--- title: "Massachusetts — abortion law" description: "Massachusetts is one of the most protective states for abortion access in the country. Abortion is a fundamental constitutional right recognized by the state's highest court, and state statutes affirmatively protect the right. Anyone may obtain an abortion for any reason up to 24 weeks of pregnancy…" type: "legislation" jurisdiction: "Massachusetts" as_of_date: "2026-07-28" source_url: "https://www.abhortion.org/legislation/ma.html" --- # Massachusetts — abortion law _Massachusetts · United States_ ## Overview **Constitutionally protected; legal to 24 weeks** Abortion is a fundamental right under the Massachusetts state constitution and is legal for any reason up to 24 weeks post-implantation, with broad exceptions afterward. Massachusetts is one of the most protective states for abortion access in the country. Abortion is a fundamental constitutional right recognized by the state's highest court, and state statutes affirmatively protect the right. Anyone may obtain an abortion for any reason up to 24 weeks of pregnancy (as measured from implantation, which corresponds to roughly 25 to 26 weeks from the last menstrual period). After 24 weeks, abortion remains legal when necessary to protect the pregnant person's life, physical or mental health, or when the fetus has a lethal or grave diagnosis. There is no mandatory waiting period, no mandatory ultrasound, no method-specific ban, and the state actively shields providers and patients from out-of-state investigations. Medication abortion by telehealth is permitted, and both Medicaid and private insurance must cover abortion without cost-sharing. The pre-Roe criminal ban was repealed in 2018, and no criminal penalty exists against abortion providers or patients under current law. > "The commonwealth, or a subdivision thereof, shall not interfere with a person's personal decision and ability to prevent, commence, terminate or continue their own pregnancy consistent with this chapter, or restrict the use of medically appropriate methods of abortion or the manner in which medically appropriate abortion is provided." > — Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 112, § 12L **Legal analysis** The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held in Moe v. Secretary of Administration & Finance, 382 Mass. 629 (1981) that the due process clause of Article 10 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights protects the right to abortion, including a right to state funding for medically necessary abortions. The ROE Act (St. 2020, c. 263) codified and expanded this right by replacing Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 112, §§ 12K–12U with a new statutory framework in §§ 12K–12R. Section 12L affirmatively prohibits the commonwealth from interfering with a person's decision to terminate a pregnancy and prohibits restrictions on medically appropriate abortion methods. Section 12M authorizes physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and nurse midwives to perform abortions when the pregnancy has existed for less than 24 weeks. Section 12N limits post-24-week abortion to physicians and requires one of four conditions: preservation of the patient's life, preservation of physical or mental health, a lethal fetal anomaly, or a grave fetal diagnosis incompatible with sustained life outside the uterus without extraordinary medical interventions. The old criminal ban (G.L. c. 272, § 19) was repealed by St. 2018, c. 155. The old criminal penalty provisions (G.L. c. 112, §§ 12S–12U) were repealed and replaced by the ROE Act, which contains no criminal penalties. The 2022 Shield Law (St. 2022, c. 127) and 2025 Shield Law 2.0 (St. 2025, c. 16) provide comprehensive protections against out-of-state investigations and legal actions. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 112, § 12L, [Massachusetts Legislature](https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXVI/Chapter112/Section12L) · Moe v. Sec'y of Admin. & Fin., 382 Mass. 629 (1981), [Justia](https://law.justia.com/cases/massachusetts/supreme-court/1981/382-mass-629-2.html)* ## At a glance Every machine-readable determination in the research document. Each value is derived from a sourced finding below. | Field | Value | | --- | --- | | Legal classification | Protected by constitution | | Gestational limit weeks | 24 | | Limit measured from | Implantation | | Abortion currently available | Yes | | Ban or limit enjoined | No | | Mother expressly exempt | Yes | | Mother prosecutable in practice | No | | Self managed abortion criminalized | No | | Abortion charged as homicide | No | | Fetal homicide law | Yes | | Fetal wrongful death action | Yes | | Personhood language in law | No | | Personhood contradiction | Yes | | Medication abortion distinct status | No | | Mailing pills banned | No | | Method bans | None | | Telehealth prescribing allowed | Yes | | Physician only law | No | | Provider max penalty | — | | Helpers criminally exposed | No | | Travel assistance criminalized | No | | Civil bounty law | No | | Shield state | Yes | | Waiting period hours | — | | State scripted counseling | No | | Ultrasound required | None | | In person visits required | 0 | | Parental involvement | Consent one parent | | Judicial bypass available | Yes | | Spousal consent or notice on books | No | | Medicaid coverage | Broader than hyde | | Private insurance restricted | No | | State funding posture | Funds providers | | Rape incest exception | Not applicable | | Exceptions present | Life, Physical health, Mental health, Fatal fetal anomaly | | Major pending change | Yes | ## Definitions **Pregnancy defined from implantation; miscarriage carved out** Massachusetts defines abortion as medical treatment to terminate a clinically diagnosable pregnancy except to produce a live birth, and explicitly excludes miscarriage care. Under Massachusetts law, 'abortion' means any medical treatment intended to end a pregnancy that can be clinically diagnosed, unless the goal is to deliver a live baby. The law specifically says that 'abortion' does not include care related to a miscarriage. 'Pregnancy' is defined as the presence of an implanted human embryo or fetus in the uterus, meaning the law measures pregnancy from implantation, not from fertilization or last menstrual period. This is important because the 24-week limit starts later than in some other states. The definition does not mention ectopic pregnancy, IVF embryos, or embryos outside the womb, but the implantation-in-the-uterus language implicitly distinguishes those situations. > "'Abortion', any medical treatment intended to induce the termination of, or to terminate, a clinically diagnosable pregnancy except for the purpose of producing a live birth; provided, however, that 'abortion' shall not include providing care related to a miscarriage. ... 'Pregnancy', the presence of an implanted human embryo or fetus in the uterus." > — Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 112, § 12K **Legal analysis** Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 112, § 12K defines 'Abortion' as 'any medical treatment intended to induce the termination of, or to terminate, a clinically diagnosable pregnancy except for the purpose of producing a live birth; provided, however, that 'abortion' shall not include providing care related to a miscarriage.' The term 'Pregnancy' is defined as 'the presence of an implanted human embryo or fetus in the uterus.' Because pregnancy is measured from implantation in the uterus, ectopic pregnancies (implanted outside the uterus) and IVF embryos stored outside the womb are not within the statutory definition. The miscarriage care carve-out ensures that standard medical management of miscarriage — which may use identical medications and procedures — is not regulated as abortion. The definition in § 12K applies to §§ 12L–12R. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 112, § 12K, [Massachusetts Legislature](https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXVI/Chapter112/Section12K)* ## Current status **Legal to 24 weeks post-implantation; exceptions after** Abortion is legal for any reason up to 24 weeks from implantation; after 24 weeks, permitted for life, health, lethal fetal anomaly, or grave fetal diagnosis. In Massachusetts, a person may obtain an abortion for any reason up to 24 weeks of pregnancy, measured from the date of implantation of the embryo in the uterus. After 24 weeks, abortion remains available when a physician determines it is necessary to preserve the patient's life or physical or mental health, or because the fetus has a lethal anomaly or a grave diagnosis that means it cannot survive outside the womb without extraordinary medical interventions. There is no requirement of a waiting period, no mandatory ultrasound, and no need for multiple in-person visits. This framework is currently in full force and effect — no part of it is blocked or enjoined by any court. > "A physician, physician assistant, nurse practitioner or nurse midwife may perform an abortion consistent with the scope of their practice and license if, in their best medical judgment, the pregnancy has existed for less than 24 weeks." > — Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 112, § 12M **Legal analysis** The operative provisions are Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 112, § 12M (pre-24-week) and § 12N (post-24-week). Section 12M: 'A physician, physician assistant, nurse practitioner or nurse midwife may perform an abortion consistent with the scope of their practice and license if, in their best medical judgment, the pregnancy has existed for less than 24 weeks.' Section 12N: 'If a pregnancy has existed for 24 weeks or more, no abortion may be performed except by a physician, and only if in the best medical judgement of the physician it is: (i) necessary to preserve the life of the patient; (ii) necessary to preserve the patient's physical or mental health; (iii) warranted because of a lethal fetal anomaly or diagnosis; or (iv) warranted because of a grave fetal diagnosis that indicates that the fetus is incompatible with sustained life outside of the uterus without extraordinary medical interventions.' The 24-week gestational limit is measured from implantation (see § 12K definition of pregnancy), making it roughly equivalent to 25–26 weeks LMP. The ROE Act took effect December 29, 2020. These provisions are not enjoined and are in active force. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 112, § 12M, [Massachusetts Legislature](https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXVI/Chapter112/Section12M) · Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 112, § 12N, [Massachusetts Legislature](https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXVI/Chapter112/Section12N)* ## Law-in-effect vs. law-on-the-books **Fully in force; no injunctions** All current Massachusetts abortion statutes are in active force with no judicial injunctions or stays blocking any provision. Every Massachusetts law governing abortion — the ROE Act, the Shield Law, the Shield Law 2.0, and the insurance mandate — is fully in effect. There are no court orders blocking, delaying, or modifying any of these laws. The old pre-Roe criminal abortion ban was fully repealed by the legislature in 2018 and cannot be revived. The governor and attorney general have issued executive orders and guidance reinforcing the state's commitment to protecting abortion access. Unlike states with trigger laws or zombie bans, Massachusetts has no dormant prohibition that could spring back into effect. **Legal analysis** No Massachusetts abortion statute is currently subject to an injunction, stay, or other court order limiting its enforcement. The pre-Roe criminal ban (Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 19) was repealed by St. 2018, c. 155, § 2, eliminating any risk of zombie-law revival. The criminal penalty provisions in former G.L. c. 112, §§ 12S–12U were repealed by the ROE Act (St. 2020, c. 263). Governor Healey issued Executive Order 609 (April 10, 2023) confirming medication abortion protections and Executive Order 633 (June 24, 2024) protecting emergency abortion care. The Attorney General issued a consumer advisory (July 6, 2022) warning against deceptive crisis pregnancy centers. Federal EMTALA litigation (Moyle v. United States) does not directly affect Massachusetts because Massachusetts law does not conflict with EMTALA's emergency-care requirements; Massachusetts already permits emergency abortion care to preserve the patient's health. *Sources — Semi-verified · High confidence · St. 2018, c. 155, § 2 (repealing Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 19), Section 2, [Massachusetts Legislature](https://malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2018/Chapter155) · Mass. Exec. Order No. 609 (April 10, 2023), Section 1, [Mass.gov](https://www.mass.gov/executive-orders/no-609-protecting-access-to-medication-abortion-services-in-the-commonwealth)* **Editor's note.** Status set by the research runner: the claim matched search-result snippets, but none of the cited pages were opened in full during research. Confirm the quoted text at the cited URL before publication. ## Exceptions ### Life of the mother **Life exception after 24 weeks** Post-24-week abortion is expressly permitted when necessary to preserve the pregnant person's life, determined by a physician's best medical judgment. If a pregnancy has reached 24 weeks or more, an abortion may still be performed when a physician determines, in their best medical judgment, that it is necessary to save the pregnant person's life. This exception is available at any point in pregnancy and does not require prior authorization from a court or a second physician. > "If a pregnancy has existed for 24 weeks or more, no abortion may be performed except by a physician, and only if in the best medical judgement of the physician it is: (i) necessary to preserve the life of the patient" > — Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 112, § 12N(i) **Legal analysis** Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 112, § 12N(i) permits abortion after 24 weeks when 'necessary to preserve the life of the patient.' The determination is made by a physician in their 'best medical judgement.' No additional certification, committee review, or court order is required. The physician-only requirement of § 12N applies: only physicians, not PAs, NPs, or nurse midwives, may perform post-24-week abortions. