Sponsors (14)
Ask me what this bill is really trying to do.
This is not an official government website.
Copyright © 2026 PLEJ LC. All rights reserved.
Creates a new federal crime prohibiting abortions (and related acts) performed, coerced, funded, or facilitated when the reason is that the unborn child has or may have Down syndrome. It sets criminal penalties, allows civil suits by the Attorney General and certain family members, requires certain professionals to report suspected violations, requires courts to protect patient privacy and expedite cases, and preserves the rest of the law if part is struck down.
On June 24, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (No. 19–1392, 2022 WL 2276808 (2022)), which overturned its prior holding in Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113 (1973)).
Dobbs affirmed that there is no constitutional right to abort an unborn child and stated that Roe was not grounded in the Constitution’s text or in the nation’s history and tradition.
Federal law protects individuals with disabilities against discrimination, including in the provision of medical care.
Congress has previously affirmed that disability is a natural part of human experience and does not reduce the rights of individuals to live independently, make choices, work, and participate fully in society.
It is the policy of the United States to respect the lives and dignity of individuals with disabilities, including individuals with Down syndrome.
Who is affected and how:
Pregnant people: The law would directly affect pregnant people seeking abortion care by banning abortions when the stated reason is a diagnosis or potential diagnosis of Down syndrome. Providers and patients may face investigations or prosecutions if authorities allege a prohibited motive. The requirement that courts protect privacy aims to limit public exposure but legal actions could still create legal risk and uncertainty.
Health care providers and clinics: Physicians, genetic counselors, clinics, and other medical staff who provide prenatal testing, counseling, or abortion services would face new criminal risk and reporting obligations. Providers may need to change counseling practices, documentation, and informed-consent procedures to avoid liability. Some providers may refuse services that carry perceived legal risk, potentially reducing access.
Family members and private litigants: The Attorney General may file civil suits; the bill also permits limited private civil suits by fathers and maternal grandparents, creating new legal standing for family members in certain cases.
Law enforcement and courts: Federal prosecutors and courts would assume responsibility for investigating and litigating alleged violations, with statutory directions to expedite cases and protect patient privacy. This could increase federal caseloads and require training to handle sensitive medical evidence.
Disability rights context: The bill frames its policy as preventing discrimination against unborn children with Down syndrome. It may prompt debates among disability-rights advocates, patient-rights groups, and reproductive-rights advocates about the best means to address discrimination and reproductive autonomy.
Systemic effects: The law could prompt litigation over constitutionality, evidentiary burdens (proving the reason for an abortion), scope of reporting requirements, and prosecutorial discretion. If challenged, courts would need to interpret how motive-based criminalization aligns with constitutional protections and precedent.
Overall, the bill shifts certain abortion-motivation disputes into federal criminal and civil enforcement, affecting patients, providers, families, and federal enforcement resources, and is likely to prompt legal challenges and changes in clinical practice.
Expand sections to see detailed analysis
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced January 23, 2025 by Steve Daines · Last progress January 23, 2025
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in Senate
