Overview
Title
To ensure that women seeking an abortion are notified, before giving informed consent to receive an abortion, of the medical risks associated with the abortion procedure and the major developmental characteristics of the unborn child.
ELI5 AI
The bill wants doctors to show a picture of the baby inside a mom's belly before she decides if she wants an operation to not have the baby anymore, and if doctors don't follow the rules, they can be fined a lot of money.
Summary AI
H. R. 797, titled the "Ultrasounds Save Lives Act of 2025," aims to ensure women seeking an abortion are fully informed about the medical risks and the development of the fetus before giving consent. The bill requires abortion providers to perform an ultrasound and present the results to the woman, along with a signed informed consent form 24 hours before the procedure. It includes penalties for providers who fail to comply and provides a private right of action for women if the requirements are not met. The bill also outlines specific exceptions for medical emergencies and does not impose any penalties on the pregnant women themselves.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
H.R. 797, titled the “Ultrasounds Save Lives Act of 2025,” introduced in the House of Representatives on January 28, 2025, aims to regulate the process of informed consent for women seeking abortions in the United States. The bill mandates that abortion providers perform an ultrasound and obtain a signed informed consent form from the woman at least 24 hours before the abortion procedure. The document must include information about the medical risks associated with the abortion procedure, the developmental characteristics of the unborn child, and the gestational age. The bill outlines penalties for non-compliance, including significant civil penalties for abortion providers, but notably exempts women from any penalties.
Summary of Significant Issues
The bill presents several notable issues. Firstly, the requirement for a signed informed consent form 24 hours before an abortion creates a delay that could be seen as an unnecessary obstacle, especially in cases where urgent medical intervention is required. The lack of exceptions for psychological or emotional conditions under this requirement is ethically contentious, as these factors can significantly influence a woman's decision-making process.
Moreover, the penalties outlined for non-compliance are stringent and include civil penalties up to $250,000 for repeated violations. This could be perceived as excessive and might discourage medical professionals from providing abortion services, potentially affecting access to care. Additionally, the legal language concerning penalties and civil action is complex, possibly leading to confusion for individuals without legal expertise.
Furthermore, the bill's stipulations could lead to conflicts with existing state laws, as different states may already have their own regulations concerning informed consent and abortion procedures.
Impact on the Public
The bill, by requiring a mandatory waiting period and specific consent protocols, could broadly impact women's access to abortion services, potentially creating delays and additional hurdles to obtaining necessary medical care. The passage of this bill could lead to varied outcomes depending on individual circumstances, possibly deterring some women from proceeding with an abortion due to the additional requirements or delays.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Women Seeking Abortions: The bill would require women to undergo an ultrasound and possibly navigate complex consent processes, which may introduce additional emotional and logistical burdens. The lack of consideration for psychological health in the exceptions could be particularly problematic.
Abortion Providers: Medical professionals could face increased legal and financial burdens due to the potential for hefty penalties and complex compliance requirements. This may result in fewer practitioners willing to offer abortion services, impacting overall access to care.
State Governments: The bill could create legal complexities for states with existing laws on informed consent and abortion services. This potential overlap could lead to legal disputes regarding federal and state jurisdiction.
Overall, while intended to enhance the informed consent process, H.R. 797 may create significant barriers for both women seeking abortions and the providers offering these services, potentially impacting access to abortion care across the United States.
Financial Assessment
The bill H. R. 797, known as the "Ultrasounds Save Lives Act of 2025," contains several financial components that revolve around penalties for non-compliance by abortion providers. It is essential to understand how these financial references impact providers and potentially influence broader issues addressed in the bill.
Penalties for Non-Compliance
The bill outlines significant civil penalties for abortion providers who fail to comply with the informed consent requirements. Specifically, Section 2(b)(1)(B) states that the court may impose a civil penalty of not less than $100,000 and not more than $150,000 for each violation in a first proceeding against a provider. This fine escalates in subsequent proceedings, with penalties ranging from $150,001 to $250,000 for each additional violation.