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 112, § 12N(i), subsection (i), [Massachusetts Legislature](https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXVI/Chapter112/Section12N)* ### Physical health **Physical health exception after 24 weeks** Post-24-week abortion is permitted when necessary to preserve the patient's physical health, based on the physician's best medical judgment. After 24 weeks, an abortion is allowed when a physician determines it is necessary to protect the pregnant person's physical health. The law does not define 'physical health' more narrowly — it is a broad, physician-determined standard. No requirement exists that the risk be imminent or life-threatening; a significant risk to health suffices. > "If a pregnancy has existed for 24 weeks or more, no abortion may be performed except by a physician, and only if in the best medical judgement of the physician it is: ... (ii) necessary to preserve the patient's physical or mental health" > — Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 112, § 12N(ii) **Legal analysis** Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 112, § 12N(ii) permits abortion after 24 weeks when 'necessary to preserve the patient's physical or mental health.' The statute does not cabin 'physical health' to emergencies, severe conditions, or specific diagnoses. The determination rests within the physician's best medical judgment. This is among the broadest post-viability health exceptions in the country. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 112, § 12N(ii), subsection (ii), [Massachusetts Legislature](https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXVI/Chapter112/Section12N)* ### Mental health **Mental health exception after 24 weeks** Post-24-week abortion is expressly permitted to preserve the patient's mental health, determined by a physician's best medical judgment. After 24 weeks, abortion is explicitly allowed when a physician determines it is necessary to protect the pregnant person's mental health. This is a notably broad exception — many states' health exceptions address only physical health. The statute imposes no requirement for psychiatric consultation or diagnosis of a specific mental health condition. > "if in the best medical judgement of the physician it is: ... (ii) necessary to preserve the patient's physical or mental health" > — Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 112, § 12N(ii) **Legal analysis** Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 112, § 12N(ii) directly includes 'mental health' as a basis for post-24-week abortion. The phrase 'necessary to preserve the patient's physical or mental health' gives physicians broad discretion. The ROE Act drafters deliberately added mental health alongside physical health, making this one of the most expansive post-viability frameworks in the United States. No second-physician concurrence or psychiatric referral is required. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 112, § 12N(ii), subsection (ii), [Massachusetts Legislature](https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXVI/Chapter112/Section12N)* ### Fatal fetal anomaly **Lethal or grave fetal diagnosis after 24 weeks** Post-24-week abortion is permitted for a lethal fetal anomaly or a grave fetal diagnosis incompatible with sustained life outside the uterus without extraordinary medical intervention. After 24 weeks, a person may obtain an abortion if the fetus has a lethal anomaly or a grave diagnosis meaning it cannot survive outside the womb without extraordinary medical interventions. The physician must determine, in their best medical judgment, that the condition meets this threshold. No court order or second opinion is required. > "(iii) warranted because of a lethal fetal anomaly or diagnosis; or (iv) warranted because of a grave fetal diagnosis that indicates that the fetus is incompatible with sustained life outside of the uterus without extraordinary medical interventions." > — Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 112, § 12N(iii)–(iv) **Legal analysis** Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 112, § 12N(iii)–(iv) creates two related fetal-diagnosis exceptions: '(iii) warranted because of a lethal fetal anomaly or diagnosis; or (iv) warranted because of a grave fetal diagnosis that indicates that the fetus is incompatible with sustained life outside of the uterus without extraordinary medical interventions.' The difference between 'lethal' and 'grave' may be subtle, but together they ensure coverage for both certainly fatal conditions and those requiring extreme life-sustaining measures. The physician makes the determination in their best medical judgment. Only physicians may perform these abortions. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 112, § 12N(iii)–(iv), subsections (iii) and (iv), [Massachusetts Legislature](https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXVI/Chapter112/Section12N)* ### Rape **No separate rape exception needed** Because abortion is legal for any reason up to 24 weeks, a separate rape exception is unnecessary and none appears in the statutes. Massachusetts does not have a separate rape exception because the law permits abortion for any reason up to 24 weeks, making a specific rape exception unnecessary. The law does not require survivors of sexual assault to meet any special reporting or documentation requirements to access abortion care. **Legal analysis** No rape-specific exception exists in Massachusetts abortion statutes because the pre-24-week regime permits abortion for any reason, and the post-24-week health and fetal-diagnosis exceptions are sufficient to cover any pregnancy resulting from rape that reaches 24 weeks. The absence of a rape exception is not a gap. *Sources — No law on this point · High confidence · Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 112, § 12M, [Massachusetts Legislature](https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXVI/Chapter112/Section12M)* ### Incest **No separate incest exception needed** Because abortion is legal for any reason up to 24 weeks, a separate incest exception is unnecessary. The judicial bypass statute expressly addresses incest cases for minors. Massachusetts law does not include a standalone incest exception because abortion is available for any reason through 24 weeks. Notably, the parental consent and judicial bypass statute explicitly contemplates 'the case of incest' — a minor under 16 who became pregnant through incest may seek judicial bypass without attempting to obtain parental consent. > "If a patient less than 16 years of age has not married and if the patient is unable to obtain the consent of 1 of their parents or 1 of their guardians to the performance of an abortion, or if they elect not to seek the consent of a parent or a guardian, or in the case of incest, a judge of the superior court department of the trial court of the commonwealth shall, upon petition or motion, and after an appropriate hearing ... authorize a physician, physician assistant, nurse practitioner or nurse midwife to perform the abortion" > — Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 112, § 12R **Legal analysis** No incest-specific exception exists in the general abortion statutes. However, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 112, § 12R provides that in 'the case of incest,' a minor under 16 may proceed directly to judicial bypass without first seeking parental consent — a protective feature for minors in incestuous situations. *Sources — No law on this point · High confidence · Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 112, § 12R, [Massachusetts Legislature](https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXVI/Chapter112/Section12R)* ### Ectopic pregnancy & miscarriage care **Miscarriage and ectopic care excluded from definition** Massachusetts explicitly excludes miscarriage care from the statutory definition of abortion, and the implantation-in-the-uterus definition of pregnancy excludes ectopic pregnancies by its terms. The statutory definition of 'abortion' in Massachusetts expressly says it does not include care related to miscarriage, so managing a miscarriage — including with the same medications or procedures used for abortion — is not legally treated as an abortion at all. The definition of 'pregnancy' as an embryo or fetus implanted in the uterus means that ectopic pregnancies, which implant outside the uterus, fall outside the abortion regulatory framework entirely. Treatment for ectopic pregnancy is not subject to the 24-week limit or any other abortion restriction. > "'Abortion' ... shall not include providing care related to a miscarriage. ... 'Pregnancy', the presence of an implanted human embryo or fetus in the uterus." > — Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 112, § 12K **Legal analysis** Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 112, § 12K defines 'Abortion' with the explicit carve-out: 'provided, however, that 'abortion' shall not include providing care related to a miscarriage.' Moreover, 'Pregnancy' is defined as 'the presence of an implanted human embryo or fetus in the uterus.' Ectopic pregnancies — which implant in the fallopian tube or elsewhere outside the uterus — do not meet the statutory definition of pregnancy, and their treatment therefore falls outside the abortion regulatory scheme entirely. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 112, § 12K, [Massachusetts Legislature](https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXVI/Chapter112/Section12K)* ## Methods ### Procedural surgical **All medically appropriate methods permitted** Procedural abortion is legal up to 24 weeks for any reason and after 24 weeks under the statutory exceptions; Massachusetts has no state-level method-specific ban. Surgical and procedural abortion methods, including dilation and evacuation (D&E), are fully legal in Massachusetts. The state has no law banning any specific abortion method. The federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 applies nationwide and prohibits intact dilation and extraction (D&X) unless the pregnant person's life is endangered, and it does not contain a health exception. This federal law applies in Massachusetts as it does in every state, but Massachusetts has not enacted any additional method-specific prohibitions of its own. > "The commonwealth, or a subdivision thereof, shall not ... restrict the use of medically appropriate methods of abortion or the manner in which medically appropriate abortion is provided." > — Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 112, § 12L **Legal analysis** Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 112, § 12L expressly provides that the commonwealth 'shall not ... restrict the use of medically appropriate methods of abortion or the manner in which medically appropriate abortion is provided.' This bars any state-level method ban, including bans on dilation and evacuation (D&E) or dilation and extraction (D&X). Section 12M authorizes abortion broadly by any of the enumerated practitioners before 24 weeks. The federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, 18 U.S.C. § 1531, applies in Massachusetts as federal law but is limited to the D&X procedure and contains a life exception. The federal law was upheld in Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007). Massachusetts has no state analogue expanding or narrowing the federal ban. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 112, § 12L, [Massachusetts Legislature](https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXVI/Chapter112/Section12L) · 18 U.S.C. § 1531, subsection (a), [U.S. Congress / govinfo](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2021-title18/html/USCODE-2021-title18-partI-chap74-sec1531.htm)* **Editor's note.** The federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act applies in Massachusetts as it does in every state; Massachusetts has not enacted any state-level D&E or D&X ban. ### Medication **Medication abortion fully legal; telehealth permitted** Medication abortion (mifepristone/misoprostol) is legal, may be prescribed via telehealth, may be dispensed by pharmacies, and is affirmatively protected by the Shield Law and executive orders. Medication abortion using mifepristone and misoprostol is fully legal in Massachusetts. It can be prescribed via telehealth — a patient can have a remote appointment and receive the pills by mail or pharmacy pickup. The state's Shield Law explicitly protects providers who prescribe medication abortion across state lines to patients in restricted states. Governor Healey's Executive Order 609 confirmed that medication abortion, including mifepristone, is covered by the 2022 Shield Law's definition of 'reproductive health care services.' The state purchased approximately 15,000 doses of mifepristone in 2023 as a stockpile. Public university health centers are now required to develop medication abortion readiness plans. FDA REMS requirements apply at the federal level, but as of 2023 the REMS no longer requires in-person dispensing and allows certified pharmacies to dispense mifepristone. > "All executive department offices and agencies shall construe the term 'reproductive health care services,' as it appears in Chapter 127 of the Acts of 2022, and this Order to include medication abortion and medical management of miscarriage, including but not limited to the use, prescribing, dispensing, or administration of mifepristone or misoprostol." > — Mass. Exec. Order No. 609 (April 10, 2023) **Legal analysis** Medication abortion is governed by the same statutory framework as procedural abortion (Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 112, §§ 12K–12R) without separate restriction. The Shield Law (St. 2022, c. 127, codified at G.L. c. 12, § 11I½) defines 'reproductive health care services' to include 'the termination of a pregnancy,' and Executive Order 609 (April 10, 2023) confirmed that this includes 'medication abortion and medical management of miscarriage, including but not limited to the use, prescribing, dispensing, or administration of mifepristone or misoprostol.' The 2022 Act also required public university health centers to develop medication abortion readiness plans (G.L. c. 15A, §§ 46–47). At the federal level, the FDA REMS for mifepristone was modified in January 2023 to remove the in-person dispensing requirement and allow certified pharmacies to dispense. Massachusetts law imposes no state-level mailing prohibition, no requirement for the physical presence of the physician, and no separate in-person-dispensing mandate. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Mass. Exec. Order No. 609 (April 10, 2023), Section 1, [Mass.gov](https://www.mass.gov/executive-orders/no-609-protecting-access-to-medication-abortion-services-in-the-commonwealth) · St. 2022, c. 127 (codified at Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 12, § 11I½), Section 4 (defining terms), [Massachusetts Legislature](https://malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2022/Chapter127)* **Editor's note.** Federal developments — including the Fifth Circuit mifepristone litigation and potential Comstock Act enforcement — could affect access to mifepristone nationwide irrespective of Massachusetts law. The Massachusetts stockpile is a hedge against supply disruption. ### Self managed **Self-managed abortion not criminalized** No Massachusetts statute criminalizes a person who self-manages their own abortion; the pre-Roe criminal 'procuring a miscarriage' law was repealed in 2018, and the current abortion framework contains no criminal penalties. A person in Massachusetts who ends their own pregnancy using medication obtained by mail, online, or from out of state does not face criminal liability under any current Massachusetts statute. The old law criminalizing 'procuring a miscarriage' — including by the pregnant person herself — was repealed in 2018. The current ROE Act framework contains no penalty provisions at all. The abortion statutes regulate who may perform abortions (providers) but do not create any offense for the pregnant person. There is no Massachusetts law analogous to the fetal assault or chemical endangerment statutes used in some other states to prosecute pregnant people. **Legal analysis** Massachusetts repealed its 173-year-old criminal abortion ban (G.L. c. 272, § 19) in 2018 (St. 2018, c. 155, § 2). The former law criminalized '[w]hoever, with intent to procure the miscarriage of a woman, unlawfully administers to her, or advises or prescribes for her, or causes any poison or other noxious thing to be taken by her' — language that could theoretically reach the pregnant person. This repeal eliminated any possible criminal exposure for self-managed abortion. The current abortion statutes (G.L. c. 112, §§ 12K–12R) contain no criminal penalty provisions whatsoever: the former penalty sections (§§ 12S–12U) were repealed and replaced by the ROE Act (St. 2020, c. 263), which imposes no criminal sanction for violation of any abortion provision. The worst consequence for a provider performing an abortion outside the statutory framework would be professional discipline, not criminal prosecution. The pregnant person herself is not a regulated actor under any current Massachusetts abortion statute. Massachusetts has no fetal homicide law that could reach the pregnant person, and has not enacted fetal endangerment or chemical endangerment statutes. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · St. 2018, c. 155, § 2, Section 2, [Massachusetts Legislature](https://malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2018/Chapter155) · Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 112, §§ 12K–12R, [Massachusetts Legislature](https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXVI/Chapter112/Section12M)* **Editor's note.** Despite the absence of statutory criminalization, isolated prosecutions of pregnant people under general criminal statutes (concealment of remains, child endangerment) have occurred in some states. No such prosecution has been reported in Massachusetts since the 2018 repeal. The Attorney General's office has affirmed that abortion is lawful in Massachusetts. ## Actors ### Who may perform **Physicians, PAs, NPs, and nurse midwives; physician-only after 24 weeks** Before 24 weeks, licensed physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and certified nurse midwives may perform abortions; after 24 weeks, only physicians. Massachusetts law authorizes a broad range of clinicians to provide abortion care. Before 24 weeks, physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and certified nurse midwives may all perform abortions — though each must act within the scope of their license and practice. After 24 weeks, only licensed physicians may perform abortions. Massachusetts has no requirement that abortions be performed in a hospital or ambulatory surgical center. The state does not impose admitting-privileges requirements on abortion providers. No TRAP (Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers) laws are currently in force. > "A physician, physician assistant, nurse practitioner or nurse midwife may perform an abortion consistent with the scope of their practice and license if, in their best medical judgment, the pregnancy has existed for less than 24 weeks." > — Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 112, § 12M **Legal analysis** Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 112, § 12M authorizes 'a physician, physician assistant, nurse practitioner or nurse midwife' to perform abortion before 24 weeks 'consistent with the scope of their practice and license.' Section 12N restricts post-24-week abortion to 'a physician' only. Massachusetts does not require abortions to be performed in hospitals or ambulatory surgical centers; clinic-based provision is permitted. The ROE Act repealed former provisions that restricted abortion provision to certain facilities. No admitting-privileges requirement exists. The Board of Registration in Medicine (243 CMR 1.00) and the Board of Registration in Nursing regulate professional conduct, but the 2022 Shield Law (G.L. c. 12, § 11I½ as implemented in various licensing statutes) prohibits disciplinary action against providers for providing lawful reproductive health care services. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 112, § 12M, [Massachusetts Legislature](https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXVI/Chapter112/Section12M) · Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 112, § 12N, [Massachusetts Legislature](https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXVI/Chapter112/Section12N)* ### Criminal civil exposure #### Pregnant woman **No criminal or civil exposure** The pregnant woman is not subject to any criminal penalty or civil liability under current Massachusetts law for obtaining, procuring, or self-managing an abortion. A person who has an abortion in Massachusetts — whether provided by a clinician or self-managed — faces zero criminal exposure under state law. The old criminal abortion ban was repealed. The current abortion statutes regulate providers only. There is no fetal homicide statute that could reach the pregnant woman herself. Civil liability does not arise under any abortion-specific statute. The person who terminates her own pregnancy is simply not a target of Massachusetts abortion law. **Legal analysis** No current Massachusetts statute makes it a crime for a pregnant person to obtain, procure, or self-manage an abortion. The former criminal ban (G.L. c. 272, § 19) was repealed in 2018. The ROE Act (G.L. c. 112, §§ 12K–12R) contains no criminal penalty provisions and does not regulate the conduct of the pregnant person. Massachusetts fetal homicide case law (Commonwealth v. Cass, 392 Mass. 799 (1984); Commonwealth v. Lawrence, 404 Mass. 378 (1989)) applies only to third-party actors and contains no suggestion that a pregnant person could be charged with homicide of her own fetus. No Massachusetts fetal endangerment or chemical endangerment statute exists. The pregnant person is effectively exempt from all abortion-related criminal and civil liability. *Sources — Semi-verified · High confidence · St. 2018, c. 155, § 2, Section 2, [Massachusetts Legislature](https://malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2018/Chapter155) · Commonwealth v. Lawrence, 404 Mass. 378 (1989), [Justia](https://law.justia.com/cases/massachusetts/supreme-court/1989/404-mass-378-2.html)* **Editor's note.** Status set by the research runner: the claim matched search-result snippets, but none of the cited pages were opened in full during research. Confirm the quoted text at the cited URL before publication. #### Physician **No criminal penalty; professional discipline possible** Physicians face no criminal penalty for performing abortion under current law; a violation of the statutory framework could result in professional discipline but not criminal prosecution. Physicians who perform abortions in Massachusetts face no criminal penalties under state law. The ROE Act repealed the old criminal penalty provisions. If a physician performs an abortion outside the statutory limits — for example, after 24 weeks without meeting one of the four exceptions — the physician could theoretically face professional discipline from the Board of Registration in Medicine (license suspension, revocation, or reprimand), but not criminal charges. The Shield Law prohibits the Board from disciplining providers for providing reproductive health care that would be lawful in Massachusetts. Civil malpractice liability remains possible for substandard care, as with any medical procedure. > "Notwithstanding any general or special law or rule or regulation to the contrary, a person licensed under this section ... shall not be subject to discipline by the board ... for providing or assisting in the provision of reproductive health care services or gender-affirming health care services" > — St. 2022, c. 127, § 5 (amending Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 13, § 105) **Legal analysis** The ROE Act (St. 2020, c. 263) repealed former G.L. c. 112, §§ 12S–12U, which had provided criminal penalties and injunctive relief for abortion violations. No criminal penalty provision exists in the current §§ 12K–12R. The 2022 Shield Law (St. 2022, c. 127, amending G.L. c. 13, § 105 and related licensing statutes) prohibits licensing boards from disciplining providers 'for providing or assisting in the provision of reproductive health care services or gender-affirming health care services' so long as the services 'would have been lawful and consistent with the standards of conduct' if they occurred entirely in Massachusetts. 243 CMR 1.03(5) defines grounds for physician discipline, but the Shield Law expressly limits its application to reproductive health care. A physician who performs an abortion in knowing violation of § 12N could face professional consequences, but the absence of a criminal statute means no criminal exposure. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · St. 2022, c. 127, § 5 (amending Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 13, § 105), Section 5, [Massachusetts Legislature](https://malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2022/Chapter127)* #### Prescriber pharmacist **No criminal exposure; shield law protects pharmacists** Non-physician prescribers (PAs, NPs) and pharmacists face no criminal liability for prescribing or dispensing abortion medication, and the Shield Law protects against license discipline for out-of-state prescriptions. Physician assistants and nurse practitioners may prescribe abortion medication within their scope of practice before 24 weeks without criminal exposure. Pharmacists who dispense mifepristone and misoprostol — including for telehealth prescriptions and for patients from other states — are protected by the Shield Law from license discipline. The 2022 Shield Law explicitly protects pharmacists, and the 2025 Shield Law 2.0 strengthened these protections. Massachusetts also prohibits requiring the name of the prescribing practitioner on pharmacy labels for certain medications, enhancing privacy. **Legal analysis** Section 12M authorizes PAs and NPs to perform abortions, which includes prescribing medication abortion, within their scope of practice. No criminal penalty statute applies. The Shield Law (St. 2022, c. 127) protects licensed health care providers — including pharmacists — from disciplinary action for providing lawful reproductive health care. The Shield Law 2.0 (St. 2025, c. 16) further strengthened protections by restricting data collection on abortion providers, allowing prescriptions to be labeled with a practice name rather than individual practitioner name, and excluding certain medications from the prescription monitoring program. Pharmacists filling out-of-state prescriptions from shield-law-protected providers are covered. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · St. 2022, c. 127 (codified at Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 12, § 11I½), Section 4 (definitions), [Massachusetts Legislature](https://malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2022/Chapter127) · St. 2025, c. 16, Section 13, [Massachusetts Legislature](https://malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2025/Chapter16)* #### Nurses and staff **No criminal exposure; conscientious objection protected** Nurses and clinical staff face no criminal liability for assisting in abortion; they are protected from retaliation if they conscientiously object, and from discipline for participating in lawful abortion care. Nurses, medical assistants, clinic administrators, and other staff who assist in abortion procedures face no criminal exposure under Massachusetts law. If a staff member objects to participating in abortion on moral or religious grounds, the law protects them from being forced to participate and from retaliation for refusing. Conversely, staff who do participate are protected by the Shield Law from professional discipline and from out-of-state legal actions. > "A physician or any other person who is a member of or associated with the medical staff of a hospital or other health facility or any employee of a hospital or other health facility in which an abortion or any sterilization procedure is scheduled and who shall state in writing an objection to such abortion or sterilization procedure on moral or religious grounds, shall not be required to participate in the medical procedures which result in such abortion or sterilization" > — Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 112, § 12I **Legal analysis** No criminal statute reaches assisting clinical staff. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 112, § 12I protects conscientious objectors: 'A physician or any other person who is a member of or associated with the medical staff of a hospital or other health facility ... who shall state in writing an objection to such abortion or sterilization procedure on moral or religious grounds, shall not be required to participate in the medical procedures which result in such abortion or sterilization, and the refusal of any such person to participate therein shall not form the basis for any claim of damages ... or for any disciplinary or recriminatory action against such person.' The Shield Law (G.L. c. 12, § 11I½) defines 'legally-protected health care activity' to include 'any act or omission undertaken to aid or encourage' the exercise of reproductive health care rights, which would encompass assisting clinical staff. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 112, § 12I, [Massachusetts Legislature](https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXVI/Chapter112/Section12I)* #### Other helpers **No criminal exposure for non-clinical helpers** Friends, family, employers, and others who assist someone in obtaining an abortion — by driving, funding, providing information, or otherwise helping — face no criminal or civil exposure under Massachusetts law. Massachusetts law does not criminalize anyone who helps another person obtain an abortion. A friend who drives someone to a clinic, a parent who pays, an employer who reimburses travel expenses, or an abortion fund that provides financial assistance — none of these actors are subject to criminal or civil penalties. The 2022 Shield Law affirmatively protects people who 'aid or encourage' access to reproductive health care from out-of-state litigation. > "'Legally-protected health care activity' ... (ii) any act or omission undertaken to aid or encourage, or attempt to aid or encourage, any person in the exercise and enjoyment, or attempted exercise and enjoyment, of rights to reproductive health care services or gender-affirming health care services secured by the constitution or laws of the commonwealth" > — Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 12, § 11I½ **Legal analysis** No Massachusetts statute creates criminal or civil liability for aiding, abetting, facilitating, or funding another person's lawful abortion. The 2022 Shield Law (G.L. c. 12, § 11I½) defines 'legally-protected health care activity' to include 'any act or omission undertaken to aid or encourage, or attempt to aid or encourage, any person in the exercise and enjoyment ... of rights to reproductive health care services or gender-affirming health care services secured by the constitution or laws of the commonwealth.' The Shield Law also provides a civil cause of action for anyone subjected to 'abusive litigation' related to legally protected health care activity, allowing recovery of actual damages, costs, and attorney's fees. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 12, § 11I½, Section 4, [Massachusetts Legislature](https://malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2022/Chapter127)* ## Aiding & assisting ### Travel assistance **No criminal exposure for travel assistance** Helping someone travel to, from, or within Massachusetts for an abortion — or travel out of Massachusetts to a state where abortion is legal — is not criminalized under any Massachusetts statute. There is no law in Massachusetts that makes it a crime to help someone travel for an abortion, whether within the state or to another state where abortion is legal. Massachusetts has not enacted any 'abortion trafficking' statute, and the Shield Law affirmatively protects those who aid others in accessing reproductive health care. An employer, friend, or relative who buys a plane ticket, drives someone across a state line, or provides travel funds faces no legal risk under Massachusetts law. **Legal analysis** Massachusetts has no 'abortion trafficking' statute or any other law restricting assistance with abortion travel. The Shield Law (G.L. c. 12, § 11I½) defines 'legally-protected health care activity' to include acts undertaken to 'aid or encourage' access to reproductive health care, and provides that 'the provision of such a health care service by a person duly licensed under the laws of the commonwealth and physically present in the commonwealth ... shall be legally protected if the service is permitted under the laws of the commonwealth, regardless of the patient's location.' While this provision directly protects providers serving out-of-state patients, the broader definition of legally protected health care activity also covers those who assist with travel. No Massachusetts local ordinance criminalizes abortion travel assistance. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 12, § 11I½(b)–(c), Section 4, subsections (b) and (c), [Massachusetts Legislature](https://malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2022/Chapter127)* ### Funding **Funding assistance fully protected** Providing funds for abortion or abortion-related travel is not criminalized; abortion funds, employers, and individuals may lawfully pay for abortion care and related expenses. It is entirely legal in Massachusetts to pay for someone else's abortion or abortion-related travel. Nonprofit abortion funds operate openly in the state. Employers may include abortion coverage in health plans and reimburse travel costs. Individuals may contribute to abortion access financially without any legal risk. The Shield Law protects those who provide financial assistance for reproductive health care. **Legal analysis** No Massachusetts statute restricts funding for abortion care or abortion travel. The Shield Law (G.L. c. 12, § 11I½) protects 'any act or omission undertaken to aid or encourage' reproductive health care access, which encompasses financial assistance. Insurance coverage mandates under St. 2022, c. 127 require private plans to cover abortion without cost-sharing, and MassHealth (Medicaid) covers abortion beyond Hyde categories. No civil bounty law or aiding-and-abetting provision reaches funders. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 12, § 11I½, Section 4, [Massachusetts Legislature](https://malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2022/Chapter127)* ### Mailing pills **Mailing pills permitted and protected** Sending or receiving abortion medication by mail into or within Massachusetts is not prohibited by any state law and is affirmatively protected by the Shield Law and executive orders. There is no Massachusetts law that prohibits mailing abortion pills into or within the state. Medication abortion can legally be delivered by mail, including from out-of-state providers. The state's Shield Law and Executive Order 609 affirmatively protect the mailing, prescribing, and dispensing of mifepristone and misoprostol. At the federal level, the FDA REMS currently permits mailing of mifepristone, though this is subject to litigation. The U.S. Attorney General's Office has stated that the federal Comstock Act does not prohibit mailing abortion drugs where the sender lacks intent for unlawful use. > "All executive department offices and agencies shall construe the term 'reproductive health care services,' as it appears in Chapter 127 of the Acts of 2022, and this Order to include medication abortion and medical management of miscarriage, including but not limited to the use, prescribing, dispensing, or administration of mifepristone or misoprostol." > — Mass. Exec. Order No. 609 (April 10, 2023) **Legal analysis** Massachusetts imposes no state-level prohibition on mailing abortion medication. The Shield Law (G.L. c. 12, § 11I½) protects the provision of reproductive health care services by Massachusetts-licensed providers regardless of the patient's location. Executive Order 609 (April 10, 2023) confirmed that medication abortion, including mifepristone, is a 'reproductive health care service' under the Shield Law. Federal law presents the only potential restrictions: the Comstock Act (18 U.S.C. § 1461) theoretically prohibits mailing articles 'intended for producing abortion,' but the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion concluding that the Comstock Act does not reach mailing where the sender lacks intent of unlawful use. The FDA REMS for mifepristone no longer requires in-person dispensing. These federal questions are subject to ongoing litigation. **Conflicting authority.** Federal law — the Comstock Act (18 U.S.C. § 1461) and potential FDA REMS changes — could theoretically restrict mailing of abortion medication regardless of Massachusetts law. The Department of Justice has opined that the Comstock Act does not apply to lawful abortion, but a change in federal administration could alter that interpretation. *Sources — Semi-verified · Medium confidence · Mass. Exec. Order No. 609 (April 10, 2023), Section 1, [Mass.gov](https://www.mass.gov/executive-orders/no-609-protecting-access-to-medication-abortion-services-in-the-commonwealth)* **Editor's note.** The interaction between state shield laws and federal Comstock Act enforcement is unresolved; a change in federal executive-branch interpretation could materially alter the practical availability of mailed abortion medication. Status set by the research runner: the claim matched search-result snippets, but none of the cited pages were opened in full during research. Confirm the quoted text at the cited URL before publication. ### Providing information **Providing information is lawful** Giving information, referrals, or website links about abortion is not criminalized, and First Amendment protections would bar any attempt to restrict truthful information about lawful services. It is fully legal to provide someone with information about how to obtain an abortion in Massachusetts — including referrals to clinics, information about medication abortion, or links to telehealth services. The state has not enacted any law restricting abortion-related speech, and the First Amendment would likely bar any such restriction. The only advisory that exists is the Attorney General's consumer alert warning about 'crisis pregnancy centers' that may provide misleading information. **Legal analysis** Massachusetts has no statute criminalizing the provision of information about abortion. The state has not enacted any restriction modeled on Texas's SB 8 'aiding and abetting' provisions. The Attorney General's July 2022 consumer advisory warned patients about 'crisis pregnancy centers' but did not restrict the centers' speech. Any future attempt to criminalize the provision of information about lawful out-of-state conduct would face substantial First Amendment scrutiny. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Attorney General Consumer Advisory (July 6, 2022), [Mass.gov](https://www.mass.gov/news/ag-healey-warns-patients-about-crisis-pregnancy-centers)* ### Civil bounty **No civil bounty law** Massachusetts has not enacted any SB8-style private civil enforcement mechanism; there is no law authorizing private individuals to sue abortion providers, patients, or helpers. Massachusetts has no law that allows private citizens to sue abortion providers, patients, or anyone who helps someone obtain an abortion. The state has not adopted the Texas SB 8 model of civil bounty enforcement. Instead, the Shield Law goes in the opposite direction — it creates a cause of action for providers and patients to sue anyone who brings 'abusive litigation' against them for lawful reproductive health care, allowing them to recover damages, costs, and attorney's fees. > "If a person, including any plaintiff, prosecutor, attorney or law firm, whether or not acting under color of law, engages or attempts to engage in abusive litigation that infringes on, interferes with or attempts to infringe on or interfere with legally-protected health care activity, any aggrieved person, provider, carrier or other entity ... may institute and prosecute a civil action for injunctive, monetary or other appropriate relief" > — Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 12, § 11I½(d) **Legal analysis** Massachusetts has not enacted any private civil enforcement mechanism analogous to Texas's SB 8. The Shield Law (G.L. c. 12, § 11I½(d)) instead creates a counter-suit remedy: 'If a person, including any plaintiff, prosecutor, attorney or law firm, whether or not acting under color of law, engages or attempts to engage in abusive litigation that infringes on, interferes with or attempts to infringe on or interfere with legally-protected health care activity, any aggrieved person, provider, carrier or other entity, including any defendant in such abusive litigation, may institute and prosecute a civil action for injunctive, monetary or other appropriate relief.' Recovery includes actual damages, any judgment from the abusive litigation, and attorney's fees. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 12, § 11I½(d), Section 4, subsection (d), [Massachusetts Legislature](https://malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2022/Chapter127)* ## Procedural requirements ### Waiting period **No mandatory waiting period** Massachusetts imposes no mandatory waiting period between counseling and the abortion procedure; the informed consent statute explicitly disclaims any waiting period. There is no waiting period in Massachusetts. A person can have an abortion the same day they sign the consent form. The law specifically says that the requirement to sign a consent form in advance 'shall not impose any waiting period.' The old 24-hour waiting period was eliminated by the ROE Act in 2020. > "A patient seeking an abortion shall sign the consent form in advance of the time for which the abortion is scheduled, except in an emergency requiring immediate action; provided, however, that this requirement shall not impose any waiting period between the signing of the consent form and the patient obtaining the abortion." > — Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 112, § 12R **Legal analysis** Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 112, § 12R provides: 'A patient seeking an abortion shall sign the consent form in advance of the time for which the abortion is scheduled, except in an emergency requiring immediate action; provided, however, that this requirement shall not impose any waiting period between the signing of the consent form and the patient obtaining the abortion.' This language was enacted as part of the ROE Act (St. 2020, c. 263), which eliminated the former 24-hour waiting period. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 112, § 12R, [Massachusetts Legislature](https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXVI/Chapter112/Section12R)* ### Mandatory counseling **No state-scripted counseling or materials** Massachusetts does not require state-scripted counseling, mandatory disclosure of state-prepared materials, or any specific verbal or written presentation beyond general informed consent. Massachusetts requires written informed consent before an abortion, but the state does not mandate that the provider deliver any specific script, show state-prepared materials, or make any particular disclosures. The consent form is prescribed by the Commissioner of Public Health but is a general informed-consent document — not a script designed to discourage abortion. There is no requirement to inform the patient about fetal development, the risks of abortion, or alternatives in any prescribed manner. > "An abortion shall not be performed without first obtaining the written informed consent of the patient seeking an abortion. The commissioner of public health shall prescribe a form to use in obtaining such consent." > — Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 112, § 12R **Legal analysis** Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 112, § 12R requires only that 'an abortion shall not be performed without first obtaining the written informed consent of the patient' and that the commissioner of public health 'shall prescribe a form to use in obtaining such consent.' The statute does not mandate any specific verbal counseling, state-prepared materials, biased counseling requirements, or waiting-period-linked counseling. This contrasts with many states that require providers to recite state-drafted scripts. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 112, § 12R, [Massachusetts Legislature](https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXVI/Chapter112/Section12R)* ### Ultrasound requirement **No ultrasound requirement** Massachusetts law does not require an ultrasound before an abortion, and imposes no requirement to offer, perform, display, or describe an ultrasound. There is no requirement under Massachusetts law for a person to have an ultrasound before obtaining an abortion. Providers are not required to offer an ultrasound, perform one, display the image, or describe it. Ultrasound may be performed as part of standard medical care at the provider's discretion, but it is not a legal prerequisite to abortion. **Legal analysis** No Massachusetts statute requires ultrasound as a precondition to abortion. The repealed pre-ROE Act framework contained no ultrasound mandate, and the current §§ 12K–12R are silent on ultrasound. Massachusetts is one of the minority of states with no ultrasound requirement of any kind. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 112, §§ 12K–12R, [Massachusetts Legislature](https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXVI/Chapter112/Section12M)* **Editor's note.** Absence of a requirement is confirmed by a comprehensive review of G.L. c. 112, §§ 12K–12R. ### In person visits **No legally compelled in-person visits** Massachusetts does not require multiple in-person visits; a single visit — or none at all for medication abortion via telehealth — is legally sufficient. Massachusetts law does not force a person to make multiple trips to a clinic to get an abortion. There is no mandatory in-person counseling visit separate from the procedure. For medication abortion, everything can be done via telehealth and mail — no in-person visit is legally required at all. For procedural abortion, one visit to the clinic or hospital is all that the law requires. **Legal analysis** No Massachusetts statute mandates multiple in-person visits. The abolition of the waiting period in § 12R eliminated the need for a separate counseling visit. The absence of an ultrasound requirement means no separate ultrasound visit is mandated. For medication abortion, nothing in Massachusetts law requires an in-person dispensing visit, and the state has embraced telehealth prescribing. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 112, § 12R, [Massachusetts Legislature](https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXVI/Chapter112/Section12R)* ## Minors ### Parental involvement **One-parent consent for minors under 16** Minors under 16 must obtain consent from one parent or guardian, or obtain judicial bypass; minors 16 and older can consent on their own. In Massachusetts, if a person is under 16 and not married, they must get permission from one parent or guardian to have an abortion — or they can go to a judge and get court authorization instead (this is called judicial bypass). Once a person turns 16, they can consent to an abortion on their own without involving a parent or a judge. The parent's only consideration must be the minor's best interests. If the pregnancy resulted from incest, the minor can go directly to a judge without first trying to get parental consent. > "If a patient is less than 16 years of age and has not married, an abortion shall not be performed unless the physician, physician assistant, nurse practitioner or nurse midwife first obtains both the consent of the patient and that of 1 of the patient's parents or guardians." > — Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 112, § 12R **Legal analysis** Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 112, § 12R: 'If a patient is less than 16 years of age and has not married, an abortion shall not be performed unless the physician, physician assistant, nurse practitioner or nurse midwife first obtains both the consent of the patient and that of 1 of the patient's parents or guardians.' Only one parent's consent is needed — the Supreme Judicial Court held in Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, Inc. v. Attorney General, 424 Mass. 586, 677 N.E.2d 101 (1997) that requiring both parents' consent was unconstitutional. The last sentence of § 12R provides that patients 16 and older may consent on their own. Pending legislation (S.1579 / H.1991) would eliminate the parental consent requirement entirely. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 112, § 12R, [Massachusetts Legislature](https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXVI/Chapter112/Section12R) · Planned Parenthood League of Mass., Inc. v. Attorney Gen., 424 Mass. 586, 677 N.E.2d 101 (1997), [FindLaw](https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ma-supreme-judicial-court/1418051.html)* **Editor's note.** Pending legislation (H.1991 / S.1579) would eliminate the parental consent requirement entirely for minors under 16. ### Judicial bypass **Judicial bypass available; maturity or best interests standard** Minors under 16 who cannot or choose not to seek parental consent may petition a Superior Court judge, who must authorize the abortion if the minor is mature or if it is in her best interests; appeal to the SJC is available. A minor under 16 who does not want to involve a parent — or cannot — can ask a judge for permission instead. The court process is confidential and designed to be fast. The judge must approve the abortion if the minor is mature enough to make the decision on her own or, if she is not mature, if the abortion would be in her best interests. The minor can participate in court on her own, has a right to a free court-appointed lawyer, and can appeal a denial directly to the Supreme Judicial Court. Hearings can be held in person or by video call at the minor's option. > "if the judge determines that the patient is mature and capable of giving informed consent to the procedure or, if the judge determines that the patient is not mature, that performance of an abortion would be in the patient's best interests." > — Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 112, § 12R **Legal analysis** Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 112, § 12R provides: 'If a patient less than 16 years of age has not married and if the patient is unable to obtain the consent of 1 of their parents or 1 of their guardians to the performance of an abortion, or if they elect not to seek the consent of a parent or a guardian, or in the case of incest, a judge of the superior court department of the trial court of the commonwealth shall, upon petition or motion, and after an appropriate hearing held in person or via teleconference at the patient's option, authorize a physician, physician assistant, nurse practitioner or nurse midwife to perform the abortion if the judge determines that the patient is mature and capable of giving informed consent to the procedure or, if the judge determines that the patient is not mature, that performance of an abortion would be in the patient's best interests.' The court must advise the minor of her right to appointed counsel and provide it upon request. Appeals go to the Supreme Judicial Court. Superior Court Standing Order 1-21 establishes uniform procedures. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 112, § 12R, [Massachusetts Legislature](https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXVI/Chapter112/Section12R) · Superior Court Standing Order 1-21, [Mass.gov](https://www.mass.gov/info-details/massachusetts-law-about-abortion)* ## Paternal spousal rights ### Consent or notice laws **No spousal or paternal consent/notice laws** Massachusetts has no statute requiring spousal consent, spousal notice, or paternal consent for abortion; any such requirement would be unconstitutional under binding precedent. Massachusetts does not require a husband's consent or a biological father's consent for an abortion, nor does it require that the husband or father be notified. There is no such law on the books. Anyone — married or unmarried — can make the decision to have an abortion without involving their spouse or the genetic father. **Legal analysis** Massachusetts has never enacted a spousal-consent or spousal-notice statute. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recognized in Moe v. Secretary of Administration and Finance, 382 Mass. 629 (1981) that the state constitutional right to abortion is held by the pregnant person. Any spousal consent or notice requirement would be unconstitutional under Planned Parenthood v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52 (1976) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), and doubly so under the stronger Massachusetts constitutional protection. *Sources — Semi-verified · High confidence · Planned Parenthood of Cent. Mo. v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52 (1976), [Justia](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/428/52/)* **Editor's note.** Status set by the research runner: the claim matched search-result snippets, but none of the cited pages were opened in full during research. Confirm the quoted text at the cited URL before publication. ### Enforceability **No spousal law to enforce** Because Massachusetts has no spousal or paternal consent/notice statute on the books, there is no enforceability question; Danforth and Casey would bar any such law even if enacted. This issue does not arise in Massachusetts because the state has never had a law requiring a husband's or father's consent or notice for abortion. If such a law were ever enacted, it would be unconstitutional under the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions in Danforth and Casey, and under the even stronger protection the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has recognized under the state constitution. **Legal analysis** Massachusetts has no spousal or paternal consent or notice statute. Planned Parenthood v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52 (1976), held spousal consent requirements unconstitutional. Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), held spousal notice requirements unconstitutional as an undue burden. Dobbs did not overrule these holdings as to states that had no preexisting spousal-notice law. Moreover, the Massachusetts constitutional right to abortion recognized in Moe v. Secretary of Administration and Finance, 382 Mass. 629 (1981), provides independent state constitutional protection. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Moe v. Sec'y of Admin. & Fin., 382 Mass. 629 (1981), [Justia](https://law.justia.com/cases/massachusetts/supreme-court/1981/382-mass-629-2.html)* ### Other paternal rights **Wrongful death standing for viable fetus** A father may bring a wrongful death action for the death of a viable fetus, but has no right to veto or interfere with the pregnant person's abortion decision. Massachusetts law gives a parent the right to sue for wrongful death if a viable fetus is killed by a third party (such as in a car accident or assault). This right belongs to the parents — including the father — and is separate from abortion law. It does not create any right for a father to prevent or interfere with an abortion. There are no recorded cases in Massachusetts of a father successfully using a wrongful death or injunction theory to block an abortion. > "We hold that a fetus is a person for purposes of our wrongful death statute where, as here, the parties agree that it is viable" > — Mone v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 368 Mass. 354, 331 N.E.2d 916 (1975) **Legal analysis** Under Mone v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 368 Mass. 354, 331 N.E.2d 916 (1975), a viable fetus is a 'person' for purposes of the Massachusetts wrongful death statute (G.L. c. 229, § 2), and parents may recover damages for its wrongful death. Thibert v. Milka, 419 Mass. 693, 646 N.E.2d 1025 (1995), clarified that no cause of action lies for a non-viable fetus not born alive. These wrongful death rights are held by both parents and run against third-party tortfeasors, not against the pregnant person or her medical providers for a lawful abortion. *Sources — Semi-verified · High confidence · Mone v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 368 Mass. 354, 331 N.E.2d 916 (1975), [Justia](https://law.justia.com/cases/massachusetts/supreme-court/1975/368-mass-354-2.html) · Thibert v. Milka, 419 Mass. 693, 646 N.E.2d 1025 (1995), [Justia](https://law.justia.com/cases/massachusetts/supreme-court/volumes/419/419mass693.html)* **Editor's note.