119-hr12

[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 12 Introduced in House

    (IH) ]

<DOC>

119th CONGRESS
 1st Session
 H. R. 12

To protect a person's ability to determine whether to continue or end a 
 pregnancy, and to protect a health care provider's ability to provide 
 abortion services.

_______________________________________________________________________

 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 June 24, 2025

 Ms. Chu (for herself, Ms. Lois Frankel of Florida, Ms. Pressley, Ms. 
Escobar, Ms. Adams, Mr. Aguilar, Mr. Amo, Ms. Ansari, Mr. Auchincloss, 
 Ms. Balint, Ms. Barragan, Mrs. Beatty, Mr. Bell, Mr. Bera, Mr. Beyer, 
 Mr. Bishop, Ms. Bonamici, Mr. Boyle of Pennsylvania, Ms. Brown, Ms. 
 Brownley, Ms. Budzinski, Ms. Bynum, Mr. Carbajal, Mr. Carter of 
Louisiana, Mr. Casar, Mr. Case, Mr. Casten, Ms. Castor of Florida, Mr. 
Castro of Texas, Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick, Ms. Clark of Massachusetts, 
Ms. Clarke of New York, Mr. Cleaver, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Conaway, Mr. Costa, 
 Ms. Craig, Ms. Crockett, Mr. Crow, Ms. Davids of Kansas, Mr. Davis of 
 Illinois, Ms. Dean of Pennsylvania, Ms. DeGette, Ms. DeLauro, Ms. 
 DelBene, Mr. Deluzio, Mr. DeSaulnier, Ms. Dexter, Mrs. Dingell, Mr. 
 Doggett, Ms. Elfreth, Mr. Evans of Pennsylvania, Mr. Fields, Mrs. 
 Fletcher, Mr. Foster, Mrs. Foushee, Ms. Friedman, Mr. Frost, Mr. 
Garamendi, Ms. Garcia of Texas, Mr. Garcia of California, Mr. Garcia of 
Illinois, Ms. Perez, Mr. Golden of Maine, Mr. Goldman of New York, Mr. 
Gomez, Ms. Goodlander, Mr. Gottheimer, Mr. Green of Texas, Mrs. Hayes, 
 Mr. Himes, Mr. Horsford, Ms. Houlahan, Ms. Hoyle of Oregon, Mr. 
 Huffman, Mr. Ivey, Ms. Jacobs, Ms. Jayapal, Mr. Jeffries, Ms. Johnson 
 of Texas, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Ms. Kamlager-Dove, Ms. Kaptur, Mr. 
 Keating, Ms. Kelly of Illinois, Mr. Kennedy of New York, Mr. Khanna, 
Mr. Krishnamoorthi, Mr. Landsman, Mr. Larsen of Washington, Mr. Larson 
 of Connecticut, Mr. Latimer, Ms. Lee of Pennsylvania, Ms. Lee of 
 Nevada, Ms. Leger Fernandez, Mr. Levin, Mr. Liccardo, Mr. Lieu, Ms. 
 Lofgren, Mr. Lynch, Mr. Magaziner, Mr. Mannion, Ms. Matsui, Mrs. 
McBath, Ms. McBride, Mrs. McClain Delaney, Ms. McClellan, Ms. McDonald 
 Rivet, Mr. McGarvey, Mr. McGovern, Mrs. McIver, Mr. Meeks, Mr. 
Menendez, Ms. Meng, Mr. Mfume, Ms. Moore of Wisconsin, Mr. Morelle, Ms. 
 Morrison, Mr. Moskowitz, Mr. Moulton, Mr. Mrvan, Mr. Mullin, Mr. 
Nadler, Mr. Norcross, Ms. Norton, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, Mr. Olszewski, Ms. 
Omar, Mr. Pallone, Mr. Panetta, Mr. Pappas, Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Peters, Ms. 
Pettersen, Ms. Pingree, Mr. Pocan, Ms. Pou, Mr. Quigley, Mrs. Ramirez, 
 Mr. Raskin, Mr. Riley of New York, Ms. Rivas, Ms. Ross, Mr. Ruiz, Mr. 
 Ryan, Ms. Salinas, Ms. Scanlon, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Schneider, Ms. 
 Scholten, Ms. Schrier, Mr. Scott of Virginia, Mr. David Scott of 
Georgia, Ms. Sewell, Mr. Sherman, Ms. Sherrill, Ms. Simon, Mr. Smith of 
 Washington, Mr. Sorensen, Mr. Soto, Ms. Stansbury, Mr. Stanton, Ms. 
Stevens, Ms. Strickland, Mr. Subramanyam, Mr. Swalwell, Mrs. Sykes, Mr. 
 Takano, Mr. Thanedar, Mr. Thompson of California, Mr. Thompson of 
 Mississippi, Ms. Titus, Ms. Tlaib, Ms. Tokuda, Mr. Tonko, Mrs. Torres 
 of California, Mrs. Trahan, Mr. Tran, Ms. Underwood, Mr. Vargas, Mr. 
Vasquez, Mr. Veasey, Ms. Velazquez, Mr. Vindman, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, 
 Mrs. Watson Coleman, Mr. Whitesides, Ms. Williams of Georgia, Ms. 
 Wilson of Florida, Mr. Torres of New York, Mr. Correa, Mr. Espaillat, 
 Ms. Gillen, Mr. Min, Mr. Courtney, Mr. Cisneros, Ms. Sanchez, Mr. 
 Neguse, Ms. Waters, and Ms. McCollum) introduced the following bill; 
 which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in 
 addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be 
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration 
 of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 
 concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

