Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for co…
The Pregnant Women Health and Safety Act of 2025 amends Title 18 and federal funding conditions for abortion providers. It requires any physician who performs an abortion to hold admitting privileges at a hospital within 15 miles of the physician’s principal office and the abortion site, and to inform the patient which hospital can provide follow-up care.
Progressives emphasize access harms and clinic closures
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill creates new federal criminal prohibitions on physicians and conditions on federal funding for clinics, and it contains some concrete statutory language, but its construction has limited clarity on key definitions, implementation responsibilities, fiscal impacts, and oversight.
The Pregnant Women Health and Safety Act of 2025 amends Title 18 and federal funding conditions for abortion providers.
It requires any physician who performs an abortion to hold admitting privileges at a hospital within 15 miles of the physician’s principal office and the abortion site, and to inform the patient which hospital can provide follow-up care.
Violations are a federal offense punishable by fine or up to two years imprisonment, and women who receive the procedure are exempt from prosecution.
High controversy, criminalization, and federal funding conditions make enactment unlikely absent significant political alignment or compromise.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill creates new federal criminal prohibitions on physicians and conditions on federal funding for clinics, and it contains some concrete statutory language, but its construction has limited clarity on key definitions, implementation responsibilities, fiscal impacts, and oversight.
Progressives emphasize access harms and clinic closures
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize access harms and clinic closures
Likely views the bill as a regulatory barrier targeting abortion access under the guise of safety.
Will be particularly concerned about criminalizing providers and imposing facility standards that could close clinics, especially in rural areas.
Sees legitimate patient-safety goals but worries the measures are blunt and carry high practical and constitutional costs.
Wants evidence that benefits outweigh reduced access and expects legal challenges and operational tradeoffs.
Likely supportive as a measure to protect pregnant women by ensuring clinical accountability and hospital access.
Views federal funding conditions as reasonable oversight of clinics receiving taxpayer support.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
High controversy, criminalization, and federal funding conditions make enactment unlikely absent significant political alignment or compromise.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize access harms and clinic closures
High controversy, criminalization, and federal funding conditions make enactment unlikely absent significant political alignment or comprom…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill creates new federal criminal prohibitions on physicians and conditions on federal funding for clinics, and it contains some concrete statutory language, but its const…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.