Catholic Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey immediately put into effect a Bay State law expanding the situations in which abortions can be performed in late pregnancy. The decision sparked a strong reaction from Boston Archbishop Richard Henning and the state’s other Catholic bishops, who disputed both the definition of abortion as a health care option and the existence of an emergency sufficient to justify the expedited move.

The case revolves around Chapter 188 of the Massachusetts General Laws, signed by Healey on August 10. According to the National Catholic Register, the previous law allowed abortions up to the 24th week and, after that, under specific circumstances, such as a serious risk to the mother’s health or a fetal diagnosis incompatible with life. The new law establishes that an abortion can be performed at any point during pregnancy, leaving the decision to the doctor’s “professional judgment.” The law was supposed to go into effect on November 8; on November 6, Healey filed a declaration of emergency under Article 48 of the state Constitution, advancing the date of its entry into force. The move also impacts the referendum process initiated by opponents, who had collected signatures to put the law to the vote in 2028.

In her Substack article, Governor Healey presents the measure as a response to cases where, she says, differing interpretations of the law had prevented doctors from caring for patients with dire diagnoses. Healey adds that she has received letters from doctors forced to send their patients elsewhere: “When I have to send my patients away from their homes, their support networks, and their trusted doctor […] I know we are failing them.”

Her argument is that families should be able to receive “compassionate” care close to home and make decisions together with their doctors, without regulatory ambiguities causing delays or out-of-state travel.

The governor declares herself Catholic and acknowledges that “some people will disagree with my decision. I understand that.”

Healey continues:

I’m Catholic, and my faith is an important part of who I am. It has shaped my understanding of service, responsibility, and our duty to care for others. My faith teaches me to approach people with compassion, to respect their dignity, and to face suffering with humility.

I am also a governor for people of all faiths and beliefs. My responsibility is to ensure that every family can make deeply personal medical decisions based on their circumstances, their values, and the guidance of their doctors.

Following this advance and the publication of the governor’s article on her Substack, the state bishops also intervened on November 7 with a statement. This message reads:

Pope Leo XIV is currently visiting Uruguay, the most secular country in Latin America. On Saturday, he addressed President Yamandú Orsi, public officials, and diplomats, affirming that “the unborn already belong to the human family” and explaining that the protection of unborn children must be accompanied by support for mothers, fathers, and families. He urged his listeners to understand that illness, disability, physical pain, and loss of autonomy do not diminish a person’s value.

His words also apply to Massachusetts. After reading the Governor’s editorial defending her decision to ignore the results of the Repeal 188 initiative, we respectfully and emphatically disagree that abortion, the taking of a human life, can be considered health care. We also disagree that there is an emergency that requires further expansion of the existing law, which is already radically permissive.

The immediate political issue is the referendum. In Massachusetts, a petition to repeal a law can, if it collects enough certified signatures, keep the law suspended until a popular vote. The vote, in this case, would have been in 2028. The petition would not have repealed the law immediately; it would have postponed its implementation while voters decided whether to uphold or reject it.

But Healey has filed an emergency declaration specifically to enforce the law immediately and prevent its suspension during the referendum process. The governor claims that at least nine patients in Massachusetts were denied care after the law was signed. “The campaign to repeal the law can continue its work, and voters will have a say,” she assures, but adds that families should not be left without assistance during the referendum process.

It is precisely the decision to bring forward the law’s entry into force, as well as the content of the law, that the bishops contest in their statement.

Their statement, however, is not limited to criticism. The bishops thank the volunteers and voters involved in the Repeal 188 initiative and ask Catholic communities to support future mothers and fathers in difficulty or crisis. The bishops thank them for having “raised their voices in defense of the dignity of every person, no matter how small.” They say they desire a culture in which mothers and children receive the best medical care and the loving support of family and community, and they conclude by recalling the biblical command: “Choose life!”

The bishops also make an appeal: “We urge the legislators who drafted and passed this bill, as well as all men and women of good will, to reconsider the troubling state of our culture and its utilitarian and ruthless approach to the elderly, the sick, the vulnerable, and the unborn. As Pope Leo stated: ‘The right to life is the indispensable foundation of every other human right.'”

The debate, therefore, does not simply pit two opposing views on the management of painful medical cases. It highlights differing ideas on what constitutes care, who is entitled to decide, and what protection is due to the unborn child. Healey invokes the experiences of families who, she says, have encountered obstacles and delays; the bishops deem it unacceptable that the legislative response expands the use of abortion, which still constitutes the suppression of human life, and that it is being rushed through before voters can decide. The governor asserts that her Catholic faith teaches her compassion, respect for dignity, and responsibility toward others. The bishops respond that the defense of dignity must also include the unborn child. This conflict, at once legal, political, and moral, will now shape the dispute over Chapter 188 and the upcoming referendum.