 A BILL

To protect a person's ability to determine whether to continue or end a 
 pregnancy, and to protect a health care provider's ability to provide 
 abortion services.

 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

 This Act may be cited as the ``Women's Health Protection Act of 
2025''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

 Congress finds the following:

    (1) Abortion services are essential health care, and access 
 to those services is central to people's ability to participate 
 equally in the economic and social life of the United States. 
 Abortion access allows people who are pregnant to make their 
 own decisions about their pregnancies, their families, and 
 their lives.

    (2) Reproductive justice requires every individual to have 
 the right to make their own decisions about having children 
 regardless of their circumstances and without interference and 
 discrimination. Reproductive justice is a human right that can 
 and will be achieved when all people, regardless of actual or 
 perceived race, color, national origin, immigration status, sex 
 (including gender identity, sex stereotyping, or sexual 
 orientation), age, or disability status have the economic, 
 social, and political power and resources to define and make 
 decisions about their bodies, health, sexuality, families, and 
 communities in all areas of their lives, with dignity and self-
 determination.

    (3) Abortion care, like all health care, is a human right 
 that should not depend on one's ZIP Code or region, age, actual 
 or perceived race, national origin, immigration status, sex, or 
 disability status. Unfortunately, this is the current reality 
 for millions, creating a patchwork of abortion access across 
 the United States. Protecting the right to determine whether to 
 continue or end a pregnancy, and the right of health care 
 providers to provide abortion care, is necessary and essential 
 to achieving this human right, and ultimately reproductive 
 justice.

    (4) On June 24, 2022, in its decision in Dobbs v. Jackson 
 Women's Health Organization, the Supreme Court overruled Roe v. 
 Wade, reversing decades of precedent recognizing a 
 constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy before fetal 
 viability.

    (5) The effects of the Dobbs decision were immediate and 
 disastrous. In the aftermath of the Dobbs decision, many States 
 imposed near-total bans on abortion. Within 100 days of the 
 ruling, 66 clinics across 15 States were forced to stop 
 offering abortions. As of January 2025, abortion is unavailable 
 in 14 States, leaving 17.98 million women of reproductive age 
 (ages 15 to 49) as well as transgender and gender nonconforming 
 individuals without access to abortion in their home State.

    (6) Travel time to an abortion clinic, already a burden for 
 abortion seekers under Roe, has quadrupled since Dobbs. As 
 distance to an abortion facility increases, so do the 
 accompanying (and potentially prohibitive) burdens of time off 
 work or school, lost wages, transportation costs, lodging, 
 child care costs, and other ancillary costs.

    (7) Even before the Dobbs decision, access to abortion 
 services had long been obstructed across the United States in 
 various ways, including: prohibitions of, and restrictions on, 
 insurance coverage; mandatory parental involvement laws; 
 restrictions that shame and stigmatize people seeking abortion 
 services; and medically unnecessary regulations that fail to 
 further the safety of abortion services, but instead cause harm 
 people by delaying, complicating access to, and reducing the 
 availability of, abortion services.

    (8) Being denied an abortion can have serious consequences 
 for people's physical, mental, and economic health and well-
 being, and that of their families. According to the Turnaway 
 Study, a longitudinal study published by Advancing New 
 Standards In Reproductive Health

    (ANSIRH) in 2019, individuals 
 who are denied a wanted abortion are more likely to experience 
 economic insecurity than individuals who receive a wanted 
 abortion. After following participants for five years, the 
 study found that people who were denied abortion care were more 
 likely to live in poverty, experience debt, and have lower 
 credit scores for several years after the denial. These 
 findings demonstrate that when people have control over when to 
 have children and how many children to have, their children 
 benefit through increased economic security and better maternal 
 bonding.

