The "Protecting the Dignity of Unborn Children Act of 2025" prohibits the reckless disposal of fetal remains in landfills or U.S. navigable waters, with penalties for violations, but clarifies that women cannot be prosecuted for disposing of their unborn child's remains.
Robert Latta
Representative
OH-5
The "Protecting the Dignity of Unborn Children Act of 2025" prohibits the reckless disposal or abandonment of fetal remains in landfills or U.S. navigable waters. Violators may face up to 3 years in prison, a fine, or both. This law specifically exempts women from prosecution related to the disposal of their unborn child's remains.
The "Protecting the Dignity of Unborn Children Act of 2025" (SEC. 1) makes it a federal crime to recklessly dispose of fetal remains in landfills or U.S. waterways (SEC. 2). Violators could face up to three years in prison, a fine, or both. The bill specifically exempts women from prosecution for disposing of their own unborn child's remains.
This law centers on how fetal remains—defined as any part of a deceased human fetus from an abortion (excluding cremated remains)—are handled after the procedure (SEC. 2). It bans their disposal in places like landfills (as defined by the Solid Waste Disposal Act) and navigable waters (as defined by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act). What that means is any clinic, hospital, or medical office is on the hook for proper disposal.
The core issue is the "reckless" disposal part. The bill doesn't spell out exactly what that means, leaving it open to interpretation. For example, if a medical waste company improperly handles fetal remains, could a clinic be held liable? Or, say a clinic follows all existing medical waste protocols, but those protocols aren't deemed sufficient under this new law – who's responsible then? These aren't just hypothetical questions; they're the kind of practical challenges that could arise.
While the bill aims to prevent improper disposal, the vague wording could create problems. The lack of clear guidelines on what constitutes "reckless" disposal could lead to inconsistent enforcement. The bill also references existing laws for definitions of "landfill" and "navigable waters," which, while providing some clarity, still leaves the core issue of "reckless" disposal unaddressed. The bill also raises questions that aren't answered in the text. For example, what new disposal methods will be required, and who will bear the financial costs?