Massachusetts Law About Abortion
- MGL c.112, s.12I Right of refusal of medical staff
- MGL c.112, s.12J Experimentation on fetuses prohibited
- MGL c.112, s.12K Definitions
- MGL c.112, s.12N Punishment for violation of 12L or 12M
- MGL c.112, s.12O Protection of unborn child
- MGL c.112, s.12P Preservation of life and health of child
- MGL c.112, s.12Q Should be in hospital after 13th week
- MGL c.112, s.12R Written statement of reasons for 12M
- MGL c.112, s.12S Consent; Parental consent for minors
- MGL c.112, s.12T Punishment for violation of 12O-12R
- MGL c.112, s.12U Enjoining performance of abortion
- MGL c.266, s.120E1/2 Obstructing Entry to or Departure from Medical Facilities; Penalties; Injunctive Relief. Held unconstitutional under McCullen v. Coakley, below.
- MGL c.272, s.19-21B Punishment for Procuring or Advertising Abortion, or Selling Abortion Instruments; Privately Controlled Hospital not Required to Perform Abortions
- 109 CMR 11.07 Department of Youth Services—Client Medical Care—Abortion
- 110 CMR 11.07 Department of Social Services—Medical Authorizations--Abortion
- 130 CMR 484 Division of Medical Assistance - Abortion Services for Medical Assistance Recipients
- 18 USC 248 Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances
- 18 USC 1531 Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003
- 42 USC 300a-6 Prohibition Against Funding Programs Using Abortion as Family Planning Method
- 42 USC 300a-7 Sterilization or Abortion
Superior Court Standing Order 5-81: Uniform Procedures Regarding Petitions for Abortion Authorization Under GL c.112, s.12
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) The court held that a woman's constitutional right to privacy encompassed her decision to terminate a pregnancy. The right was not unrestricted as states have an interest in regulating abortions during the later stages of pregnancy.
Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 US 124 (April 18, 2007). In a sharply divided 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court upheld a federal law prohibiting so-called "partial birth" abortion.
McCullen v. Coakley, 573 U.S.__ (June 26, 2014). The Massachusetts abortion clinic buffer zone, MGL c.266, s.120E1/2, held unconstutional. "The buffer zones burden substantially more speech than necessary to achieve the Commonwealth's asserted interests... Given the vital First Amendment interests at stake, it is not enough for Massachusetts simply to say that other approaches have not worked."
Moe v. Sec. of Admin. and Finance, 382 Mass. 629 (1981). "A statutory restriction on the funding of abortions under the Massachusetts Medical Assistance Program ... impermissibly burdened a woman's right to decide whether or not to terminate a pregnancy by abortion in violation of the right to due process of law as guaranteed by the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights."
Planned Parenthood of Massachusetts v. Attorney General, 424 Mass. 586, 677 N.E.2d 101 (1997). Court held that statutory requirement that pregnant unmarried minor obtain consent of both parents before obtaining abortion violated due process clause.
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 112 S.Ct. 2791, 120 L.Ed.2d 674 (1992) Pennsylvania abortion statute held valid for 24 hour informed consent, parental consent for minors, and record keeping requirements, but not for spousal notice under due process clause of Federal Constitution's 14th Amendment.
Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, 120 S.Ct. 2597, 147 L.Ed.2d 743 (2000). "Nebraska statute that criminalized performance of any 'partial birth abortion' that was not necessary to save life of mother held to violate Federal Constitution."
Supreme Court's Evolving Rulings on Abortion, NPR. "In more than three decades since its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion, the Supreme Court has weighed in on the issue another two-dozen times. The following timeline details some of the key decisions that have shaped the Court's still-evolving thinking on abortion."
American Jurisprudence 2d, West Group, 1994 with supplement, vol. 1, "Abortion and Birth Control."
Bioethical and Evolutionary Approaches to Medicine and the Law, American Bar Association, 2007.
May It Please the Court: Arguments on Abortion: live recording and transcripts of Supreme Court oral arguments on reproductive rights, Stephanie Guitton and Peter Irons, editors, New Press, 1995 (Book and audiocassettes).
National Survey of State Laws, 6th ed., Gale Group, 2008, chapter 22.
Representing the Child Client, by Michael J. Dale, et al., Lexis, loose-leaf, sec. 3.02[c].
"The Right to Choose, Neutrality, and Abortion Consent in Massachusetts," by Daniel Avila, 38 Suffolk University Law Review 511 (2004). Also available online to library card holders through Hein Online.
Roe v. Wade: United States Supreme Court, Bo Schambelan, editor, Running Press, 1992.
West's Encyclopedia of American Law, West Group, 2004, vol.1, pp.10-21.