    (9) Abortion bans and restrictions have repercussions for a 
 broad range of health care beyond pregnancy termination, 
 including exacerbating the existing maternal health crisis 
 facing the United States. The United States has the highest 
 maternal mortality rate of any industrialized nation, and Black 
 women and birthing people face three times the risk of dying 
 from pregnancy-related causes as their white counterparts. Even 
 prior to Dobbs, research found that States that enacted 
 abortion restrictions based on gestation increased their 
 maternal mortality rate by 38 percent. Research has found that 
 a nationwide ban would increase the United States maternal 
 mortality rate by an additional 24 percent. Furthermore, States 
 that have banned, are planning to ban, or have severely 
 restricted abortion care have fewer maternal health providers, 
 more maternity-care deserts, higher rates of both maternal and 
 infant mortality, and greater racial inequity in health care.

    (10) Abortion bans and restrictions additionally harm 
 people's health by reducing access to other essential health 
 care services offered by many of the providers targeted by the 
 restrictions, including--
        (A) screenings and preventive services, including 
 contraceptive services;
        (B) testing and treatment for sexually transmitted 
 infections;
            (C) LGBTQ health services; and
            (D) referrals for primary care, intimate partner 
 violence prevention, prenatal care, and adoption 
 services.

    (11) This ripple effect has only worsened since the Dobbs 
 decision. Clinicians and pharmacists have denied access to 
 essential medication for conditions, including gastric ulcers 
 and autoimmune diseases, because those drugs are also used for 
 medication abortion care. Patients are reporting being denied 
 or delayed in their receipt of necessary and potentially 
 lifesaving treatment for ectopic pregnancies and miscarriage 
 management because of the newfound legal risks facing 
 providers.

    (12) Reproductive justice seeks to address restrictions on 
 reproductive health, including abortion, that perpetuate 
 systems of oppression, lack of bodily autonomy, white 
 supremacy, and anti-Black racism. This violent legacy has 
 manifested in policies including enslavement, rape, and 
 experimentation on Black women; forced sterilizations, medical 
 experimentation on low-income women's reproductive systems; and 
 the forcible removal of Indigenous children. Access to 
 equitable reproductive health care, including abortion 
 services, has always been deficient in the United States for 
 Black, Indigenous, Latina/x, Asian-American and Pacific 
 Islander, and People of Color

    (BIPOC) and their families.

    (13) The legacy of restrictions on reproductive health, 
 rights, and justice is not a dated vestige of a dark history. 
 Data show the harms of abortion-specific restrictions fall 
 especially heavily on people with low incomes, people of color, 
 immigrants, young people, people with disabilities, and those 
 living in rural and other medically underserved areas. Abortion 
 bans and restrictions are compounded further by the ongoing 
 criminalization of people who are pregnant, including those who 
 are incarcerated, living with HIV, or with substance-use 
 disorders. These populations already experience health 
 disparities due to social, political, and environmental 
 inequities, and restrictions on abortion services exacerbate 
 these harms. Removing bans and restrictions on abortion 
 services would constitute one important step on the path toward 
 realizing reproductive justice by ensuring that the full range 
 of reproductive health care is accessible to all who need it.

    (14) Abortion bans and restrictions are tools of gender 
 oppression, as they target health care services that are used 
 primarily by women. These paternalistic bans and restrictions 
 rely on and reinforce harmful stereotypes about gender roles 
 and women's decisionmaking, undermining their ability to 
 control their own lives and well-being. These restrictions harm 
 the basic autonomy, dignity, and equality of women.

    (15) The terms ``woman'' and ``women'' are used in this 
 bill to reflect the identity of the majority of people targeted 
 and most directly affected by bans and restrictions on abortion 
 services, which are rooted in misogyny. However, access to 
 abortion services is critical to the health of every person 
 capable of becoming pregnant. This Act is intended to protect 
 all people with the capacity for pregnancy--cisgender women, 
 transgender men, nonbinary individuals, those who identify with 
 a different gender, and others--who are unjustly harmed by 
 restrictions on abortion services.

    (16) Pregnant individuals will continue to experience a 
 range of pregnancy outcomes, including abortion, miscarriage, 
 stillbirths, and infant losses regardless of how the State 
 attempts to exert power over their reproductive decisionmaking, 
 and will continue to need support for their health and well-
 being through their reproductive lifespans.

    (17) Evidence from the United States and around the globe 
 bears out that criminalizing abortion invariably leads to 
 arrests, investigations, and imprisonment of people who end 
 their pregnancies or experience pregnancy loss, leading to 
 violations of fundamental rights to liberty, dignity, bodily 
 autonomy, equality, due process, privacy, health, and freedom 
 from cruel and inhumane treatment.

