IT PASSED — 119–33 VOTE — PRESIDENT TRUMP IS FURIOUS
Massachusetts Just Removed a Major Abortion Limit—But the Five Words Replacing It Are What Have Both Sides Alarmed
Massachusetts lawmakers have approved one of the most consequential changes to the state’s abortion law since Roe v. Wade was overturned.
The existing rule is clear.
After 24 weeks of pregnancy, an abortion may be performed only when a physician determines it is necessary to protect the patient’s life or physical or mental health—or when there is a lethal or grave fetal diagnosis.
The new bill removes that entire list.
In its place are five words now driving a national political fight:
“Professional judgment of the physician.”
Supporters say those words protect patients facing catastrophic complications that do not fit neatly into legal categories.
They point to cases in which hospitals allegedly refused care because lawyers and doctors could not agree whether a fetal diagnosis satisfied the exact statutory language.
One case cited by lawmakers involved a fetus that had suffered a stroke and was not expected to survive, yet the patient was reportedly turned away by hospitals uncertain about the law.
The bill’s supporters argue that a legislature cannot anticipate every medical emergency.
They say doctors—not prosecutors, hospital attorneys or politicians—should decide whether ending a pregnancy is medically appropriate.
But opponents see the same language very differently.
They argue the bill removes every specific legal condition after 24 weeks and replaces it with a standard broad enough to permit abortions much later in pregnancy.
Some anti-abortion groups have described the proposal as “abortion on demand until birth.”
That phrase is politically powerful—but it leaves out an important detail.
The bill would not say that anyone may obtain an abortion at any stage for any reason.
It would still require the procedure to be performed by a licensed physician acting under professional medical judgment.
The unresolved question is how much that requirement actually limits the physician.
The legislation does not preserve the current written list of qualifying circumstances.
It does not explicitly require a lethal fetal condition.
And it does not separately state that the patient’s life or health must be in danger.
That is why critics say the legal safeguard has been weakened dramatically, even if doctors would continue to follow medical ethics and clinical standards.
Supporters answer that abortions after 24 weeks are rare and usually involve severe fetal diagnoses, serious threats to the patient or rapidly changing medical emergencies.
Massachusetts recorded 99 abortions at 24 weeks or later in 2024, according to state data cited during the debate.
The House approved the measure 119–33.
The Senate passed it July 31 and sent it to Democratic Gov. Maura Healey, who has strongly supported abortion rights and is expected to sign it.
Until she acts, the existing four-part medical standard remains law.
The larger battle is not simply about whether Massachusetts allows abortion after 24 weeks—it already does in limited circumstances.
The fight is over who writes the final boundary.
Under current law, the legislature defines the permitted reasons.
Under the proposed law, the physician would determine whether the procedure is appropriate.
That is the change supporters call medical freedom.
It is also the change opponents fear could erase the state’s last meaningful late-pregnancy restriction.
And if Healey signs it, five words may carry more legal power than the entire list they replaced.
HOUSE PASSES IT — LAUREN BOEBERT RUNS TO FLOOR FOR CLOSE VOTE
House Republicans Just Moved the Shutdown Deadline—But the Vote That Really Matters Hasn’t Happened Yet
House Republicans have passed a bill that would keep the federal government open through December 4.
The final vote was 220–205.
Nearly every Republican supported it.
Six Democrats crossed party lines.
Only one Republican—Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie—voted no.
That sounds like the government shutdown threat has been eliminated.
It has not.
The House has only moved the confrontation from September to the Senate—and then potentially into the first weeks after the midterm election.
H.R. 9770 is a continuing resolution, not a full-year budget.
It would generally keep agencies operating under their existing funding levels and authorities after the current fiscal year ends on September 30.
Federal employees would continue working.
Veterans’ services, law enforcement, national security operations and other government functions would avoid an immediate interruption.
But Congress would still have to negotiate the larger spending bills before the new December 4 deadline.
That date is not accidental.
It falls after the November 3 midterm election.
The bill would allow both parties to campaign without a shutdown dominating the final weeks before voters decide control of Congress.
Then lawmakers would return to Washington with only a short window to settle the same disputes they are postponing now.
Republicans describe the proposal as a clean funding extension without major partisan policy riders.
They argue it prevents Democrats from using a shutdown threat to demand restrictions on immigration enforcement or other Trump administration priorities.
Because existing authorities would continue, the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement could keep operating during the extension.
But the bill does not create a new unlimited funding stream for deportations.
A continuing resolution generally preserves existing funding and authority rather than automatically expanding every agency program.
Democrats opposing the measure argue that maintaining the status quo also preserves enforcement practices they want changed.
They have criticized the bill for advancing without reforms involving Border Patrol and other DHS operations.
That disagreement is why the next step is far less certain than House Republican leaders suggest.
Republicans control the Senate, but they do not have the 60 votes normally required to overcome a filibuster.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune cannot simply rely on the Republican majority and send the measure directly to President Trump.
He will need Democratic votes—or a negotiated alternative capable of receiving bipartisan support.
That gives Senate Democrats leverage the original account largely ignores.
They can support the House bill and remove the immediate shutdown threat.
They can demand changes.
Or they can oppose it and force negotiations closer to the September 30 deadline.
The House vote was still politically important.
It showed that Speaker Mike Johnson kept nearly his entire conference together.
It also placed six Democrats from competitive or more moderate districts on record supporting the extension.
But it did not finish the process.
The Senate has not yet passed the measure.
Trump cannot sign it until both chambers approve identical language.
And even if it becomes law, Washington will not have solved the federal spending fight.
It will have purchased roughly two more months.
House Republicans passed a bill that could keep the government open through Election Day.
What happens after the election—and whether the Senate accepts the deal first—remains the part no one has settled.
