Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
This bill makes it unlawful to place deceptive advertising about reproductive health services, specifically prohibiting false claims about offering abortion or contraception services or employing licensed medical personnel. It directs the Federal Trade Commission to issue rules, enforce the prohibition (including against nonprofits), seek civil remedies and penalties, and report to Congress biennially.
Left emphasizes protecting patients from deception; right emphasizes free speech and religious liberty
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive statutory intervention that clearly defines a policy objective and connects enforcement to the FTC framework.
This bill makes it unlawful to place deceptive advertising about reproductive health services, specifically prohibiting false claims about offering abortion or contraception services or employing licensed medical personnel.
It directs the Federal Trade Commission to issue rules, enforce the prohibition (including against nonprofits), seek civil remedies and penalties, and report to Congress biennially.
Penalties may reach the greater of $100,000 (inflation-adjusted) or 50% of the ultimate parent entity’s prior-year revenue.
Technocratic consumer-protection framing helps, but high ideological salience, constitutional risks, and expanded federal reach reduce overall prospects.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive statutory intervention that clearly defines a policy objective and connects enforcement to the FTC framework. It provides concrete remedies and penalties and establishes reporting requirements, while integrating with existing FTC authorities.
Left emphasizes protecting patients from deception; right emphasizes free speech and religious liberty
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Left emphasizes protecting patients from deception; right emphasizes free speech and religious liberty
Likely strongly supportive: views the bill as protecting people seeking reproductive care from deceptive ads and delaying tactics.
Sees FTC enforcement and strong penalties as appropriate responses to protect vulnerable communities, especially those disproportionately harmed after Dobbs.
May note some uncertainty about implementation details.
Generally favorable but cautious: supports consumer-protection aims while worrying about legal clarity and administrative costs.
Sees value in curbing deceptive practices but wants precise definitions, due process safeguards, and limits on overly punitive remedies.
Finds FTC enforcement role reasonable if rules are tightly crafted.
Likely opposed: views the bill as federal overreach that targets faith-based and pro-life organizations.
Sees expansive FTC authority and steep penalties as threats to speech, religious liberty, and nonprofit activity.
Expects litigation and political pushback over scope and constitutionality.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Technocratic consumer-protection framing helps, but high ideological salience, constitutional risks, and expanded federal reach reduce overall prospects.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Left emphasizes protecting patients from deception; right emphasizes free speech and religious liberty
Technocratic consumer-protection framing helps, but high ideological salience, constitutional risks, and expanded federal reach reduce over…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive statutory intervention that clearly defines a policy objective and connects enforcement to the FTC framework. It provides concrete remedies and penal…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.