    (18) All major experts in public health and medicine, such 
 as the American Medical Association, American Public Health 
 Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Society 
 of Addiction Medicine, and American College of Obstetricians 
 and Gynecologists, oppose the criminalization of pregnancy 
 outcomes because the threat of being subject to investigation 
 or punishment through the criminal legal system when seeking 
 health care threatens pregnant people's lives and undermines 
 public health by deterring people from seeking care for 
 obstetrical emergencies.

    (19) Anti-abortion stigma that is compounded by abortion 
 bans and restrictions also contributes to violence and 
 harassment that put both people seeking and people providing 
 abortion care at risk. From 1977 to 2022, there were 11 
 murders, 42 bombings, 200 acts of arson, 531 assaults, 375 
 burglaries, and thousands of other incidents of criminal 
 activity directed at abortion seekers, providers, volunteers, 
 and clinic staff. This violence existed under Roe and has been 
 steadily escalating for years. The presence of dangerous 
 protestors and organized extremists acts as yet another barrier 
 to abortion care, and this threat has become even more urgent 
 as abortion bans proliferate and stigma around abortion care 
 increases.

    (20) Abortion is one of the safest medical procedures in 
 the United States. An independent, comprehensive review of the 
 state of science on the safety and quality of abortion 
 services, published by the National Academies of Medicine in 
 2018, found that abortion in the United States is safe and 
 effective and that the biggest threats to the quality of 
 abortion services in the United States are State regulations 
 that create barriers to care. Such abortion-specific 
 restrictions, as well as broader State bans, conflict with 
 medical standards and are not supported by the recommendations 
 and guidelines issued by leading reproductive health care 
 professional organizations, including the American College of 
 Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the Society of Family 
 Planning, the National Abortion Federation, the World Health 
 Organization, and others.

    (21) For over 20 years, medication abortion care has been 
 available in the United States as a safe, effective, Food and 
 Drug Administration

    (FDA) -approved treatment to end an early 
 pregnancy. Today, medication abortion care accounts for 63 
 percent of all pregnancy terminations in the United States; 
 however, significant barriers to access remain in place, 
 particularly in States that have imposed onerous restrictions 
 that conflict with FDA's regulation of medication abortion. 
 Additionally, opponents of abortion are now deploying new 
 tactics to limit access to this FDA-approved medication that 
 would set a dangerous precedent for the Federal regulation of 
 medication products and have national repercussions.

    (22) Health care providers are subject to licensing laws in 
 various jurisdictions, which are not affected by this Act 
 except as expressly provided in this Act.

    (23) International human rights law recognizes that access 
 to abortion is intrinsically linked to the rights to life, 
 health, equality and nondiscrimination, privacy, and freedom 
 from ill treatment. United Nations

    (UN) human rights treaty 
 monitoring bodies have found that legal abortion services, like 
 other reproductive health care services, must be available, 
 accessible, affordable, acceptable, and of good quality. UN 
 human rights treaty bodies have condemned criminalization of 
 abortion and medically unnecessary barriers to abortion 
 services, including mandatory waiting periods, biased 
 counseling requirements, and third-party authorization 
 requirements.

    (24) Core human rights treaties ratified by the United 
 States protect access to abortion. For example, in 2018, the UN 
 Human Rights Committee, which oversees implementation of the 
 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

    (ICCPR) , 
 made clear that the right to life, enshrined in Article 6 of 
 the ICCPR, at a minimum requires governments to provide safe, 
 legal, and effective access to abortion where a person's life 
 and health are at risk, or when carrying a pregnancy to term 
 would otherwise cause substantial pain or suffering. The 
 Committee stated that governments must not impose restrictions 
 on abortion that subject women and girls to physical or mental 
 pain or suffering, discriminate against them, arbitrarily 
 interfere with their privacy, or place them at risk of 
 undertaking unsafe abortions. The Committee stated that 
 governments should not apply criminal sanctions to women and 
 girls who undergo abortion or to medical service providers who 
 assist them in doing so. Furthermore, the Committee stated that 
 governments should remove existing barriers that deny effective 
 access to safe and legal abortion, refrain from introducing new 
 barriers to abortion, and prevent the stigmatization of those 
 seeking abortion.

    (25) International human rights experts have condemned the 
 Dobbs decision and regression on abortion rights in the United 
 States more generally as a violation of human rights. 
 Immediately upon release of the decision, then-UN High 
 Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet reiterated 
 human rights protections for abortion and the impact that the 
 decision will have on the fundamental rights of millions within 
 the United States, particularly people with low incomes and 
 people belonging to racial and ethnic minorities. UN 
 independent human rights experts, including the UN Working 
 Group on discrimination against women and girls, the UN Special 
 Rapporteur on the right to health, and the UN Special 
 Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, similarly 
 denounced the decision. At the conclusion of a human rights 
 review of the United States in August 2022, the UN Committee on 
 the Elimination of Racial Discrimination noted deep concerns 
 with the Dobbs decision and recommended that the United States 
 address the disparate impact that it will have on racial and 
 ethnic minorities, Indigenous women, and those with low 
 incomes.