** Status set by the research runner: the claim matched search-result snippets, but none of the cited pages were opened in full during research. Confirm the quoted text at the cited URL before publication. ## Fetal personhood ### Fetal homicide law **Viable fetus is person for vehicular homicide and manslaughter** Massachusetts case law holds that a viable fetus is a 'person' for purposes of vehicular homicide and involuntary manslaughter, but abortion is carved out and the pregnant person is not chargeable. Massachusetts courts have ruled that if a third party causes the death of a viable fetus — such as in a drunk driving crash or an assault on a pregnant person — that person can be charged with vehicular homicide, involuntary manslaughter, or even murder. This applies only to third-party actors, not to the pregnant person herself or to lawful abortion care. The cases establishing this do not involve abortion at all and contain no suggestion that the pregnant person could be charged for ending her own pregnancy. > "This case presents the question whether a viable fetus is a 'person' for purposes of our vehicular homicide statute" > — Commonwealth v. Cass, 392 Mass. 799, 467 N.E.2d 1324 (1984) **Legal analysis** In Commonwealth v. Cass, 392 Mass. 799, 467 N.E.2d 1324 (1984), the Supreme Judicial Court held that a viable fetus is a 'person' within the meaning of the vehicular homicide statute, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 24G. In Commonwealth v. Lawrence, 404 Mass. 378, 536 N.E.2d 571 (1989), the SJC extended liability for the death of a viable fetus to charges of involuntary manslaughter and murder. These holdings apply only to third-party criminal defendants. They do not reach the pregnant person or providers performing lawful abortions. *Sources — Semi-verified · High confidence · Commonwealth v. Cass, 392 Mass. 799, 467 N.E.2d 1324 (1984), [Justia](https://law.justia.com/cases/massachusetts/supreme-court/1984/392-mass-799-2.html) · Commonwealth v. Lawrence, 404 Mass. 378, 536 N.E.2d 571 (1989), [Justia](https://law.justia.com/cases/massachusetts/supreme-court/1989/404-mass-378-2.html)* **Editor's note.** Status set by the research runner: the claim matched search-result snippets, but none of the cited pages were opened in full during research. Confirm the quoted text at the cited URL before publication. ### Wrongful death **Wrongful death action for viable fetus only** A wrongful death claim may be brought for a viable fetus killed by a third party; no cause of action exists for a non-viable fetus not born alive. If a third party — such as a negligent driver or an assailant — causes the death of a viable fetus, the parents can bring a civil wrongful death lawsuit. But if the fetus was not yet viable at the time of injury and was not born alive, no wrongful death claim is available. This is a civil remedy against third-party wrongdoers, not against abortion providers or the pregnant person herself. > "There is no cause of action under the wrongful death statute for the death of a fetus that was not viable at the time of injury and was not born alive." > — Thibert v. Milka, 419 Mass. 693, 646 N.E.2d 1025 (1995) **Legal analysis** Mone v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 368 Mass. 354, 331 N.E.2d 916 (1975) held that a viable fetus is a 'person' under the Massachusetts wrongful death statute (G.L. c. 229, § 2). Thibert v. Milka, 419 Mass. 693, 646 N.E.2d 1025 (1995) held that '[t]here is no cause of action under the wrongful death statute for the death of a fetus that was not viable at the time of injury and was not born alive.' *Sources — Semi-verified · High confidence · Thibert v. Milka, 419 Mass. 693, 646 N.E.2d 1025 (1995), [Justia](https://law.justia.com/cases/massachusetts/supreme-court/volumes/419/419mass693.html)* **Editor's note.** Status set by the research runner: the claim matched search-result snippets, but none of the cited pages were opened in full during research. Confirm the quoted text at the cited URL before publication. ### Personhood definition **No statutory or constitutional fetal personhood definition** Massachusetts has no statute or constitutional provision defining 'person,' 'human being,' or 'child' to include the unborn for general purposes; the viable-fetus-as-person holdings are case-law-based and context-limited. Massachusetts does not have a law that broadly declares a fetus to be a person. The state constitution has not been amended to include fetal personhood language. The courts have recognized a viable fetus as a 'person' only in the narrow contexts of vehicular homicide and wrongful death — and even then, only when a third party caused the death. The statutory definition of 'pregnancy' in the abortion code itself describes it as 'the presence of an implanted human embryo or fetus in the uterus,' carefully avoiding personhood language. > "'Pregnancy', the presence of an implanted human embryo or fetus in the uterus." > — Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 112, § 12K **Legal analysis** No Massachusetts constitutional provision defines 'person' to include the unborn. No statute broadly defines 'person,' 'human being,' or 'child' to encompass a fetus at any stage. The Supreme Judicial Court's holdings in Cass (vehicular homicide), Lawrence (involuntary manslaughter), and Mone (wrongful death) recognize a viable fetus as a 'person' for those specific statutory purposes, but the court has consistently declined to announce a general fetal personhood principle. The 2006 edition of G.L. c. 112, § 12K formerly defined 'unborn child' as 'the individual human life in existence and developing from implantation of the embryo in the uterus until birth,' but this definition was removed by the ROE Act (St. 2020, c. 263). *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 112, § 12K, [Massachusetts Legislature](https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXVI/Chapter112/Section12K)* ### Contradictions analysis Massachusetts law contains a meaningful internal tension between its abortion-rights framework and its fetal-homicide jurisprudence. The same Supreme Judicial Court that recognized a fundamental state constitutional right to abortion in Moe v. Secretary of Administration and Finance (1981) also held, in Commonwealth v. Cass (1984) and Commonwealth v. Lawrence (1989), that a viable fetus is a 'person' for purposes of vehicular homicide and involuntary manslaughter. The wrongful death cases (Mone, Thibert) similarly treat a viable fetus as a person whose death is compensable. These holdings coexist with a statutory abortion regime (the ROE Act) that permits — indeed, affirmatively protects — the termination of a viable fetus after 24 weeks when the patient's life, physical health, or mental health is at risk. The tension is partly resolved by context: the fetal-homicide holdings apply exclusively to third-party criminal actors and third-party tortfeasors, while the abortion framework governs the relationship between the pregnant person and her medical providers. The ROE Act itself contributed to the resolution by removing the pre-2020 statutory definition of 'unborn child' as 'the individual human life in existence and developing from implantation of the embryo in the uterus until birth.' Yet the underlying philosophical inconsistency remains: the same legal system can simultaneously treat a viable fetus as a homicide victim when killed by a drunk driver and as a pregnancy that may lawfully be terminated when the pregnant person's health requires it. Massachusetts manages this tension through careful domain-separation rather than through a unified theory of fetal legal status. ## Telehealth & interstate questions ### Telehealth prescribing **Telehealth prescribing fully permitted** Abortion medication may be prescribed via telehealth to patients physically in Massachusetts, whether by in-state or out-of-state providers; no in-person-visit requirement exists. A person in Massachusetts can get abortion medication through a telehealth appointment — a video or phone call with a provider — without ever visiting a clinic in person. The provider can be located in Massachusetts or in another state. The medication can be mailed directly to the patient or picked up at a pharmacy. Massachusetts law imposes no requirement for the prescribing provider to examine the patient in person. The state's Shield Law protects out-of-state patients who receive care from Massachusetts-licensed providers through telehealth as well. > "the provision of such a health care service by a person duly licensed under the laws of the commonwealth and physically present in the commonwealth ... shall be legally protected if the service is permitted under the laws of the commonwealth, regardless of the patient's location" > — Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 12, § 11I½ **Legal analysis** Massachusetts imposes no in-person examination or dispensing requirement for medication abortion. The Shield Law (G.L. c. 12, § 11I½) provides that 'the provision of such a health care service by a person duly licensed under the laws of the commonwealth and physically present in the commonwealth ... shall be legally protected if the service is permitted under the laws of the commonwealth, regardless of the patient's location.' This means a Massachusetts-licensed provider can prescribe medication abortion via telehealth to a patient in a restrictive state and be protected by Massachusetts law. Executive Order 609 confirmed medication abortion as a protected 'reproductive health care service.' *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 12, § 11I½, Section 4 (definitions), [Massachusetts Legislature](https://malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2022/Chapter127)* **Editor's note.** Federal FDA regulation of mifepristone REMS could theoretically change, but as of the research date, telehealth prescribing without in-person dispensing is permitted by the FDA. ### Out of state travel **Travel for abortion fully lawful** Massachusetts residents may lawfully travel to any state for abortion care, and the state imposes no restriction on crossing state lines for reproductive health services. There is no law in Massachusetts that prevents or restricts anyone from traveling to another state to obtain an abortion. This is true regardless of the person's age. The state has not enacted any law attempting to regulate conduct that occurs outside its borders, and the Shield Law is specifically designed to protect Massachusetts providers who serve out-of-state patients. > "Any public act or record of a foreign jurisdiction that prohibits, criminalizes, sanctions, authorizes a person to bring a civil action against or otherwise interferes with a person, provider, carrier or other entity in the commonwealth that seeks, receives, causes, aids in access to, aids or abets or provides ... reproductive health care services ... shall be an interference with the exercise and enjoyment of the rights secured by the constitution and laws of the commonwealth and shall be a violation of the public policy of the commonwealth." > — Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 12, § 11I½(c) **Legal analysis** Massachusetts imposes no restriction on out-of-state travel for abortion. No statute purports to reach conduct occurring entirely outside Massachusetts. The Shield Law (G.L. c. 12, § 11I½) explicitly protects Massachusetts-licensed providers serving patients regardless of location and prohibits cooperation with out-of-state investigations into legally protected health care activity. The Shield Law 2.0 (St. 2025, c. 16) extended these protections to prohibit state and local agencies from cooperating with out-of-state subpoenas, warrants, or extradition requests. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 12, § 11I½(c), Section 4, subsection (c), [Massachusetts Legislature](https://malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2022/Chapter127)* ### Shield or hostile laws **Nation-leading shield state** Massachusetts has enacted comprehensive shield laws blocking out-of-state investigations, subpoenas, extradition, and license actions related to lawful reproductive health care, and creating a civil cause of action against abusive litigants. Massachusetts is one of the strongest 'shield' states in the country. The 2022 Shield Law and the 2025 Shield Law 2.0 protect providers, patients, and helpers from out-of-state legal attacks. Key protections include: Massachusetts will not cooperate with out-of-state investigations or subpoenas about lawful abortion care; the state will not extradite someone for providing or obtaining abortion care that is legal in Massachusetts; medical licensing boards cannot discipline providers for providing lawful reproductive health care; patients' data cannot be shared with out-of-state authorities; and anyone who brings 'abusive litigation' against a Massachusetts provider or patient can be countersued for damages and attorney's fees. > "Access to reproductive health care services and gender-affirming health care services is a right secured by the constitution and laws of the commonwealth. Interference with this right, whether or not under the color of law, is against the public policy of the commonwealth." > — Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 12, § 11I½(b) **Legal analysis** The 2022 Shield Law (St. 2022, c. 127, codified at G.L. c. 12, §§ 11I½, 11I¾, and amendments to licensing statutes) prohibits cooperation with out-of-state investigations, extradition for lawful reproductive health care, professional discipline for providing lawful reproductive health care, and enforcement of out-of-state judgments, and creates a civil cause of action against those who bring 'abusive litigation.' The 2025 Shield Law 2.0 (St. 2025, c. 16) strengthened protections by prohibiting the Commissioner of Public Health from collecting individually identifiable abortion data, excluding provider personal information from public records, allowing prescriptions to be labeled with a practice name instead of an individual prescriber name, and extending the prohibition on cooperation with out-of-state proceedings to all state and local agencies. