Provides relative to liability for the unlawful termination of a pregnancy
Summary
HB 575 amends Louisiana law governing civil liability for the unlawful termination of a pregnancy. The bill creates and expands a private cause of action for damages against a person or entity that knowingly performs or substantially facilitates an abortion with the intent to achieve that result. It defines key terms such as “abortion,” “abortion-inducing drug,” “damage,” “substantially facilitates,” and “unborn child,” and it allows recovery for special and general damages, statutory damages of at least $100,000 for abortion-inducing drugs in certain circumstances, exemplary damages, court costs, and attorney fees.
The bill also changes the timing and procedural rules for these claims. It extends the time to bring an action from three years to five years from discovery of the damage, while keeping a ten-year peremptive period from the date of the abortion. It states that a mother’s signed consent form does not eliminate the claim, though it may reduce damages if it informed her of the relevant risks. The bill further provides that medical malpractice limitations generally do not apply, while creating a rebuttable presumption that medical malpractice law applies to covered Louisiana healthcare providers acting within the lawful scope of practice. It also bars suits against the woman herself, licensed Louisiana physicians, and Louisiana-licensed pharmacists and pharmacies acting within pharmacy-board rules, and it permits plaintiffs to proceed anonymously to protect privacy.
Impact
HB 575 amends R.S. 9:2800.12, Louisiana’s civil liability statute for unlawful termination of pregnancy, by broadening and clarifying who may be sued, what damages may be recovered, and how long claims may be filed. It creates a stronger civil enforcement mechanism focused on abortion providers and those who substantially facilitate abortion-inducing drugs, while limiting liability for certain in-state licensed medical professionals and for the pregnant woman. The bill also adds a formal short title, the “Justice for Victims of Abortion Drug Dealers Act.”
Sentiment
The voting history suggests the bill had meaningful support but also notable opposition. It passed the House and Senate on final passage, and the House later concurred in Senate amendments by a wide margin, indicating that the measure ultimately had enough bipartisan or cross-faction support to advance. At the same time, the recorded nay votes on final passage and on an amendment show that a substantial minority opposed the bill or specific changes to it, reflecting continued division over abortion-related civil liability.
Contention
The main points of contention appear to be the bill’s abortion-related civil liability framework, especially the expansion of damages and the ability to sue those who “substantially facilitate” abortions through abortion-inducing drugs. Opponents likely objected to the breadth of liability, the $100,000 statutory damages provision, and the bill’s treatment of medical malpractice rules, while supporters likely viewed it as a stronger enforcement tool against unlawful abortion activity. The amendment vote suggests there was also disagreement over procedural or timing changes, though no committee transcript is available to identify specific arguments.