    (26) Abortion bans and restrictions affect the cost and 
 availability of abortion services, and the settings in which 
 abortion services are delivered. People travel across State 
 lines and otherwise engage in interstate commerce to access 
 this essential care. Likewise, health care providers travel 
 across State lines and otherwise engage in interstate commerce 
 in order to provide abortion services to patients, and more 
 would be forced to do so absent this Act.

    (27) Legal limitations and requirements imposed upon health 
 care providers or patients invariably affect commerce over 
 which the United States has jurisdiction. Health care providers 
 engage in a form of economic and commercial activity when they 
 provide abortion services, and there is an interstate market 
 for abortion services.

    (28) Abortion bans and restrictions substantially affect 
 interstate commerce in numerous ways. For example, to provide 
 abortion services, health care providers engage in interstate 
 commerce to purchase medicine, medical equipment, and other 
 necessary goods and services. To provide and assist others in 
 providing abortion services, health care providers engage in 
 interstate commerce to obtain and provide training. To provide 
 abortion services, health care providers employ and obtain 
 commercial services from doctors, nurses, and other personnel 
 who engage in interstate commerce, including by traveling 
 across State lines. Individuals engage in interstate commerce 
 by obtaining abortion services, including medicine and 
 telemedicine services offered in the interstate market, and 
 traveling across State lines to obtain abortion services or 
 assist others in obtaining such services.

    (29) As a result of the Dobbs decision and attendant 
 increase in abortion prohibitions and restrictions in a subset 
 of States, there has been a significant increase in the burden 
 on interstate commerce. In just the first calendar year after 
 Dobbs, an estimated 171,000 people traveled across State lines 
 to obtain abortion care, more than doubling the estimated 
 73,100 people that traveled across State lines in 2019.

    (30) Congress has the authority to enact this Act to 
 protect access to abortion services pursuant to--
        (A) its powers under the commerce clause of 

section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United 
 States;
        (B) its powers under 

section 5 of the Fourteenth 
 Amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
 enforce the provisions of 

section 1 of the Fourteenth 
 Amendment; and
            (C) its powers under the necessary and proper 
 clause of 

section 8 of article I of the Constitution of 
 the United States.

    (31) Congress has used its authority in the past to protect 
 access to abortion services and health care providers' ability 
 to provide abortion services. In the early 1990s, protests and 
 blockades at health care facilities where abortion services 
 were provided, and associated violence, increased dramatically 
 and reached crisis level, requiring congressional action. 
 Congress passed the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act 
 (Public Law 103-259; 108 Stat. 694) to address that situation 
 and protect physical access to abortion services.

    (32) Congressional action is necessary to put an end to 
 harmful restrictions, to protect access to abortion services 
 for everyone regardless of where they live, to protect the 
 ability of health care providers to provide these services in a 
 safe and accessible manner, and to eliminate unwarranted 
 burdens on commerce and the right to travel.

SEC. 3. PURPOSES.

 The purposes of this Act are as follows:

    (1) To permit people to seek and obtain abortion services, 
 and to permit health care providers to provide abortion 
 services, without harmful or unwarranted limitations or 
 requirements that--
        (A) single out the provision of abortion services 
 for restrictions that are more burdensome than those 
 restrictions imposed on medically comparable 
 procedures;
        (B) do not, on the basis of the weight of 
 established clinical practice guidelines consistent 
 with medical evidence, significantly advance 
 reproductive health or the safety of abortion services; 
 or
            (C) make abortion services more difficult to 
 access.

    (2) To promote access to abortion services and thereby 
 protect women's ability to participate equally in the economic 
 and social life of the United States.

    (3) To protect people's ability to make decisions about 
 their bodies, medical care, family, and life's course.

    (4) To eliminate unwarranted burdens on commerce and the 
 right to travel. Abortion bans and restrictions invariably 
 affect commerce over which the United States has jurisdiction. 
 Health care providers engage in economic and commercial 
 activity when they provide abortion services. Moreover, there 
 is an interstate market for abortion services and, in order to 
 provide such services, health care providers engage in 
 interstate commerce to purchase medicine, medical equipment, 
 and other necessary goods and services; to obtain and provide 
 training; and to employ and obtain commercial services from 
 health care personnel, many of whom themselves engage in 
 interstate commerce, including by traveling across State lines. 
 Individuals engage in the interstate market by purchasing 
 abortion services, including the purchase, use, and consumption 
 of medicine, medical equipment, and other necessary goods and 
 services transited in the stream of interstate commerce, the 
 receipt of telemedicine services, and traveling across State 
 lines to purchase and receive abortion services or assist 
 others in purchasing or receiving such services. The increase 
 in abortion prohibitions and restrictions in a subset of States 
 since 2022 cause women to travel to other States for abortion 
 care, which, in turn, affects the health care systems of those 
 States that provide the treatment and has exponentially 
 increased the burden on interstate commerce and the 
 instrumentalities of interstate commerce. Congress has the 
 authority to enact this Act to protect access to abortion 
 services pursuant to--
        (A) its powers under the commerce clause of 