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 12, § 11I½(b), Section 4, subsection (b), [Massachusetts Legislature](https://malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2022/Chapter127) · St. 2025, c. 16, [Massachusetts Legislature](https://malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2025/Chapter16)* **Editor's note.** The practical effectiveness of shield laws against determined out-of-state prosecutors has not been fully tested in federal court. A conflict between a shield state's refusal to extradite and another state's assertion of jurisdiction could raise Supremacy Clause or Extradition Clause questions. ## Funding and insurance ### Medicaid **Medicaid covers abortion beyond Hyde** Massachusetts's MassHealth program covers abortion beyond the federal Hyde Amendment categories, using state funds to cover all medically necessary abortions, as required by the SJC's decision in Moe. Massachusetts's Medicaid program, known as MassHealth, covers abortion services beyond what federal law requires. The federal Hyde Amendment limits federal Medicaid dollars to abortions in cases of rape, incest, or life endangerment, but Massachusetts uses its own state funds to cover medically necessary abortions for all MassHealth recipients. This broader coverage was mandated by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in 1981. The 2022 insurance mandate law requires MassHealth to cover abortion and abortion-related care without cost-sharing. > "Coverage provided under this section for abortion or abortion-related care shall not be subject to any deductible, coinsurance, copayment or any other cost-sharing requirement" > — Moe v. Sec'y of Admin. & Fin., 382 Mass. 629 (1981) **Legal analysis** In Moe v. Secretary of Administration and Finance, 382 Mass. 629, 417 N.E.2d 387 (1981), the Supreme Judicial Court held that the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights requires the state to fund medically necessary abortions for Medicaid-eligible individuals. MassHealth regulations at 130 CMR 484.000 govern payment for abortion clinic services. St. 2022, c. 127, §§ 7–8 extended coverage requirements to MassHealth, requiring abortion and abortion-related care to be covered without cost-sharing. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Moe v. Sec'y of Admin. & Fin., 382 Mass. 629 (1981), [Justia](https://law.justia.com/cases/massachusetts/supreme-court/1981/382-mass-629-2.html) · St. 2022, c. 127, §§ 7–8, Section 8, [Massachusetts Legislature](https://malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2022/Chapter127)* ### Private insurance **Private insurance must cover abortion without cost-sharing** All fully insured health plans in Massachusetts must cover abortion and abortion-related care without deductibles, copayments, or other cost-sharing, with a narrow exception for plans that would lose federal tax-exempt status. In Massachusetts, private health insurance plans must cover abortion and abortion-related care. The 2022 law requires full coverage with no deductibles, no copays, and no coinsurance. The only exception is for certain high-deductible health plans that could lose their federal tax-exempt status if they covered abortion with zero cost-sharing — those plans may still require cost-sharing. This mandate applies to all fully insured plans sold in Massachusetts, covering both individual and employer-sponsored plans. Self-funded employer plans under federal ERISA law are not required to follow this mandate. > "Coverage provided under this section for abortion or abortion-related care shall not be subject to any deductible, coinsurance, copayment or any other cost-sharing requirement" > — St. 2022, c. 127, § 8 **Legal analysis** St. 2022, c. 127, §§ 7–8 amended Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 32A, § 17C (Group Insurance Commission) and required abortion coverage in fully insured health plans issued in Massachusetts. The mandate provides: 'Coverage provided under this section for abortion or abortion-related care shall not be subject to any deductible, coinsurance, copayment or any other cost-sharing requirement; provided, however, that deductibles, coinsurance or copayments shall be required if the applicable plan is governed by the federal Internal Revenue Code and would lose its tax-exempt status.' Self-funded ERISA plans are preempted by federal law. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · St. 2022, c. 127, § 8, Section 8, [Massachusetts Legislature](https://malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2022/Chapter127)* **Editor's note.** Self-funded employer plans governed by ERISA are not subject to the Massachusetts mandate; employees in those plans should check their specific plan documents. ### Exchange plans **ACA exchange plans must cover abortion** All plans sold through the Massachusetts Health Connector (the state's ACA marketplace) must cover abortion without cost-sharing, as required by state law. If you buy health insurance through the Massachusetts Health Connector — including ConnectorCare plans — your plan must cover abortion and abortion-related care without any deductible, copay, or coinsurance. Massachusetts is one of a minority of states that require abortion coverage in marketplace plans. **Legal analysis** St. 2022, c. 127 applies to 'all fully insured health benefit plans issued to individuals and employers in Massachusetts, including health plans purchased through the Massachusetts Health Connector (e.g., all ConnectorCare Health Plans).' Massachusetts is one of approximately 13 states that require abortion coverage in ACA marketplace plans. *Sources — Semi-verified · High confidence · Mass.gov FAQ: Abortion and Abortion Related Care, [Mass.gov](https://www.mass.gov/info-details/frequently-asked-questions-about-abortion-and-abortion-related-care)* **Editor's note.** Status set by the research runner: the claim matched search-result snippets, but none of the cited pages were opened in full during research. Confirm the quoted text at the cited URL before publication. ### State funding of providers **State affirmatively funds abortion providers** Massachusetts affirmatively funds abortion providers through MassHealth reimbursement, public university health center grants, and the mifepristone stockpile purchase. Massachusetts does not defund abortion providers. On the contrary, the state actively funds them. MassHealth reimburses providers for abortion services. The 2022 law created a fund to help public university health centers achieve 'medication abortion readiness.' In 2023, the state purchased 15,000 doses of mifepristone to stockpile for abortion care. The state budget includes line items for reproductive health services. > "There shall be established and set up on the books of the commonwealth a separate fund to be known as the Public University Health Center Sexual and Reproductive Health Preparation Fund for the purpose of medication abortion readiness." > — St. 2022, c. 127, § 6 (codified at Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 15A, § 47) **Legal analysis** Massachusetts has no statute defunding abortion providers. The 2022 law (St. 2022, c. 127, § 6, codified at G.L. c. 15A, § 47) established the 'Public University Health Center Sexual and Reproductive Health Preparation Fund' to provide grants to health centers for medication abortion readiness. In April 2023, the University of Massachusetts Amherst purchased approximately 15,000 doses of mifepristone at the governor's direction. MassHealth covers abortion services per 130 CMR 484.000 and the Moe decision. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · St. 2022, c. 127, § 6 (codified at Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 15A, § 47), Section 6, subsection (a), [Massachusetts Legislature](https://malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2022/Chapter127)* ## Penalties | Actor | Offense | Penalty | Verification | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Physician or provider performing abortion outside statutory limits | Professional misconduct; no criminal offense exists under current law | Potential license discipline (suspension, revocation, reprimand, fine) by the Board of Registration in Medicine; no criminal penalty. Shield Law limits disciplinary action for lawful reproductive health care. | Verified at source | | Pregnant person obtaining or self-managing abortion | None; no criminal offense exists | None. Old criminal ban (G.L. c. 272, § 19) was repealed in 2018. Current abortion statutes do not regulate the pregnant person. | Semi-verified | | Physician assistant, nurse practitioner, nurse midwife | Same as physician; no criminal offense | Potential license discipline from respective licensing board, limited by Shield Law; no criminal penalty | Verified at source | | Pharmacist dispensing abortion medication | No criminal offense; Shield Law protects against discipline | No penalty for dispensing lawful medication; Shield Law 2.0 (St. 2025, c. 16) protects against out-of-state actions and data collection | Semi-verified | | Any person aiding or assisting (driver, funder, counselor, friend) | None; no criminal offense exists; Shield Law affirmatively protects aiders | None under Massachusetts law. Shield Law provides cause of action against those who bring 'abusive litigation' related to legally protected health care activity. | Verified at source | ## Recent changes - **July 27, 2018** — Governor Charlie Baker signed the NASTY Women Act (St. 2018, c. 155), repealing Massachusetts's 173-year-old criminal abortion ban (G.L. c. 272, § 19) and other antiquated laws targeting women's health and sexuality. *Sources — St. 2018, c. 155, § 2, Section 2, [Massachusetts Legislature](https://malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2018/Chapter155)* - **December 29, 2020** — The ROE Act (St. 2020, c. 263) took effect, striking and replacing G.L. c. 112, §§ 12K–12U. Key changes: codified the right to abortion as an affirmative statutory protection; authorized PAs, NPs, and nurse midwives to perform abortions before 24 weeks; eliminated the 24-hour waiting period; removed the mandatory ultrasound framework; added post-24-week exceptions for mental health and grave fetal diagnosis; authorized minors 16+ to consent without parental involvement; and eliminated all criminal penalties from the abortion code. *Sources — St. 2020, c. 263, [Massachusetts Legislature](https://budget.digital.mass.gov/summary/fy21/outside-section/section-40-reproductive-rights-roe-act-a)* - **June 24, 2022** — The U.S. Supreme Court decided Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, overturning Roe v. Wade. Massachusetts abortion rights were unaffected because of the independent state constitutional protection in Moe (1981) and the statutory ROE Act. Governor Charlie Baker issued Executive Order 600 protecting abortion providers and patients from out-of-state investigations. *Sources — Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Org., 597 U.S. 215 (2022), [Justia](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/597/19-1392/)* - **July 6, 2022** — Attorney General Maura Healey issued a consumer advisory warning patients about 'crisis pregnancy centers' that do not provide abortion or comprehensive reproductive care, and may use deceptive tactics. *Sources — Mass. Attorney General Consumer Advisory (July 6, 2022), [Mass.gov](https://www.mass.gov/news/ag-healey-warns-patients-about-crisis-pregnancy-centers)* - **July 29, 2022** — Governor Charlie Baker signed the Shield Law (St. 2022, c. 127), An Act Expanding Protections for Reproductive and Gender-Affirming Care. The law protects providers and patients from out-of-state investigations, subpoenas, and extradition; creates a civil cause of action against 'abusive litigation'; mandates private insurance coverage of abortion without cost-sharing; requires public university medication abortion readiness plans; and establishes a statewide standing order for emergency contraception. *Sources — St. 2022, c. 127, [Massachusetts Legislature](https://malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2022/Chapter127)* - **April 10, 2023** — Governor Maura Healey issued Executive Order 609, confirming that the Shield Law's protections extend to medication abortion including mifepristone and misoprostol, and announcing the state's purchase of approximately 15,000 doses of mifepristone as a stockpile. *Sources — Mass. Exec. Order No. 609 (April 10, 2023), Section 1, [Mass.gov](https://www.mass.gov/executive-orders/no-609-protecting-access-to-medication-abortion-services-in-the-commonwealth)* - **June 24, 2024** — Governor Healey issued Executive Order 633, Protecting Access to Emergency Abortion Care in Massachusetts, reaffirming that state law protects the right to emergency abortion care. *Sources — Mass. Exec. Order No. 633 (June 24, 2024), [Mass.gov](https://www.mass.gov/executive-orders/no-633-protecting-access-to-emergency-abortion-care-in-massachusetts)* - **August 7, 2025** — Governor Maura Healey signed the Shield Law 2.0 (St. 2025, c. 16), An Act Strengthening Health Care Protections in the Commonwealth, which further fortified reproductive health care protections by prohibiting collection of individually identifiable abortion data; excluding provider personal information from public records; extending non-cooperation mandates to all state and local agencies; allowing prescription labels with practice names instead of individual prescriber