Massachusetts bishops push back on governor’s move to expedite contested abortion law
Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey invoked a state constitutional provision to make a controversial abortion law take effect Nov. 8, ahead of its originally scheduled implementation. The law removes previous restrictions on late-term abortions, leaving the decision to a physician’s professional judgment. Pro-life advocates submitted more than 113,000 signatures seeking a 2028 referendum to repeal the law, which would otherwise have triggered an automatic suspension. Archbishop Richard G. Henning of Boston and the state’s Catholic bishops rejected Healey’s reasoning, saying abortion should not be considered health care and disputing that an emergency justified expanding it.
6 ore fa
Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey moved to put a contested abortion law into effect on its original schedule, despite a petition drive seeking a 2028 referendum. The state’s Catholic bishops condemned the move, disputing both the law’s framing as health care and Healey’s claim that an emergency justified speeding its implementation. 1
The law, titled “An Act Prioritizing Patient Access to Care,” removes prior restrictions on late-term abortion and instead relies on “the professional judgment of the physician.” Healey announced on Nov. 6 that she would use a state constitutional provision to make the law effective Nov. 8 as originally scheduled. 1
Healey said her responsibilities as governor included allowing families to make deeply personal medical decisions. Article 48 of the Massachusetts Constitution permits a governor to designate a law an emergency measure, overriding the automatic suspension that can follow a successful referendum petition. 1
The Repeal188 campaign delivered more than 113,000 voter signatures to the state secretary on Oct. 29, seeking to place repeal of the law before voters in 2028. 1
Archbishop Richard G. Henning of Boston and the other Massachusetts Catholic bishops said they “respectfully and passionately disagree” that abortion is health care and rejected the claim that an emergency required expanding the state’s existing law. They also cited Pope Leo XIV’s statement that “the unborn already belong to the human family.” 1
The bishops argued that illness, disability, physical pain and loss of autonomy do not diminish a person’s value. They urged lawmakers to reconsider what they called a “utilitarian and merciless approach” to the elderly, sick, vulnerable and unborn. 1
The bishops thanked the petition organizers and signers, encouraged Catholics to assist expectant parents facing distress or crisis, and called for mothers and children to receive medical care and support from family and community. They also urged prayer for Healey and legislators, and called for defending life at every stage. 1*
The moral limits of state authority over unborn life
Catholic teaching places a real but bounded duty on the state: it must protect unborn human life because that life has a fundamental right not bestowed by government. But the state is not entitled to control every aspect of family life or to enforce the whole of morality by law. Its authority is ordered to the common good: protecting basic rights, especially where the vulnerable cannot protect themselves, while respecting human dignity and the principle of subsidiarity.
The Catholic argument begins with the status of the unborn, not with the state’s power. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith teaches that every human being has a right to life and physical integrity “from the moment of conception until death,” and that this right is inherent in the person rather than granted by parents, society, or the state. On this account, legal recognition does not make the unborn worthy of protection; the law is morally required to recognize and protect a worth already belonging to the human being.
The state’s duty is especially important because unborn children are entirely dependent and cannot represent their interests in public life. The 1987 instruction therefore says that public authority must not allow human beings, including embryos, to be treated as objects to be experimented on, mutilated, or destroyed. It also calls for appropriate legal penalties for deliberate violations of the unborn child’s rights.
Civil law need not make every immoral act a crime. It may sometimes tolerate conduct it cannot morally approve, for example when prohibiting it would cause a greater harm or when enforcement would undermine the common good. But that general limit does not settle every case: the 1974 declaration on abortion stresses that legal tolerance must not be confused with moral approval, and that a law’s refusal to punish can be understood publicly as acceptance of the act. It concludes:
But the life of the child takes precedence over all opinions. One cannot invoke freedom of thought to destroy this life.
The point is not that the state should criminalize every wrongdoing. It is that freedom of conscience, disagreement, or personal autonomy does not by itself establish a right to have another human being intentionally killed. Evangelium Vitae identifies a challenge to public authority when abortion is recast as a right the state must recognize and facilitate, or when the majority’s view is treated as sufficient to determine whether the unborn child has legal protection.
Thus, in Catholic moral reasoning, a law that directly authorizes the destruction of unborn life fails in a basic responsibility of government: defending the fundamental rights of those under its authority, particularly those least able to defend themselves. The 1987 instruction states this principle in especially strong terms, saying that the state denies equality before the law when it removes a category of human beings from the protection civil legislation should provide.
The state’s duty to protect unborn life does not mean unlimited authority over parents or family life. The principle of subsidiarity means that public authorities should not take over responsibilities that families or local communities can properly fulfill. The Pontifical Council for the Family says that the state should provide special protection when the family cannot sufficiently protect the unborn child’s interests. It identifies forms of help such as assistance to the mother before and after birth, care for the unborn child’s interests, and adoption or guardianship arrangements.
Intervention in family life is justified, that document says, when the child’s dignity and fundamental rights are seriously endangered; even then, the state should act with the child’s higher interest in view and without discrimination. This marks a limit as well as a duty: protecting the child is not a license for arbitrary state intrusion, but a responsibility to respond proportionately when basic rights are at serious risk.
The 1987 instruction makes a related point about law’s proper scope: civil law cannot replace conscience or dictate rules about matters beyond its competence. At the same time, it cannot use that limitation as a reason to abandon the defense of inalienable rights. The challenge is therefore to distinguish legitimate protection of life from an attempt to make law control every moral decision or private relationship.
Catholic teaching supports laws that recognize the unborn child’s right to life and provide meaningful protection against deliberate killing. The sources also support public policies that help mothers and families, rather than treating punishment as the state’s only response. In the family-rights document, practical protection includes assistance before and after birth and measures to secure care for a child when parents cannot provide it.
The supplied sources establish the general moral principle that law should protect unborn life and that deliberate violations warrant legal sanctions. They do not specify a complete penal code, the precise penalties for different actors, or how a particular jurisdiction should address every difficult case of enforcement. Those questions require further legal and prudential analysis; they should not be answered by pretending the general principle alone determines every legislative detail.
Nor should the state claim to settle the moral value of human life by deciding that a person’s worth depends on wantedness, ability, health, or stage of development. The 1987 instruction warns against discrimination and eugenic practices, and insists that even human beings at the embryonic stage may not be destroyed or treated as mere objects.
The Catholic position is neither that the state may do whatever it considers protective nor that government must remain neutral when fundamental rights are at stake. Its power is limited in scope but serious in obligation: it must protect the unborn from direct destruction, while respecting the proper role of families, avoiding discriminatory treatment, and not using law to impose a comprehensive moral code on society. Civil law cannot eliminate every evil, but it should not turn the taking of innocent human life into a legally protected entitlement.