section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United 
 States;
        (B) its powers under 

section 5 of the Fourteenth 
 Amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
 enforce the provisions of 

section 1 of the Fourteenth 
 Amendment; and
            (C) its powers under the necessary and proper 
 clause of 

section 8 of article I of the Constitution of 
 the United States.

SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

 In this Act:

    (1) Abortion services.--The term ``abortion services'' 
 means an abortion and any medical or non-medical services 
 related to and provided in conjunction with an abortion 
 (whether or not provided at the same time or on the same day as 
 the abortion).

    (2) Government.--The term ``government'' includes each 
 branch, department, agency, instrumentality, and official of 
 the United States or a State.

    (3) Health care provider.--The term ``health care 
 provider'' means any entity (including any hospital, clinic, or 
 pharmacy (whether physical, mobile, or virtual)) or individual 
 (including any physician, certified nurse-midwife, nurse 
 practitioner, advanced practice clinician, registered nurse, 
 pharmacist, or physician assistant) that--
        (A) is engaged or seeks to engage in the delivery 
 of health care services, including abortion services; 
 and
        (B) if required by law or regulation to be licensed 
 or certified to engage in the delivery of such 
 services--
            (i) is so licensed or certified; or
            (ii) would be so licensed or certified but 
 for their past, present, or potential provision 
 of abortion services protected by 

section 5.

    (4) Medically comparable procedures.--The term ``medically 
 comparable procedures'' means medical procedures that are 
 similar, on the basis of the established clinical practice 
 guidelines consistent with medical evidence, in terms of health 
 and safety risks to the patient, complexity, or the clinical 
 setting that is indicated.

    (5) Pregnancy.--The term ``pregnancy'' refers to the period 
 of the human reproductive process beginning with the 
 implantation of a fertilized egg.

    (6) State.--The term ``State'' includes the District of 
 Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and each territory 
 and possession of the United States, and any subdivision of any 
 of the foregoing, including any unit of local government, such 
 as a county, city, town, village, or other general purpose 
 political subdivision of a State.

    (7) Viability.--The term ``viability'' means the point in a 
 pregnancy at which, in the good-faith medical judgment of the 
 treating health care provider, and based on the particular 
 facts of the case before the health care provider, there is a 
 reasonable likelihood of sustained fetal survival outside the 
 uterus with or without artificial support.

SEC. 5. PROTECTED ACTIVITIES AND SERVICES.

    (a) General Rules.--

    (1) Pre-viability.--A health care provider has a right 
 under this Act to provide such abortion services, and a patient 
 has a corresponding right under this Act to terminate a 
 pregnancy prior to viability, without being subject to any of 
 the following limitations or requirements:
        (A) A prohibition on abortion prior to viability, 
 including a prohibition or restriction on a particular 
 abortion procedure or method, or a prohibition on 
 providing or obtaining such abortions.
        (B) A limitation on a health care provider's 
 ability to prescribe or dispense drugs that could be 
 used for reproductive health purposes based on current 
 evidence-based regimens or the provider's good-faith 
 medical judgment, or a limitation on a patient's 
 ability to receive or use such drugs, other than a 
 limitation generally applicable to the prescription, 
 dispensing, or distribution of drugs.
            (C) A limitation on a health care provider's 
 ability to provide, or a patient's ability to receive, 
 abortion services via telemedicine, other than a 
 limitation generally applicable to the provision of 
 medically comparable services via telemedicine.
            (D) A limitation or prohibition on a patient's 
 ability to receive, or a provider's ability to provide, 
 abortion services in a State based on the State of 
 residency of the patient, or a prohibition or 
 limitation on the ability of any individual to assist 
 or support a patient seeking abortion.
        (E) A requirement that a health care provider 
 perform specific tests or medical procedures in 
 connection with the provision of abortion services 
 (including prior to or subsequent to the abortion), 
 unless such tests or procedures are standard to 
 established clinical practice guidelines consistent 
 with medical evidence pertaining to abortion services.
        (F) A requirement that a health care provider offer 
 or provide a patient seeking abortion services 
 medically inaccurate information that is not compatible 
 with established clinical practice guidelines.
        (G) A limitation or requirement concerning the 
 physical plant, equipment, staffing, or hospital 
 transfer arrangements of facilities where abortion 
 services are provided, or the credentials or hospital 
 privileges or status of personnel at such facilities, 
 that is not imposed on facilities or the personnel of 
 facilities where medically comparable procedures are 
 performed.
        (H) A requirement that, prior to obtaining an 
 abortion, a patient make one or more medically 
 unnecessary in-person visits to the provider of 
 abortion services or to any individual or entity that 
 does not provide abortion services.
            (I) A limitation on a health care provider's 
 ability to provide immediate abortion services when 
 that health care provider believes, based on the good-
 faith medical judgment of the provider, that delay 
 would pose a risk to the patient's life or health.
        (J) A requirement that a patient seeking abortion 
 services at any point or points in time prior to 
 viability disclose the patient's reason or reasons for 
 seeking abortion services, or a limitation on providing 
 or obtaining abortion services at any point or points 
 in time prior to viability based on any actual, 
 perceived, or potential reason or reasons of the 
 patient for obtaining abortion services, regardless of 
 whether the limitation is based on a health care 
 provider's actual or constructive knowledge of such 
 reason or reasons.

