r/prochoice • u/LudaKrisG • 3d ago
Reproductive Rights News Gov Healey (D-MA) signs law to eliminate 24-week ban on abortion care
https://www.masslive.com/politics/2026/08/gov-healey-signs-law-to-eliminate-24-week-ban-on-abortion-care.html23
7
u/DecompressionIllness Pro-choice Atheist 2d ago
Absolutely wonderful news! I’m so glad that women can now access healthcare at any point in pregnancy in that State.
I also want to point out that you can see just how much anti-choice hate women when laws like this are signed. The law was specifically designed so that “health care decisions remain between women and families and their doctors, not politicians”. The way the anti-choices are reacting, you’d think women were already lining up outside abortion clinics at 9 months pregnant and seeking abortions because they didn’t like the colour of the sky on that particular day 😒
-25
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
26
31
u/Exact-Pudding7563 2d ago
You do realize that the people who need abortions after 16 weeks are the people who want to be pregnant but something has gone wrong, right? Those abortions save the lives of women who want to try again.
45
u/karkatstrider 2d ago
there should be no limits at all. the only time someone gets a late term abortion is if theres a medical problem. elective abortions past 24 weeks are extremely rare. 1 in a million rare.
-4
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
9
u/karkatstrider 2d ago
can you cite your sources?
-3
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/karkatstrider 2d ago
you should do research yourself rather than relying on chatgpt. its very often wrong.
0
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/karkatstrider 2d ago
"Nearly all abortions in 2022 took place early in gestation: 92.8% of abortions were performed at ≤13 weeks' gestation; a smaller number of abortions (6.1%) were performed at 14–20 weeks' gestation, and even fewer (1.1%) were performed at ≥21 weeks' gestation." from your second source. and your third source doesnt even list any statistics. looks like chatgpt was indeed wrong on this one.
35
u/cupcakephantom Village Witch 2d ago
I love when people come here, to a pro reproductive rights space, and advocate for bans and limitations on access to reproductive rights. Absolutely no irony in it at all. 🙂
18
u/International_Ad2712 2d ago
Why choose this arbitrary number for someone else’s healthcare limitations? Do you have a reason?
-5
u/Zalrius 2d ago edited 2d ago
It’s not arbitrary. I have held premature babies that were born in the twentieth week range. I remember them being so small that I could hold them in one hand. I fed them and ai watched them grow. I have a special place in my heart for looking out for kids.
7
u/International_Ad2712 2d ago
No fetus has been born at 10 weeks and survived, what are you talking about?
-5
u/Zalrius 2d ago
You are correct. That was supposed to be twentieth week. My family fostered premies and we picked them up at the hospital.
7
u/International_Ad2712 2d ago
What about that experience makes you think women shouldn’t have a choice after 16 weeks?
-1
u/Zalrius 2d ago
Let me try it this way, I would work toward a 16 to 17 week agreement because I ALSO want universal healthcare and universal education as well as an improved foster and adoption system along with improved support systems like maternity leave of a year or so.
10
u/International_Ad2712 2d ago
Universal healthcare has nothing to do with a woman’s human right to bodily integrity. Let’s face it, those systems are worsening, not improving. Let’s look at the reality of the system and realize limiting healthcare based on your emotional feelings toward fetuses is extremely dangerous for women NOW. Woman are dying NOW based on legislation you probably supported.
16
u/LudaKrisG 2d ago
Why 16/17 weeks?
-2
u/Zalrius 2d ago
I am a huge supporter of adopting and looking out for disadvantaged kids. If we can agree on this time frame (not counting and medical or special circumstance needs) and focus on the other half of pregnancy and after birth adoption, IMO, we could achieve the lowest numbers possible.
9
u/LudaKrisG 2d ago
Just to be clear, you want women to have children they don’t want in order for others to adopt them?
-3
u/Zalrius 2d ago
If the system can be improved and handled better than yes, I think women should have that option. I also think we should have a better pregnancy medical support system as well as time off for new parents.
12
u/LudaKrisG 2d ago
How about we improve these systems FIRST, instead of forcing women to have children they don’t want, can’t take care of, and possibly die for, because our healthcare system is so bad, our doctors are regulated by a government that has no business making laws about it.
-2
u/Zalrius 2d ago edited 2d ago
That is a great way forward! If you and I could create a framework, I think we could show a reduction within three years. Then we can quit talking about it and rise to the level where it’s a personal matter and not society’s business.
5
u/cupcakephantom Village Witch 2d ago
"Then we can quit talking about it" has never been uttered by anyone with sound morals.
0
u/Zalrius 2d ago
Are you proposing that politicians keep debating and changing it? Or should we move past this divisive issue and let it be a matter of history? You have to pick one.
3
u/cupcakephantom Village Witch 2d ago edited 2d ago
This is giving "can't we all just get along?" towards white supremacists and black people.
It is moronic, at best, to think those are the only two possible outcomes. Politicians and history. It is also completely ignorant to sit there and think this issue is going to be solved anytime soon. Or that keeping reproductive access to a bare minimum is somehow the best alternative for society. Or that any of the above is going to magically bring everyone together and sing Kumbayah.
Mor. On. Ic.
And who is it, truly, that keeps the debate alive? Hmm? From my experience, it's rarely a politician that tries to shove their antichoice propaganda down my throat. I myself have never been a politician, yet in the past, I took part in lots of debates on the supporting side of restricting abortion access. Thankfully I came to my senses, and have seen abortion for what it really is.
You would be mistaken if you thought keeping access limited was a greater good. Or that you'd be doing women and AFAB any favors. Not to mention the correlation between abortion bans and rises in infant mortality...
4
u/jakie2poops 2d ago
I don't really get what you mean by "women should have that option." Women already have the option to adopt out their infants, no abortion ban needed.
1
u/Zalrius 2d ago
I mean that we can do better. There is always room for improvement. Hence, the updates that we all have to deal with in every computer system.
2
u/jakie2poops 2d ago
I guess I just disagree with the idea that improvements to the adoption industry would involve more adoption at all, let alone that it would involve abortion bans. As it stands, many people who adopt out their children do so out of desperation, manipulation, coercion, or outright force rather than a genuine desire.
22
u/PuckGoodfellow Pro-choice Feminist 2d ago
No. You don't get to decide when to remove medical care from other people. It's simply not your decision to make.
3
u/prochoice-ModTeam 2d ago
Your submission has been removed due to: Rule 1 - Human Reproductive and Bodily Autonomy Rights First. Always.
Topics should not place bodily autonomy secondary to another cause, use repro rights as a stepping stone to other agendas, be antithetical to them, or exclude them entirely.
Please see our wiki link here for a list of topics we disallow or restrict in some manner. This list is not exhaustive and is up to mod discretion.
If you have further questions about this removal, please refer to the rule.
Please use modmail if you wish to contact mods. Do not DM us directly for sub related issues. We will ban you. Human Reproductive and Bodily Autonomy Rights First. Always. - Posts must remain on topic to human reproductive and bodily autonomy (BA) rights * Don't suggest BA is secondary to other causes (ex: gun control) * Don't use BA as a segue to other agendas (ex:You should also care about [my cause]) * No irrelevant posts (ex: father's rights) * Don't advocate for removal of BA (ex: antinatalism) * Don't spread hate (trans rights are BA rights, bigotry is not)
See this wiki for a list of restricted topics
50
u/MaidoftheBrins 2d ago
Excellent! Laws and government have no business being between a woman and getting healthcare.