The high financial stakes placed on providers could deter some from offering abortion services due to the risk of substantial economic loss. This situation aligns with one of the bill's identified issues: the potential for these penalties to be deemed excessive, which might discourage medical professionals from practicing and thereby limit access to care for those seeking abortions.
Civil Action and Compensation
The bill also provides a framework for civil suits that can be initiated by women if the requirements are not met. In these proceedings, eligible plaintiffs can seek statutory damages amounting to three times the cost of the abortion, in addition to punitive damages and other compensation for injuries suffered. This provision offers a financial incentive for individuals to pursue legal action if they believe their rights under the bill have been violated.
The financial implications of such civil actions could create a climate of heightened legal scrutiny over medical practices, potentially increasing the operational costs for providers who must ensure rigorous compliance with the law to avoid lawsuits. There is a concern, however, that this aspect might contribute to another issue regarding the complexity of legal language surrounding penalties and civil action, potentially leading to misunderstandings and misapplications of the law.
Interaction with State Laws
While the bill provides grounds for financial penalties and actions at the federal level, it does not preempt state laws that may offer more extensive disclosure requirements or penalties, as specified in Section 2(c). This dual system of federal and state regulations could lead to confusion about compliance, especially given the substantial financial repercussions outlined. Providers must navigate this legal landscape carefully, balancing both state and federal requirements to avoid financially crippling penalties.
In summary, the financial references in H. R. 797 are significant and far-reaching, influencing both the behavior of abortion providers and the accessibility of services. The penalties established by the bill aim to ensure compliance with its provisions but carry the potential risk of limiting service availability due to their severity. The interplay between federal fines and state laws adds another layer of complexity in the financial and legal obligations faced by healthcare providers in this domain.
Issues
The requirement for a signed Informed Consent Authorization form 24 hours before an abortion (Section 2(a)(3)) imposes a delay that may be considered an unnecessary obstacle, especially in urgent situations where time is critical for the health of the woman.
The lack of exceptions for psychological or emotional conditions under the informed consent requirements (Section 2(a)(4)) could be ethically problematic, as these are significant health considerations that could impact the woman's decision.
The penalties outlined for abortion providers, including civil penalties of up to $250,000 for subsequent violations (Section 2(b)(1)), may be deemed excessive and could deter medical professionals from practicing, potentially limiting access to care.
The complex legal language regarding penalties and civil action (Section 2(b)(2)), including the calculation of damages and attorney fees, could be difficult for non-legal professionals to understand, potentially resulting in confusion or misapplication of the law.
The potential conflict or overlap with existing state laws addressing informed consent and medical abortion practices (Section 2(c)) could lead to legal confusion about whether federal or state laws take precedence, complicating compliance for providers.
The mandate for an ultrasound and the sharing of results before attempting to perform an abortion (Section 2(a)(2)(A)) could be seen as an intrusion on personal medical decisions and may raise ethical concerns regarding bodily autonomy.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section provides the official short title of the act, stating that it can be referred to as the “Ultrasounds Save Lives Act of 2025.”
2. Requirement of informed consent Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The bill section requires abortion providers to obtain informed consent from women seeking an abortion by performing an ultrasound, explaining potential risks, and having the woman sign a consent form at least 24 hours before the procedure. It outlines penalties for non-compliance, including civil penalties and private lawsuits, but exempts women from penalties.
Money References
- (B) PENALTY.—In a civil action under subparagraph (A), the court may, to vindicate the public interest, assess a civil penalty against the abortion provider in an amount— (i) not less than $100,000 and not more than $150,000, for each such violation that is adjudicated in the first proceeding against such abortion provider under this subsection; or (ii) not less than $150,001 and not more than $250,000, for each such violation that is adjudicated in a subsequent proceeding against such abortion provider under this subsection.