Bill would help protect abortion rights in Massachusetts should Roe v. Wade be overturned

Among the things the state legislature just hates to do is formally repeal laws that have been overturned by court rulings or newer laws. Rather than get stricken from the law books, these measures just sit there, dormant, for decades, mostly unnoticed except by the occasional historian or blogger. But a bill passed by the state Senate and now in the House would formally repeal a series of currently non-enforced laws that could suddenly be used to ban not just abortions and contraception in Massachusetts but even articles telling women where to get them, should Roe v. Wade be overturned.

S.2260, designated an act "negating archaic statutes targeting young women," and originally sponsored by 28 legislators, including Sen. Sonia Chang-Diaz, would delete several sections of the state morality code (of course we have one) that, if ever enforced, would let officials bar abortions and the use of contraception by unmarried women.

The laws as they stand now also allow for five-year prison sentences for anybody convicted of writing articles telling women where they could get an abortion or contraception; the bill would strike this provision as well.

The bill would also amend a later state law that currently might allow stricter limits on when a woman could get an abortion and under what circumstances.

Unmarried women's right to birth control was set in a 1972 Supreme Court case involving this very statute (Eisenstadt v. Baird), but a court willing to throw out Roe might be willing to consider tossing this ruling as well.

S.2260 has a preamble:

Whereas. The deferred operation of this act would tend to defeat its purpose, which is to negate archaic statutes targeting young women, therefore, it is hereby declared to be an emergency law, necessary for the immediate preservation of the public health.

The Senate passed the bill 38-0 in January. The Joint Committee on Health Care Financing voted favorably on the measure in April; it is now before the House Ways and Means Committee.