Massachusetts lawmakers may try to push through a radical bill this fall that would legalize abortions through all nine months and allow young teens to get abortions without a parent’s knowledge or consent.
The ROE Act (H 3320/S 1209) has been stalled in the state legislature for 20 months, but abortion activists are demanding that lawmakers pass it in the wake of the death of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, according to the New Boston Post.
The bill would eliminate basically all regulations and restrictions on abortion in Massachusetts. It would allow abortions through all nine months of pregnancy, even if there is no physical threat to the mother’s life, and could put young sexual abuse victims at greater risk by eliminating the state parental consent requirement.
Massachusetts Citizens for Life said the bill also allows for “passive infanticide” by eliminating a requirement to provide medical care to a baby who is born alive after an abortion.
Follow LifeNews.com on Instagram for pro-life pictures and videos.
“The right to life of the unborn is deeply threatened by legislation presently being considered in the Massachusetts legislature,” said Cardinal Sean O’Malley, the Catholic archbishop of Boston.
In a statement last week, O’Malley described the legislation as a “radical” move to keep some of “the most extreme abortion laws in the county” in place, should the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade.
“Here in Massachusetts, the proponents of the ROE Act describe its objective as increasing access to abortion. Tragically, the bill would do this but in a very extreme manner,” he said.
The bill is in the Joint Committee on the Judiciary. According to the Post, the legislature extended the committee’s deadline for making a recommendation on the bill until after the November election.
“That sets up the prospect for high-profile measures such as the ROE Act bill to be decided on the floor during a lame-duck session,” the Post reported. “As State House News Service reported, more than half of state legislators have signed on as sponsors of the proposed ROE Act bill, but some have quietly expressed reluctance to move on it.”
Prominent pro-abortion groups are urging lawmakers to act on the bill, as are the editors of the Boston Globe. In an editorial last week, they said there is a very real “threat” that the Supreme Court could overturn Roe v. Wade now that Ginsburg is dead.
“And so the response by state lawmakers must also be serious — and swift,” the editors wrote. “The ROE Act would codify the principles of reproductive freedom into state law, something that will become essential in the days ahead.”
The ROE Act is dangerous legislation that would put the lives of more unborn and born children at risk, and Massachusetts Citizens for Life said voters can stop it from becoming law.
“You organized last year en masse and stalled this anti-life bill in committee,” the pro-life organization states on its website. “You arrived in droves on the day of the public hearing, demonstrating that Massachusetts citizens, both pro-life and pro-choice, do not support promoting abortion access over women’s safety, our daughter’s safety, and the lives of infants born alive during botched procedures.”
Massachusetts Citizens for Life urged people to call their state legislators and the members of the Joint Committee on the Judiciary and tell them to vote no.
Polls indicate that most voters oppose what the legislation would do, including eliminate the parental consent requirement for minors and expand late-term abortions.
A recent poll by Susan B. Anthony List found strong opposition to the legislation. According to the poll, 62 percent of Massachusetts voters oppose late-term abortions, including 49 percent of Democrat and 66 percent of independent voters. The same number, 62 percent, also support the current state law requiring parental consent before a girl under 18 has an abortion.
Similar legislation passed in New York, Illinois, Vermont and Rhode Island last year, prompting massive outrage. Another pro-abortion bill narrowly failed in New Mexico because of strong public opposition.