    (2) Post-viability.--
        (A) In general.--A health care provider has a right 
 under this Act to provide abortion services and a 
 patient has a corresponding right under this Act to 
 terminate a pregnancy after viability when, in the 
 good-faith medical judgement of the treating health 
 care provider, it is necessary to protect the life or 
 health of the patient. This subparagraph shall not 
 otherwise apply after viability.
        (B) Additional circumstances.--A State may provide 
 additional circumstances under which post-viability 
 abortions are permitted.
            (C) Limitation.--In the case where a termination of 
 a pregnancy after viability, in the good-faith medical 
 judgement of the treating health care provider, is 
 necessary to protect the life or health of the patient, 
 none of the limitations or requirements described in 
 paragraph

    (1) shall be imposed by law.

    (b) Other Limitations or Requirements.--The rights described in 
subsection

    (a) shall not be limited or otherwise infringed through any 
other limitation or requirement that--

    (1) expressly, effectively, implicitly, or as implemented, 
 targets abortion, the provision of abortion services, 
 individuals who seek abortion services or who provide 
 assistance and support to those seeking abortion services, 
 health care providers who provide abortion services, or 
 facilities in which abortion services are provided; and

    (2) impedes access to abortion services.
            (c) Factors for Consideration.--A court may consider the following 
factors, among others, in determining whether a limitation or 
requirement impedes access to abortion services for purposes of 
subsection

    (b)

    (2) :

    (1) Whether the limitation or requirement, in a provider's 
 good-faith medical judgment, interferes with a health care 
 provider's ability to provide care and render services, or 
 poses a risk to the patient's health or safety.

    (2) Whether the limitation or requirement is reasonably 
 likely to delay or deter a patient in accessing abortion 
 services.

    (3) Whether the limitation or requirement is reasonably 
 likely to directly or indirectly increase the cost of providing 
 abortion services or the cost for obtaining abortion services 
 such as costs associated with travel, child care, or time off 
 work.

    (4) Whether the limitation or requirement is reasonably 
 likely to have the effect of necessitating patient travel that 
 would not otherwise have been required, including by making it 
 necessary for a patient to travel out of State to obtain 
 services.

    (5) Whether the limitation or requirement is reasonably 
 likely to result in a decrease in the availability of abortion 
 services in a given State or geographic region.

    (6) Whether the limitation or requirement imposes penalties 
 that are not imposed on other health care providers for 
 comparable conduct or failure to act, or that are more severe 
 than penalties imposed on other health care providers for 
 comparable conduct or failure to act.

    (7) The cumulative impact of the limitation or requirement 
 combined with other limitations or requirements.
            (d) Exception.--To defend against a claim that a limitation or 
requirement violates a health care provider's or patient's rights under 
subsection

    (b) a party must establish, by clear and convincing 
evidence, that the limitation or requirement is essential to 
significantly advance the safety of abortion services or the health of 
patients and that the safety or health objective cannot be accomplished 
by a different means that does not interfere with the right protected 
under subsection

    (b) .

SEC. 6. PROTECTION OF THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL.

 A person has a fundamental right under the Constitution of the 
United States and this Act to travel to a State other than the person's 
State of residence, including to obtain reproductive health services 
such as prenatal, childbirth, fertility, and abortion services, and a 
person has a right under this Act to assist another person to obtain 
such services or otherwise exercise the right described in this 
section.

SEC. 7. APPLICABILITY AND PREEMPTION.

