So now, as August 2026, there are 10 states and Washington, D.C., that have no statutory gestational age limits or restrictions that ban abortion at any point in pregnancy. The states and district that do not enforce a specific gestational limit by law include Alaska, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington, D.C.
In those jurisdictions, decisions regarding killing a baby that has gone past its due date is left to abortionist doctors.
I find it interesting that out of 193 member nations that belong to the United Nations, that only 8 countries allow abortion on request or at the federal level without a statutory gestational limit specified by national law. Only the United States at the federal level, though individual states implement their own restrictions, Australia, Canada, China, Guinea-Bissau, Mexico, South Korea, and Vietnam allow killing a baby that has gone past its due date.
Many other countries around the world that enforce strict gestational limits for elective or early-stage requests, such as 12 to 24 weeks, still permit late-term or post-limit terminations if the pregnant person's life or physical/mental health is endangered, or in cases of severe fetal impairment.
Democrat Gov. Maura Healey, who was met with applause and smiles as she signed away Massachusetts' gestational limits on killing babies, said the law is intended to ensure families facing medical complications late in pregnancy can abort their babies in Massachusetts rather than having to go through the expense of traveling out of state to abort their babies. Those medical complications can include maternal health complications and fatal diagnoses.
Of course, women in Massachusetts, or any of the other 9 states and Washington D.C., can abort their babies for any reason that they want. Whether a woman is not happy with the sex of the baby, if the baby is suspected of being Gay, if the child won't have a desired eye color, or a woman suspects that the baby may be a candidate for gender dysphoria, are all valid reasons for a woman to have an abortion in Massachusetts or any of the other jurisdictions that have no statutory gestational age limits or restrictions that ban abortion at any point in pregnancy.
Can that happen? The answer is yes. Yes. Massachusetts law, like the others, does not restrict abortion based on specific personal reasons like the sex or eye color of the fetus. Abortion decisions are legally left to the individual in consultation with their abortionist professional. The state does not have criminal bans prohibiting abortions due to sex selection or other personal motivations.
Legally, in those jurisdictions, their statutes do not require a patient to disclose or justify their personal motivation, such as fetal sex or characteristics or color of skin or how they feel at the moment, to obtain an abortion. This is considered a part of their medical and personal freedom.
Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey said "the new abortion law will grant medical professionals greater discretion to perform abortions later in pregnancy without facing legal repercussions."
And yes, she is correct. Massachusetts and those other jurisdictions have policies is place that put "reproductive healthcare," which is a silly term since there's nothing "reproductive" about killing babies, decisions in the hands of the patient and their abortionist medical doctors. So no, there is nothing restricting abortions over a women's concern that she may not have a certain type of child.
Of course, since such abortions involve dismemberment of the fetus, and no, I don't know if Planned Parenthood is planning on selling dismembered babies. Frankly, I can't find evidence that Planned Parenthood is planning to sell fetal body parts in Massachusetts or anywhere else.
What's that all about? Well, under United States federal law, selling human fetal tissue is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $500,000. In 2015, undercover videos released by an anti-abortion group called the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) alleged that Planned Parenthood was illegally selling aborted fetal organs for profit.
In the videos, supposedly Planned Parenthood officials were discussing "standard legally compliant programs" where patients could choose to donate fetal tissue for medical research. The monetary figures discussed in the video for body parts were "standard reimbursements" meant to cover the clinic's administrative costs of processing and shipping the tissue. Supposedly, because of the undercover videos, Planned Parenthood later stopped accepting those cost reimbursements to eliminate any further controversy.
Now, just for the record, killing an infant after birth is classified as "infanticide" or homicide, and it is strictly illegal under the criminal laws of all 50 states.
So what is the distinction between "Abortion" and "Infanticide"? Well, infanticide is defined as the taking the life of a child who has been born alive is treated as murder or manslaughter in every jurisdiction, regardless of the child's age or health status. An abortion is the ending of a pregnancy before the fetus can live outside the uterus.
What's that all about? Well, under United States federal law, selling human fetal tissue is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $500,000. In 2015, undercover videos released by an anti-abortion group called the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) alleged that Planned Parenthood was illegally selling aborted fetal organs for profit.
In the videos, supposedly Planned Parenthood officials were discussing "standard legally compliant programs" where patients could choose to donate fetal tissue for medical research. The monetary figures discussed in the video for body parts were "standard reimbursements" meant to cover the clinic's administrative costs of processing and shipping the tissue. Supposedly, because of the undercover videos, Planned Parenthood later stopped accepting those cost reimbursements to eliminate any further controversy.
So what is the distinction between "Abortion" and "Infanticide"? Well, infanticide is defined as the taking the life of a child who has been born alive is treated as murder or manslaughter in every jurisdiction, regardless of the child's age or health status. An abortion is the ending of a pregnancy before the fetus can live outside the uterus.
While "late-term abortion" laws vary significantly by state, federal and state laws draw a definitive legal line at birth, and under federal statutes like the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, any infant who is born alive at any stage of development is legally recognized as a person with full protections under the law.
The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002 established that any infant born alive, including those who survive an attempted abortion, is legally recognized as a "person" under federal law. The debate surrounding this topic has evolved around a newer, separate piece of legislation called the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. The differences in how political parties view this issue involve specific arguments.
Advocates argue that the original Born-Alive Infants Protection Act 2002 law lacks strict enforcement mechanisms to punish doctors who fail to provide care to infants surviving abortions. In the newer version, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, actually seeks to mandate that health care professionals provide the same degree of care given to any other newborn baby, adding criminal penalties and fines for non-compliance. It tells healthcare professionals that they can't just let a baby die.
Supporters say that the updated bill is important as a commonsense measure against infanticide to protect vulnerable human life.
Democrats have a different perspective and see the new legislation as completely unnecessary and redundant, as the intentional killing or neglect of any infant is already illegal and prosecuted as homicide nationwide. Going along with the Democrats are major health organizations that say the new Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act represents government intrusion into medical care because it's "intimidation."
Democrats have a different perspective and see the new legislation as completely unnecessary and redundant, as the intentional killing or neglect of any infant is already illegal and prosecuted as homicide nationwide. Going along with the Democrats are major health organizations that say the new Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act represents government intrusion into medical care because it's "intimidation."
Yes, they say the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act's penalties are designed to intimidate medical providers by mandating healthcare professionals to do everything in the power to keep a child alive. As for that Bill restricting a woman's legal right to access safe reproductive healthcare? No one can explain how that would happen under a Bill that would happen under the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act.
The Bill's key provisions are 1) "Standard of Care" which mandates that any health care practitioner present exercise the same degree of professional care to preserve the life of the child as would be given to any other child born alive at the same gestational age; 2) "Hospital Admission" which requires the immediate admission of the infant to a hospital; 3) "Mandatory Reporting" requires practitioners or employees with knowledge of a failure to comply to immediately report it to law enforcement; 4) "Penalties" imposes criminal penalties (fines and/or up to five years in prison) for practitioners failing to provide care or report violations, and allows for prosecution for murder if someone intentionally kills the child; and 6) "Protection for the Mother" explicitly bars the criminal prosecution of the mother and permits her to bring civil action against a violating practitioner.
Democrats don't agree with the idea that a newborn baby surviving an attempted abortion is a legal person who possesses an inherent right to life and deserves the identical standard of care given to any other newborn. And frankly, I don't understand how they don't understand that.
Tom Correa
