Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
This bill creates a federal criminal prohibition on providing or attempting to provide a chemical abortion unless a licensed healthcare provider physically examines the patient and is physically present where the abortion occurs, and schedules a follow-up visit within 14 days. Violations by providers carry fines up to $1,000 and/or imprisonment up to two years; patients cannot be prosecuted.
Access vs safety: liberals emphasize access loss; conservatives emphasize in‑person safety.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a straightforward criminal-law enactment that clearly defines an offense, penalties, and several key terms and exceptions.
This bill creates a federal criminal prohibition on providing or attempting to provide a chemical abortion unless a licensed healthcare provider physically examines the patient and is physically present where the abortion occurs, and schedules a follow-up visit within 14 days.
Violations by providers carry fines up to $1,000 and/or imprisonment up to two years; patients cannot be prosecuted.
The text defines key terms, includes a narrow life‑saving exception, preserves treatment of ectopic pregnancy, and adds the new section into Title 18, Chapter 74.
High ideological salience, federal expansion into health care, and likely litigation create substantial barriers despite narrow drafting and modest fiscal impact.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a straightforward criminal-law enactment that clearly defines an offense, penalties, and several key terms and exceptions. It integrates into Title 18 and makes appropriate clerical amendments.
Access vs safety: liberals emphasize access loss; conservatives emphasize in‑person safety.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Access vs safety: liberals emphasize access loss; conservatives emphasize in‑person safety.
Likely to oppose the bill strongly as an access‑restricting federal criminal law that targets telemedicine abortion care.
They will emphasize harm to people in rural, low‑income, and medically underserved areas and see criminal penalties for providers as chilling care.
Mixed view: sees legitimacy in ensuring medical oversight for abortion, but worries about federal criminalization, practical access impacts, and enforcement complexity.
Could be open to narrower, more targeted rules or stronger exceptions.
Likely to support the bill as a way to restrict remote provision of abortion drugs and ensure provider oversight.
Views it as protecting fetal life and patient safety by requiring in‑person presence.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
High ideological salience, federal expansion into health care, and likely litigation create substantial barriers despite narrow drafting and modest fiscal impact.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Access vs safety: liberals emphasize access loss; conservatives emphasize in‑person safety.
High ideological salience, federal expansion into health care, and likely litigation create substantial barriers despite narrow drafting an…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a straightforward criminal-law enactment that clearly defines an offense, penalties, and several key terms and exceptions. It integrates into Title 18 and makes ap…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.