names; and excluding certain medications from the prescription drug monitoring program. *Sources — St. 2025, c. 16, [Massachusetts Legislature](https://malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2025/Chapter16)* - **July 4, 2026** — The One Big Beautiful Bill Act's Medicaid 'defund' provision (Pub. L. No. 119-21, § 71113) expired by its own one-year term. The provision, enacted July 4, 2025, had barred federal Medicaid reimbursement to 'prohibited entities' — abortion providers that received more than $800,000 in Medicaid funds in fiscal year 2023 — including most Planned Parenthood affiliates. Planned Parenthood Federation of America v. Kennedy, No. 1:25-cv-11913 (D. Mass.), obtained a preliminary injunction blocking the provision, but the First Circuit reversed that injunction in December 2025 (Nos. 25-1698, 25-1755), allowing the defund to take effect for the remainder of its term. With the provision expired, federal Medicaid reimbursement to affected Massachusetts providers has resumed. The episode did not alter Massachusetts law: MassHealth coverage of medically necessary abortion is a state-constitutional requirement under Moe and is funded with state dollars, so the federal restriction affected reimbursement streams to providers rather than patients' entitlement to covered care. *Sources — National Health Law Program, OBBBA's Medicaid Abortion Provider 'Defund': An Overview, [National Health Law Program](https://healthlaw.org/obbbas-medicaid-abortion-provider-defund-an-overview/) · Planned Parenthood Fed'n of Am. v. Kennedy, Nos. 25-1698, 25-1755 (1st Cir. Dec. 2025), [United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit](https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/first-circuit-overturns-preliminary-injunction-blocking-law-defunding-planned-parenthood.pdf)* - **July 22, 2026** — The Massachusetts House of Representatives passed H.5595 (the Prioritizing Patient Access to Care Act) on a 119-33 vote, which would remove the four specific statutory exceptions for abortion after 24 weeks and instead allow physicians to provide post-24-week abortion based on their professional medical judgment. The bill moved to the Senate for consideration before the July 31 legislative session deadline. *Sources — Bill H.5595, 194th General Court (2026), [Massachusetts Legislature](https://malegislature.gov/Bills/194/H5595)* ## Pending changes ### H.5595 — Prioritizing Patient Access to Care Act (Legislation) **Status.** Passed House 119-33 on July 22, 2026; pending in Senate as of July 28, 2026 with legislative session ending July 31, 2026. Senate healthcare point person Sen. Cindy Friedman stated the Senate is working on the bill. Would remove the current four enumerated exceptions for post-24-week abortion (life, physical health, mental health, lethal or grave fetal diagnosis) and replace them with a general standard allowing a licensed physician to perform an abortion after 24 weeks based on their professional medical judgment. Would make Massachusetts one of the few states with no statutory gestational restrictions on abortion. *Sources — Bill H.5595, 194th General Court, [Massachusetts Legislature](https://malegislature.gov/Bills/194/H5595)* ### H.1991 / S.1579 — Eliminating Barriers to Abortion Access for Young People (Legislation) **Status.** Referred to committee; S.1579 discharged to Judiciary Committee December 2025; hearing held June 2025. Not passed as of July 2026. Would amend G.L. c. 112, §§ 12F and 12R to eliminate the parental consent requirement for minors under 16, removing the judicial bypass process. Minors of any age would be able to consent to abortion on their own. *Sources — Bill S.1579, 194th General Court, [Massachusetts Legislature](https://malegislature.gov/Bills/194/S1579)* ### Louisiana v. FDA, No. 26-30203 (5th Cir.) — federal mifepristone telehealth and pharmacy dispensing case (Litigation) **Status.** On May 1, 2026, a Fifth Circuit panel stayed the FDA's 2023 authorizations permitting mifepristone to be dispensed via telehealth and through retail pharmacies, holding Louisiana was likely to succeed on its Administrative Procedure Act claim. On May 14, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Danco Laboratories, LLC v. Louisiana, No. 25A1207, stayed the Fifth Circuit's order pending disposition of the appeal in the Fifth Circuit and of any timely certiorari petition, with Justices Thomas and Alito dissenting. Telehealth prescribing and mail/pharmacy dispensing therefore remain available nationwide while the merits appeal proceeds. If the Fifth Circuit's stay is ultimately reinstated or Louisiana prevails on the merits, the FDA would be required to restore an in-person dispensing requirement for mifepristone nationwide. That federal requirement would override Massachusetts's telehealth-friendly regime for medication abortion as a practical matter, notwithstanding G.L. c. 112, § 12L and the Shield Law. Massachusetts's mifepristone stockpile (approximately 15,000 doses, purchased under Executive Order 609) and its executive orders could mitigate but not fully offset the loss, and Massachusetts providers might shift to misoprostol-only regimens. Massachusetts state law would continue to permit medication abortion in all events. *Sources — Danco Laboratories, LLC v. Louisiana, Nos. 25A1207 & 25A1208 (U.S. May 14, 2026), Order on application for stay, [Supreme Court of the United States](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25a1207_21p3.pdf) · Louisiana v. FDA, No. 26-30203 (5th Cir. May 1, 2026), [KFF](https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/louisiana-v-fda-access-to-mifepristone-back-at-the-supreme-court/)* ### Potential Comstock Act enforcement by federal executive branch (Litigation) **Status.** The U.S. Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel opined in December 2022 that the Comstock Act does not prohibit mailing abortion drugs where the sender lacks intent of unlawful use. A change in administration could reverse this interpretation. If a future administration interprets the Comstock Act to prohibit mailing of abortion medication regardless of state law, Massachusetts's shield laws and medication abortion access through the mail could face federal preemption challenges. *Sources — 18 U.S.C. § 1461, [U.S. Congress](https://www.mass.gov/info-details/massachusetts-law-about-abortion)* ## Key authorities - **Moe v. Secretary of Administration and Finance** — 382 Mass. 629, 417 N.E.2d 387 (1981) _(Case)_ · [law.justia.com/cases/massachusetts…](https://law.justia.com/cases/massachusetts/supreme-court/1981/382-mass-629-2.html) The foundational state constitutional case: the SJC held that Article 10 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights protects the right to abortion, including a right to state Medicaid funding for medically necessary abortions. - **ROE Act (St. 2020, c. 263)** — Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 112, §§ 12K–12R _(Statute)_ · [malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/Pa…](https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXVI/Chapter112/Section12M) The current operative abortion statute: codifies the right to abortion, authorizes multiple clinician types, sets the 24-week framework with post-24-week exceptions, eliminates the waiting period, and contains no criminal penalties. - **Massachusetts Shield Law** — Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 12, §§ 11I½, 11I¾; St. 2022, c. 127 _(Statute)_ · [malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2022/Chapter127](https://malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2022/Chapter127) The first-in-the-nation shield law protecting providers, patients, and helpers from out-of-state investigations, subpoenas, extradition, and abusive litigation related to lawful reproductive health care. - **Shield Law 2.0** — St. 2025, c. 16 _(Statute)_ · [malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2025/Chapter16](https://malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2025/Chapter16) Strengthened shield protections by prohibiting collection of individually identifiable abortion data, extending non-cooperation mandates, and protecting provider privacy in prescribing. - **Insurance Coverage Mandate** — St. 2022, c. 127, §§ 7–8 (amending Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 32A, § 17C) _(Statute)_ · [malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2022/Chapter127](https://malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2022/Chapter127) Requires all fully insured health plans in Massachusetts, including MassHealth and ConnectorCare, to cover abortion and abortion-related care without cost-sharing. - **Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts v. Attorney General** — 424 Mass. 586, 677 N.E.2d 101 (1997) _(Case)_ · [caselaw.findlaw.com/ma-supreme-judicial-court/1418051.html](https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ma-supreme-judicial-court/1418051.html) SJC upheld one-parent consent requirement for minors but struck down the two-parent consent requirement as an undue burden under the state constitution. - **Commonwealth v. Cass** — 392 Mass. 799, 467 N.E.2d 1324 (1984) _(Case)_ · [law.justia.com/cases/massachusetts…](https://law.justia.com/cases/massachusetts/supreme-court/1984/392-mass-799-2.html) Held that a viable fetus is a 'person' for purposes of the vehicular homicide statute, establishing the viability-line fetal homicide rule in Massachusetts. - **Commonwealth v. Lawrence** — 404 Mass. 378, 536 N.E.2d 571 (1989) _(Case)_ · [law.justia.com/cases/massachusetts…](https://law.justia.com/cases/massachusetts/supreme-court/1989/404-mass-378-2.html) Extended fetal homicide liability to involuntary manslaughter and murder where a third party causes the death of a viable fetus. - **Mone v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.** — 368 Mass. 354, 331 N.E.2d 916 (1975) _(Case)_ · [law.justia.com/cases/massachusetts…](https://law.justia.com/cases/massachusetts/supreme-court/1975/368-mass-354-2.html) Held that a viable fetus is a 'person' for purposes of the Massachusetts wrongful death statute, allowing civil recovery for third-party-caused fetal death. - **Thibert v. Milka** — 419 Mass. 693, 646 N.E.2d 1025 (1995) _(Case)_ · [law.justia.com/cases/massachusetts…](https://law.justia.com/cases/massachusetts/supreme-court/volumes/419/419mass693.html) Clarified that no wrongful death action exists for a non-viable fetus not born alive; viability is the threshold for fetal wrongful death claims. - **McCullen v. Coakley** — 573 U.S. 464 (2014) _(Case)_ · [supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/573/464](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/573/464/) U.S. Supreme Court struck down Massachusetts's 35-foot fixed buffer zone around abortion clinics as violative of the First Amendment; the clinic-access obstruction statute remains in force. - **Repeal of pre-Roe criminal ban** — St. 2018, c. 155, § 2 _(Statute)_ · [malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2018/Chapter155](https://malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2018/Chapter155) Repealed the 1845 criminal abortion ban (G.L. c. 272, § 19), eliminating the last vestige of criminal abortion prohibition in Massachusetts and preventing any zombie law revival. - **Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, Article 10** — Mass. Const. pt. 1, art. 10 _(Constitution)_ · [malegislature.gov/Laws/Constitution](https://malegislature.gov/Laws/Constitution) The due process clause of the Massachusetts Constitution, interpreted by the SJC in Moe to protect the right to abortion as a fundamental right independent of federal constitutional protection. - **Executive Order 609** — Mass. Exec. Order No. 609 (April 10, 2023) _(Agency guidance)_ · [mass.gov/executive-orders/no…](https://www.mass.gov/executive-orders/no-609-protecting-access-to-medication-abortion-services-in-the-commonwealth) Confirmed that the Shield Law protects medication abortion including mifepristone; initiated state stockpile of 15,000 mifepristone doses. ## Research notes > Overall confidence: High. Analysis current as of July 28, 2026; research completed July 28, 2026. Re-verify the status of H.5595 and S.1579/H.1991 after the July 31, 2026 legislative session deadline. Confirm whether the informed-consent form prescribed by the Commissioner of Public Health contains any scripted language beyond general informed consent. Monitor the Fifth Circuit's merits disposition in Louisiana v. FDA, No. 26-30203 (the Supreme Court stayed the panel's order on May 14, 2026 in Danco Laboratories, LLC v. Louisiana, No. 25A1207, but the stay lasts only through the appeal and any certiorari petition), along with any Comstock Act enforcement changes at the federal level, as both could materially alter the availability of medication abortion via mail regardless of Massachusetts law. Confirm whether any Massachusetts municipality has enacted a local abortion-related ordinance since the research date. The fetal homicide case law (Cass, Lawrence) is viability-dependent and limited to third-party actors, but editors should monitor any legislative attempts to codify or expand fetal personhood in the General Laws. Unresolved points: The exact contents of the informed consent form prescribed by the Commissioner of Public Health under G.L. c. 112, § 12R were not directly reviewed; the form itself was not located in a primary source. — The status of H.5595 in the Massachusetts Senate as of the final day of the 2026 legislative session (July 31, 2026) could not be confirmed — the research date is July 28, 2026, and the legislative session ends July 31, 2026. — The precise scope of the FDA REMS for mifepristone is subject to ongoing litigation and potential administrative change; what is described reflects the current legal framework as of July 2026 but could shift rapidly. — Whether any Massachusetts municipality has enacted a local ordinance restricting abortion access, abortion travel, or abortion-related speech was not comprehensively surveyed for all 351 cities and towns. — The interaction between the Massachusetts Shield Law's non-cooperation provisions and the federal Extradition Clause has not been litigated and remains legally uncertain..