Summary#
This bill would add a new informed-consent rule to the Public Health Service Act requiring an ultrasound and a review of that ultrasound before a woman gives informed consent for an abortion. The rule says the provider must perform the ultrasound, show the images, and describe what is visible. The bill includes a limited emergency exception, civil penalties enforced by the U.S. Attorney General, and a private right of action for women.
- Main change: Abortion providers “in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce” must perform an obstetric ultrasound, display the images to the pregnant woman, give a simultaneous explanation, and provide a written medical description of what the images show (size, cardiac activity if visible, external limbs and internal organs if viewable).
- Emergency exception: The ultrasound requirement does not apply if an abortion is necessary to save the woman’s life; the provider must put a truthful certification of the medical circumstances in the medical file.
- Penalties and enforcement: The Attorney General may sue providers for civil penalties — up to $100,000 for a first adjudicated violation and up to $250,000 for later violations — and must notify the state medical licensing authority when a penalty is assessed.
- Private lawsuits: A woman who received an abortion in violation of the law may sue the provider for actual and punitive damages; the bill defines actual damages as objectively verifiable money losses.
- Preemption: The bill says it does not override state laws that impose disclosure requirements or penalties that are more extensive than this federal law.
- What is unclear: The bill does not explain the practical meaning of “in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce,” how providers must comply when ultrasound images cannot show the listed features, or the law’s start date and administrative procedures.
What it means for you#
- Women seeking abortions: Before giving informed consent, you would be offered an obstetric ultrasound, shown the images, and given an explanation and written medical description of what is visible. You may choose to look away from the images and would not be penalized for doing so.
- Unemancipated minors: The bill defines “woman” to include females who have not reached the age of majority, so the ultrasound and description requirements apply to minors as written. The bill does not change state rules about parental notification or consent.
- Abortion providers: Providers covered by the law must perform an ultrasound (or have an agent under supervision do so), display and describe the images to the patient, and add a written description to the record. They must keep a certification in the record if they use the emergency exception. Failure to comply can lead to federal civil lawsuits, large monetary penalties, and notification to state licensing boards.
- Hospitals and clinics: Clinics may need ultrasound equipment, trained staff to perform and explain ultrasounds, and record-keeping systems to store the required descriptions and emergency certifications.
- Federal government (Department of Justice): The Attorney General would have authority to bring civil enforcement suits and to assess penalties under the law.
- States: States may keep or add their own disclosure rules that are stricter than this law; those state rules would not be preempted.
Expenses#
No publicly available information.
- Possible costs to providers and clinics: buying or maintaining ultrasound equipment, training staff, and additional time per patient for image review and documentation.
- Possible legal costs: more civil litigation against providers (defense and potential damages), and administrative costs for providers responding to enforcement.
- Possible federal costs: the Department of Justice would incur enforcement costs to investigate and bring civil actions.
- Possible state costs: state medical boards may receive more notifications and could incur costs if they take follow-up actions.
- The bill does not include a fiscal estimate or specify who must pay for equipment, training, or increased staffing.
Proponents' View#
- The bill appears intended to ensure that women receive detailed, directly observable information (an ultrasound image and explanation) before consenting to an abortion.
- Supporters may argue this strengthens informed consent by giving patients a clearer medical picture of the pregnancy.
- The emergency exception aims to preserve access to abortion when needed to save a woman’s life, while keeping a documentation requirement for such cases.
- The private right of action and civil penalties could be seen as tools to enforce compliance when violations occur.
Opponents' View#
- One concern is that the bill imposes procedural and documentation requirements that could increase costs and workload for providers and clinics, potentially reducing access, especially in low-resource settings.
- The civil penalty amounts are large and could expose providers to significant financial risk and increased litigation.
- It is unclear how the law would apply when an ultrasound cannot show the specific features listed (very early pregnancy, poor imaging), and the bill does not specify acceptable alternatives.
- The scope phrase “in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce” is not defined in the bill text, leaving uncertainty about which providers are covered.
- The bill requires minors to be treated identically to adults for the ultrasound and description requirements, without explaining interaction with state minor-consent or parental-notice laws.
- The bill does not include a fiscal estimate or explain who must pay for equipment, staff, or training needed to meet the requirements.