On 7/24/25, Robert W. Joyce submitted the following letter to Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly (MLW) for consideration to publish as a letter to the editor. The proposed title was Where’s the Balance?. The letter was published in the 8/11/25 edition of MLW under this title:
Attorney: MCLE, Lawyers Weekly ‘failing badly’ on abortion issue.
Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) claims to be about fairness and balance. With respect to abortion and reproductive rights, however, it is failing badly. The same can rightly be said about Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly (MLW).
Several years ago, MCLE informed the Pro Life Legal Defense Fund (PLLDF) that a program on pro-life law would have to be balanced to include the pro-choice perspective. It is curious, therefore, that the entire faculty of MCLE’s program titled Snapshot of Abortion Laws in America 2025 appears to be pro-choice.
One faculty member is the former Chief External Affairs Officer of the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts. The other two are Co-Directors of the Law Program on Reproductive Justice at Boston University School of Law, and have each published writings expressing support for abortion. One has called suggestions that abortion causes negative mental health consequences “debunked claims.” She makes this assertion despite SCOTUS’ warning that there is a risk of “devastating psychological consequences” to a woman who “may elect an abortion, only to discover later…that her decision was not fully informed.” Planned Parenthood of Southeastern PA. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), at 882. The other has written that abortion “protects maternal and child health,” without ever confronting the obvious tension between protecting the health of a child and terminating his or her life.
MCLE’s former requirement of balance appears to have been abandoned. None of the faculty members of its Snapshot of Abortion Laws in America 2025 program can be expected to advocate a pro-life position, and no pro-life attorney has been given a seat at the table.
It seems that MCLE believes that pro-life attorneys have nothing significant to say about abortion law in America in 2025.
MLW has matched MCLE in its unbalanced consideration of abortion rights. Within the last year, MLW disregarded the rights of parents and the unborn by refusing to publish PLLDF’s letter to the editor on the grounds that it did “not involve a live legal issue, nor [was] it an analysis of a legal issue,” nor did it involve a “current legal controversy” relevant to its readership.
But PLLDF’s proposed letter had argued that both mothers and fathers have a right to protect their unborn children, and noted that SCOTUS has found that men have a constitutional right to procreate. It also cited a 1974 Supreme Judicial Court dissent (significantly pre-Dobbs) which declared that men can have a legitimate interest in abortion disputes, and that fathers have relevant fundamental familial rights that are both protected by the Constitution and are as old as civilization itself.
Contrary to MLW’s assertions, PLLDF’s letter involved both live legal issues and current controversies that are—or should be—relevant to its readership.
Massachusetts lawyers might disagree about abortion rights but there should be no disagreement that both sides should have a place at the podium. MCLE and MLW should assure them both a voice in future programs and/or publications.
Robert W. Joyce, Esq.
Newton