What 9 Mass. Democrats got right about abortion
Many would never expect a pro-life pastor to say this, but here goes: I am grateful for nine Massachusetts Democrats.
Nine Democratic members of the Massachusetts Legislature not only voted against the Prioritizing Patient Access to Care Act but also voiced strong words against it.
The law removed Massachusetts’ previous restrictions on abortion after 24 weeks, replacing specific statutory criteria with the “professional judgment” of a physician. It passed with overwhelming support and was signed by Gov. Maura Healey on Aug. 10. Yet nine Democrats in one of the bluest states in the Union dared to step out of line.
For years, Americans have been told that abortion is merely a political issue. The Church should avoid it, Democrats must support it, and Republicans should treat it like a hot potato, even as abortion numbers continue increasing despite major pro-life victories under the Trump administration.
These nine Massachusetts Democrats believe their party has gone too far. State Rep. Jeffrey Turco, a Democrat from Winthrop, lamented, “[This law] allows abortion anytime, unrestricted, and in many cases, publicly funded until the moment of birth.” Turco did not stop there: “This new law represents an extremist and dangerous position. This law is barbaric.”
Hold it! So, there is a line in the abortion debate that even some Democrats who generally support abortion rights believe should not be crossed? This raises a question the nation must ask: How far is too far when it comes to abortion?
These nine Democrats recognized that there is a point at which abortion becomes so morally troubling that people of conscience must oppose it. This raises a more fundamental question: If the preborn child deserves protection from abortion at some point, on what basis does he or she deserve that protection?
Consider the change in a child during any week in the womb. The child does not suddenly become a different species between week seven and eight. The child does not become human because the clock has ticked long enough or because he or she has passed through the birth canal.
Has the preborn baby not always been fully human? Is he or she not a child? Scripture does not describe life in the womb as disposable tissue. David prayed, “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb” (Psalm 139:13). Human life in the womb is neither accidental nor invisible to God. It is His workmanship.
State Rep. Alan Silvia, a Democrat from Bristol, insisted, “We go to extraordinary lengths as a society to protect vulnerable life, saving whales and saving strays, yet when it comes to an unborn child, that same sense of protection too often seems to disappear.”
Silvia could have simply voted no and gone about his business. But he spoke out. Why? Perhaps his words reflected the command of Proverbs: “Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute” (Proverbs 31:8). No human being is more voiceless or dependent than a child in the womb.
Laws, votes and debates matter in the continuing quest to protect the truths enshrined in America’s founding documents, namely that we are all “created equal” and “endowed by their Creator” with the unalienable right to life. That right does not come from government. Government’s responsibility is to recognize and protect it.
Yet the struggle of justice against injustice repeatedly turns on one of America’s most consequential constitutional questions: Who is recognized as a person entitled to equal protection under the law?
The word “person” appears in the Fifth and 14th Amendments, both of which prohibit government from depriving any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law. The 14th Amendment also guarantees every person equal protection under the law.
If a preborn baby is a person, then he or she deserves the protection of the constitutional principles upon which our nation was founded. A government committed to equality cannot declare an entire class of living human beings outside the protection of the law merely because they are small, dependent and unable to speak for themselves.
American history demonstrates the danger of allowing those with power to decide which human beings qualify as persons. Tyrannical systems survive by drawing circles of protection around favored groups while excluding others. The language may change, but the pattern remains the same — limit the definition of personhood, then deny rights to those left outside it.
What is the “self-evident” truth proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence? It is that all people are created equal and endowed by their creator (not government) with fundamental rights.
The New Testament also recognizes the personhood of children before birth. When the pregnant Mary visited Elizabeth, “the baby leaped in her womb” (Luke 1:41). Scripture describes John not as a potential person or an impersonal mass of cells, but as a baby responding from within his mother’s womb.
The nine Massachusetts Democrats and their crisis of conscience over abortion drive home the point that America needs a Personhood Clarification Act.
The theory that adding more abortion restrictions will, by itself, save sufficient numbers of lives has fallen short. Restrictions may save some children, and they remain important, but America needs to recover the conviction that every human life deserves protection under the law, including the most vulnerable among us.
I want to thank these nine Massachusetts Democrats.
Thank you for drawing attention to the cause of protecting preborn human life. Thank you for recognizing that government should not authorize patients and doctors to deprive another human being of life based solely on professional judgment. Thank you for demonstrating that conscience can sometimes rise above party loyalty.
Their stand reveals that if there is a point at which abortion goes too far, the nation must ask why. What is the criterion for drawing that line? Size? Age? Location? Development? Dependency? None of those characteristics determine whether someone belongs to the human family.
The question of when it becomes acceptable intentionally to end an innocent human life is itself a barbaric question. If the child is a person outside the womb, it is because he or she was already a living human being inside the womb. Birth changes the child’s location and relationship to the mother. It does not create the child’s humanity.
The Church should not treat this as merely another partisan controversy. Christians are commanded to recognize God’s image in every human life and speak for those who cannot speak for themselves. That responsibility does not disappear when defending the vulnerable becomes politically uncomfortable.
These nine Democrats took an important step by saying that Massachusetts had crossed a line. Now the Church and the nation must have the courage to follow the question to its logical conclusion.
The line protecting innocent human life should begin where that life begins.
Rev. Jim Harden, M.Div. is a medical ethicist, author of the newly published Ethical Theory and Pertinent Standards in Women’s Reproductive Health, and CEO of CompassCare Pregnancy Services. He pioneered the first measurable and repeatable medical model in the pregnancy center movement and has written extensively on medical ethics, pro-life policy, and executive leadership. Rev. Harden has developed materials and strategies used by hundreds of pregnancy centers nationwide, helping them become more effective at serving women and saving babies from abortion.
