logo
  • Nonprofit News
  • Management
    • Boards and Governance
    • Communication
      • Framing & Narratives
    • Ethics
    • Financial Management
    • Grassroots Fundraising Journal
    • Leadership
    • Technology
  • Philanthropy
    • Corporate Social Responsibility
    • Donor-Advised Funds
    • Foundations
    • Impact Investing
    • Research
    • Workplace Giving
  • Policy
    • Education
    • Healthcare
    • Housing
    • Government
    • Taxes
  • Economic Justice
    • About
    • Economy Remix
    • Economy Webinars
    • Community Benefits
    • Economic Democracy
    • Environmental Justice
    • Fair Finance
    • Housing Rights
    • Land Justice
    • Poor People’s Rights
    • Tax Fairness
  • Racial Equity
  • Social Movements
    • Community Development
    • Community Organizing
    • Culture Change
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Gender Equality
    • Immigrant Rights
    • Indigenous Rights
    • Labor
    • LGBTQ+
    • Racial Justice
    • Youth Activism
  • About Us
  • Log in
  • CONTENT TYPES
  • Featured Articles
  • Webinars
    • Free Webinars
    • Premium On-Demand Webinars
  • Tiny Spark Podcast
  • Magazine
    • Magazine
    • Leading Edge Membership
Donate
Massachusetts

In the Face of Threats to Roe v. Wade, Massachusetts Gets NASTY

Jason Schneiderman
July 26, 2018
Share40
Email
Tweet
Share
“No,” by Henry Burrows

July 24, 2018; UPI, The Hill, and Time

In the wake of the resignation of Justice Anthony Kennedy from the US Supreme Court, there’s been no little concern over the fate of the Roe v. Wade decision that established that the right to privacy extended to cover a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy. Back in June, Carole Levine said that a willingness to overturn Roe v. Wade was a prerequisite to be on Donald Trump’s list of potential replacements. (Well, the Heritage Foundation and Federalist Society’s list, more or less, but still.) Should the decision be overturned, the legality of abortion will once again devolve to the states—and Massachusetts has become the first state to act to keep it legal in a post-Kennedy, post-Roe world.

The legislature moved with haste to pass S.2260, which strikes from the Massachusetts General Laws several rules against “procuring a miscarriage” and other language that would prohibit an abortion. Although these statutes, some dating to 1845 or earlier, were considered unenforceable under Roe, they remained on the books nevertheless. This leads to the bill’s new acronymic moniker: the Negating Archaic Statues Targeting Young Women Act, or NASTY Women.

Massachusetts State Senate President Harriette Chandler introduced a bill of this nature years ago, but in the face of the appointment of Brett Kavanaugh, which would move the SCOTUS further to the right, action became imperative. “I think people are beginning to realize these are strange times we live in,” she told Time. “Nothing is impossible, and we’ve got to have a ‘plan B.’ If these laws are enforced, what do we do? We’re not willing to sit back and say, ‘Well, it’s not going to happen here.’ The word for that is denial.”

NASTY Women was declared an “an emergency law, necessary for the immediate preservation of the public health.” Gov. Charlie Baker, a Republican, has already said he’d sign the bill. Time reports that other states, like New Mexico and New York are revving their engines, too.

Because of how deeply blue and pro-choice Massachusetts tends to run, some are questioning how necessary this law is. C.J. Doyle, executive director of the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts, called it “an exercise in posturing and pandering,” since “we’re a very long way from overturning Roe v. Wade.” And, in truth, Roe is pretty popular, even among Republicans. However, since the heir presumptive to Kennedy’s seat, Brett Kavanaugh, has left a clear trail of his opinion on the matter, even if he hasn’t gone on the record, it may be better to be safe than sorry when it comes to preserving a woman’s right to choose.—Jason Schneiderman

Share40
Email
Tweet
Share

About The Author
Jason Schneiderman

Jason Schneiderman joined NPQ in the summer of 2013 after spending some time as a freelancer and consultant. His extensive experience in editing and publishing gives him the skills to keep the site running smoothly.

Related
400 Years after the Mayflower, the Wampanoag Nation Fights for Its Land
By Steve Dubb
November 25, 2020
The Federal Judiciary’s New Take on Reproductive Rights
By Carole Levine
October 14, 2020
Will the Real Amy Coney Barrett Please Stand Up?
By Carole Levine
October 1, 2020
Women’s Healthcare and Reproductive Rights: A Perpetual Target
By Carole Levine
September 3, 2020
Chief Justice Roberts Is Stealthily Winning the Anti-Abortion Fight
By Carole Levine
August 13, 2020
US Supreme Court Upholds Abortion Rights—For Now
By Carole Levine
June 30, 2020

Upcoming Webinars

Group Created with Sketch.
January 21, 2 pm ET

Remaking the Economy

Health, Racial Disparities, and Economic Justice

other posts by The Author
Goodbye to Ajit Pai: Net Neutrality Foe Vows to Go before...
By Jason Schneiderman
December 3, 2020
Freelancers and AB2257: Solving the Gig Worker Protection...
By Jason Schneiderman
September 9, 2020
Hail to the Whozits: Washington’s NFL Team Mulls Name...
By Jason Schneiderman
July 7, 2020
CYNDI SUAREZ
The Nonprofit Racial Leadership Gap: Flipping the Lens
Powerful Interests Seek to Make Puerto Rico the Hong Kong of the...
Moving Beyond the Privilege of White Tears
logo
Donate
  • About
  • Contact
  • Newsletters
  • Write for NPQ
  • Advertise
  • Writers
  • Funders