.png)
H4122 would add new restrictions to Chapter 111 and Chapter 112 that punish licensed clinicians for offering medication abortion reversal and impose deceptive-trade-practice liability on providers of conscience-based services; the American Council urges its defeat.
OUR POSITIONH4122 is a two-part bill with serious implications for conscience rights, patient choice, and the integrity of the licensing system. The American Council opposes it and urges every constituent to contact their legislator and ask that it be defeated.
Section 1 of the bill adds a new section 249 to Chapter 111 of the General Laws. That section deems it an unfair or deceptive act under Chapter 93A for any person to advertise that they provide abortions, emergency contraceptives, or referrals for those services when they know or reasonably should know that they do not provide them. On its face this sounds neutral, but in practice it targets faith-based pregnancy resource centers whose mission is precisely to offer alternatives to abortion. Advertising that one serves women in pregnancy-related need, without offering abortion or emergency contraception, is not deception. It is the straightforward exercise of a conscience-formed mission. Attaching Chapter 93A liability to that speech is, in our view, a serious threat to the free operation of religious and pro-life ministries in Massachusetts.
Section 2 of the bill adds a new section 12L1/2 to Chapter 112, prohibiting any person licensed under that chapter from providing, prescribing, administering, or attempting medication abortion reversal, defined as administering, dispensing, distributing, or delivering a drug with the intent to interfere with, reverse, or halt a medication abortion. A licensed clinician who violates this prohibition becomes subject to disciplinary action by their licensing board. This is a direct intrusion of the legislature into a clinical relationship. A woman who has begun a medication abortion and changes her mind deserves the right to seek help, and a licensed clinician who shares her convictions about the value of that life deserves the freedom to try to help her. The bill forecloses both.
We recognize that the science around medication abortion reversal is actively debated. But the answer to scientific uncertainty is more research and informed patient consent, not a statutory prohibition backed by professional discipline. When the state uses a licensing board as the enforcement mechanism for ideologically contested medical decisions, it coerces clinicians and silences a category of care before the evidence is even fully in.
The American Council holds that every human life has dignity from conception, that conscience rights for medical professionals are not a courtesy but a moral necessity, and that the government should not use trade-practice law or professional licensing to punish those who act on those convictions. H4122 does both. We ask every person of good will to contact their state legislator today and urge a no vote on this bill.
H4122 was referred to committee and received a legislative hearing on July 10, 2025, signaling that House leadership gave it a formal airing rather than letting it expire quietly. The bill's reporting deadline was extended multiple times, most recently to January 6, 2026, which indicates ongoing legislative engagement rather than abandonment. On March 16, 2026 the bill was accompanied by a study order directing H5234, a procedural posture that typically removes a bill from the active floor calendar and places it under further review, suggesting its immediate path to a floor vote has narrowed. Because a study order keeps the underlying policy question open rather than killing it outright, constituent contact with legislators and committee members remains consequential now, before any further action is taken on either measure.