By Dave Andrusko
A supermajority of the Massachusetts House of Representatives on Wednesday rejected amendments proposed by Gov. Charlie Baker, returning in full the extremist abortion language tacked on to the 2021 Fiscal Year budget. The budget with all the objectionable language now goes to the state Senate.
Massachusetts Citizens for Life has highlighted over months and months how radical the proposal actually is. “This amendment would allow for abortions after a 24-week period, citing that it only be deemed “necessary, in the best medical judgment of the physician, to preserve the patient’s physical or mental health” and not the more stringent standard as current law provides, “if continuation of the pregnancy will impose on [the mother] a substantial risk of grave impairment to her” physical or mental health.
Stephanie Ebbert of the Boston Globe reported state Rep. Sheila Harrington urged her colleagues to reject that language.
“We’re playing God if we are becoming the arbiters of whether the mother’s mental health preservation is more important than that baby’s life,” Harrington said.
In addition, abortions after 24 weeks are allowed if there is “a ‘lethal fetal anomaly,’ or if the fetus is incompatible with sustained life outside the uterus,” according to Ebbert. “This term is ambiguous and not defined, opening the door to massive abuse,” commented Patricia Stewart, Executive Director of Mass. Citizens.
Moreover, on the same 107 to 49 margin, the House also rejected Gov. Baker’s opposition to lowering the age at which teenage girls could obtain abortions without parental consent from 18 to 16.
On top of all that, in those instances in which a baby survives an abortion, the new language states only that there must be “life-supporting equipment” present, and eliminates the requirement for the abortionist to actually use it.
“House members also rejected — by a margin of 120 to 34 — an amendment filed by Rep. Marc T. Lombardo, R-Billerica and Rep. Alyson Sullivan, R- Abington, to reinstate language that would require doctors to provide lifesaving measures to a baby that survives an abortion attempt,” according to Stewart.
Baker, who describes himself as pro-choice, amended but did not veto the measure, sending it back to lawmaker with his recommendations.
Gov. Baker could veto the controversial measure, assuming the Senate agrees with the House. The measure initially passed the state Senate on a vote of 33-7.