Ultrasound Informed Consent Act

The requirement applies to both surgical and medication abortion, because the definition of abortion includes the use or prescription of drugs. In practical terms, this would establish a nationwide ultrasound step before medication abortion, which in many jurisdictions can currently proceed without an ultrasound if the patient’s history and clinical judgment make it unnecessary. The bill contains a medical emergency exception limited to circumstances where an abortion is necessary to save the mother’s life. In such cases, the provider must certify in the medical file the specific medical circumstances justifying the exception. The exception does not extend to serious non-life-threatening health risks, nor does it create exemptions based on rape or incest; those circumstances are not mentioned in the informed consent requirements.

Enforcement consists of civil, not criminal, penalties. The U.S. Attorney General may bring a civil action with penalties up to $100,000 per violation in a first proceeding and $250,000 per violation in later proceedings, and must notify state medical licensing authorities when penalties are assessed. The bill also creates a private right of action for the woman on whom an abortion was performed in violation of the act, allowing her to seek actual and punitive damages; actual damages are defined as objectively verifiable money damages for all injuries. There is no third-party private enforcement. The bill includes a severability clause to preserve the remainder if any provision is struck down.

A preemption clause preserves room for state laws that are “more extensive” than this federal standard. That means states can maintain or enact stricter disclosure rules or higher penalties; permissive states could not set a lower bar than the federal requirement. Functionally, this creates a federal floor and allows a state-by-state ceiling. In states with near-total abortion bans, the law would have limited effect; in states that permit abortion or rely heavily on telehealth and medication abortion, it would add a new procedural step, likely requiring in-person ultrasound capability and associated scheduling, staffing, and cost.

Legally, the bill rests on Congress’s Commerce Clause authority and presents potential First Amendment issues because it compels physicians to speak and display images in a particular way. Federal courts have split on similar state ultrasound laws, with some upholding them as part of informed consent and others striking them down as compelled speech. Post-Dobbs, abortion regulation is largely returned to political branches, but First Amendment constraints remain. The bill’s language choices—such as “unborn child”—and its limited emergency exception reflect a pro-life framing. Practically, it would standardize a particular informed-consent ritual nationwide, increase documentation requirements, and expose providers to significant civil liability for procedural noncompliance, especially in early medication abortion and telehealth contexts.