    (a) In General.--

    (1) Superseding inconsistent laws.--Except as provided 
 under subsection

    (b) , this Act shall supersede any inconsistent 
 Federal or State law, and the implementation of such law, 
 whether statutory, common law, or otherwise, and whether 
 adopted prior to or after the date of enactment of this Act. A 
 Federal or State government official shall not administer, 
 implement, or enforce any law, rule, regulation, standard, or 
 other provision having the force and effect of law that 
 conflicts with any provision of this Act, notwithstanding any 
 other provision of Federal law, including the Religious Freedom 
 Restoration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq.).

    (2) Laws after date of enactment.--Federal law enacted 
 after the date of the enactment of this Act shall be subject to 
 this Act unless such law explicitly excludes such application 
 by reference to this Act.

    (b) Limitations.--The provisions of this Act shall not supersede or 
apply to--

    (1) laws regulating physical access to clinic entrances, 
 such as the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994 
 (18 U.S.C. 248);

    (2) laws regulating insurance or medical assistance 
 coverage of abortion services;

    (3) the procedure described in 

section 1531

    (b)

    (1) of title 
 18, United States Code; or

    (4) generally applicable State contract law.
            (c) Preemption Defense.--In any legal or administrative action 
against a person or entity who has exercised or attempted to exercise a 
right protected by 

section 5 or 6 or against any person or entity who 
has taken any step to assist any such person or entity in exercising 
such right, this Act shall also apply to, and may be raised as a 
defense by, such person or entity, in addition to the remedies 
specified in 

section 9.

SEC. 8. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.

    (a) Liberal Construction by Courts.--In any action before a court 
under this Act, the court shall liberally construe the provisions of 
this Act to effectuate the purposes of the Act.

    (b) Protection of Life and Health.--Nothing in this Act shall be 
construed to authorize any government official to interfere with, 
diminish, or negatively affect a person's ability to obtain or provide 
abortion services prior to viability, or after viability when, in the 
good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care provider, 
continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant 
patient's life or health.
            (c) Government Officials.--Any person who, by operation of a 
provision of Federal or State law, including through the grant of a 
private cause of action, is permitted to implement or enforce a 
limitation or requirement that violates 

section 5 or 6 shall be 
considered a government official for purposes of this Act.

SEC. 9. ENFORCEMENT.

    (a) Attorney General.--The Attorney General may commence a civil 
action on behalf of the United States in any district court of the 
United States against any State that violates, or against any 
government official (including a person described in 

section 8
            (c) ) who 
implements or enforces a limitation or requirement that violates, 

section 5 or 6. The court shall declare unlawful the limitation or 
requirement if it is determined to be in violation of this Act.

    (b) Private Right of Action.--

    (1) In general.--Any individual or entity adversely 
 affected by an alleged violation of this Act, including any 
 person or health care provider, may commence a civil action 
 against any government official (including a person described 
 in section
            (c) ) that implements or enforces a limitation or 
 requirement that violates 

section 5 or 6. The court shall 
 declare unlawful the limitation or requirement if it is 
 determined to be in violation of this Act.

    (2) Health care provider.--A health care provider may 
 commence an action for relief on its own behalf, on behalf of 
 the provider's staff, and on behalf of the provider's patients 
 who are or may be adversely affected by an alleged violation of 
 this Act.
            (c) Pre-Enforcement Challenges.--A suit under subsection

    (a) or

    (b) may be brought to prevent enforcement or implementation of a State 
limitation or requirement that is inconsistent with 

section 5 or 6.
            (d) Declaratory and Equitable Relief.--In any action under this 
section, the court may award appropriate declaratory and equitable 
relief, including temporary, preliminary, or permanent injunctive 
relief.

    (e) Costs.--In any action under this section, the court shall award 
costs of litigation, as well as reasonable attorney's fees, to any 
prevailing plaintiff. A plaintiff shall not be liable to a defendant 
for costs or attorney's fees in any non-frivolous action under this 
section.

    (f) Jurisdiction.--The district courts of the United States shall 
have jurisdiction over proceedings under this Act and shall exercise 
the same without regard to whether the party aggrieved shall have 
exhausted any administrative or other remedies that may be provided for 
by law.

    (g) Abrogation of State Immunity.--Neither a State that enforces or 
maintains, nor a government official (including a person described in 

section 8
            (c) ) who is permitted to implement or enforce any limitation 
or requirement that violates 

section 5 or 6 shall be immune under the 
Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Eleventh 
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, or any other source 
of law, from an action in a Federal or State court of competent 
jurisdiction challenging that limitation or requirement, unless such 
immunity is required by clearly established Federal law, as determined 
by the Supreme Court of the United States.

SEC. 10. EFFECTIVE DATE.

 This Act shall take effect upon the date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 11. SEVERABILITY.

 If any provision of this Act, or the application of such provision 
to any person, entity, government, or circumstance, is held to be 
unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, or the application of such 
provision to all other persons, entities, governments, or 
circumstances, shall not be affected thereby.
 <all>