued that removing the restrictions would prevent patients from being forced to leave Massachusetts to obtain medical care.

Healey offered a similar defense, saying the legislation is designed to ensure families confronting severe complications late in pregnancy can receive treatment inside Massachusetts instead of traveling to another state.

But the backlash from members of Healey’s own party underscores just how politically explosive the legislation has become.

Massachusetts is one of the most Democratic states in the country, making the decision by nine Democratic lawmakers to side with Republicans particularly notable.

And with Democrats themselves describing the law as a “slippery slope,” “extremist” and even “barbaric,” the fight over how far abortion protections should extend is clearly no longer falling neatly along party lines.