The "Ultrasound Informed Consent Act" amends the Public Health Service Act, requiring abortion providers to perform and display ultrasound images to women before obtaining informed consent, while allowing women to decline viewing the images and providing exceptions for medical emergencies, with penalties for non-compliance.
Andy Biggs
Representative
AZ-5
The "Ultrasound Informed Consent Act" amends the Public Health Service Act, requiring abortion providers to perform and display ultrasound images to women seeking abortions, providing a medical description of the images, prior to obtaining informed consent, with exceptions only for medical emergencies. Non-compliant providers may face civil penalties up to $250,000 per violation, and women may file civil actions for damages. States can enact stricter abortion disclosure laws, and if part of the law is unconstitutional, the rest remains valid.
New 'Ultrasound Informed Consent Act' Requires Ultrasounds, Image Viewing Before Abortion: Up to $250K Fines for Non-Compliance
The "Ultrasound Informed Consent Act" is a new federal bill that throws some major hurdles in front of anyone seeking an abortion, and it comes with some hefty financial penalties for doctors who don't comply. This isn't just about adding a step to the process; it's a fundamental shift in how these procedures are handled, and it could make accessing abortion significantly harder.
Mandatory Viewing
This bill mandates that before a woman can consent to an abortion, the provider (or their "agent") must perform an ultrasound, display the images to the woman, and provide a detailed medical description. We're talking dimensions of the embryo or fetus, cardiac activity if it's there, and the presence of any visible external members or internal organs (SEC. 2). The woman can technically choose not to look at the images, but the provider still has to do the ultrasound and give the full rundown. The bill defines "unborn child" as a member of "homo sapiens" at any stage before birth, which is a loaded definition with big implications for the fetal personhood debate.
Real-World Impact: Barriers and Penalties
Let's say you're a young woman working two jobs to make ends meet, and you find yourself in this situation. Now, on top of everything else, you're facing a mandatory ultrasound and a detailed explanation of the images, even if you've already made up your mind. This adds time, potentially extra appointments, and a layer of emotional complexity to an already difficult decision. It raises some serious concerns. For example, who is this "agent" that can explain the ultrasound? The law is vague on their qualifications. What if they gave biased information?
For doctors, the stakes are high. Non-compliance comes with fines of up to $100,000 for the first violation and $250,000 for subsequent ones (SEC. 2). The Attorney General can bring these civil actions, and they're also required to notify the state medical licensing authority, which could put a doctor's license at risk. Plus, women who have abortions in violation of this law can sue the provider for "actual and punitive damages" (SEC. 2). However, it is crucial to note that "actual damages" are strictly defined as "objectively verifiable monetary losses," potentially limiting what a woman can recover.
The Bigger Picture: Access and Legal Battles
There's an exception for medical emergencies where the mother's life is at risk (SEC. 2), but that definition could be interpreted pretty narrowly. What if there is a serious medical condition, but it's not immediately life-threatening? This bill could force delays that put women's health at risk. This could also lead to more lawsuits and challenges for abortion providers. The bill does allow states to have even stricter laws (SEC. 3), so this could create a patchwork of regulations across the country, making access to abortion even more dependent on where you live. It is a concerning time for women's health.