Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
The bill amends the Public Health Service Act to require abortion providers affecting interstate or foreign commerce to perform an obstetric ultrasound before obtaining informed consent, display and explain the images and give a medical description (size, cardiac activity, organs). It allows the woman to avert her eyes, exempts life-saving emergency abortions (with provider certification), creates federal civil penalties enforceable by the Attorney General, and provides a private right of action for women harmed by violations.
Progressives see coercive medical interference; conservatives see protection for fetal life.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly defines a substantive policy requiring ultrasounds and associated disclosures prior to informed consent for abortion and establishes civil enforcement tools.
The bill amends the Public Health Service Act to require abortion providers affecting interstate or foreign commerce to perform an obstetric ultrasound before obtaining informed consent, display and explain the images and give a medical description (size, cardiac activity, organs).
It allows the woman to avert her eyes, exempts life-saving emergency abortions (with provider certification), creates federal civil penalties enforceable by the Attorney General, and provides a private right of action for women harmed by violations.
States may impose stricter disclosure or penalty rules; the bill is severable if any part is found unconstitutional.
High controversy and litigation risk, combined with significant enforcement provisions, make enactment unlikely without major political realignment or amendment.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly defines a substantive policy requiring ultrasounds and associated disclosures prior to informed consent for abortion and establishes civil enforcement tools. It supplies several concrete requirements and an emergency exception but omits important operational, fiscal, and procedural detail.
Progressives see coercive medical interference; conservatives see protection for fetal life.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives see coercive medical interference; conservatives see protection for fetal life.
Likely to view this as medically intrusive and a burdensome restriction on abortion access.
They will emphasize the law's potential to chill providers, increase litigation, and lack of broad health exceptions (rape, incest, severe health).
Mixed view: supports informed consent in principle but worries about scope, federalization, and large civil penalties.
Would seek narrower, clearer rules to avoid unintended access barriers or high litigation costs.
Generally favorable: views requirement as protecting fetal life and ensuring women see medical information before consenting.
Appreciates private enforcement and strong civil penalties as deterrents.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
High controversy and litigation risk, combined with significant enforcement provisions, make enactment unlikely without major political realignment or amendment.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives see coercive medical interference; conservatives see protection for fetal life.
High controversy and litigation risk, combined with significant enforcement provisions, make enactment unlikely without major political rea…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly defines a substantive policy requiring ultrasounds and associated disclosures prior to informed consent for abortion and establishes civil enforcement tools.…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.