House Bill 108 is a Maryland “heartbeat bill” that would substantially restrict abortion access in the state. It defines key terms such as fetal heartbeat, gestational age, gestational sac, physician, pregnancy, and standard medical practice, and then prohibits a physician from knowingly performing or inducing an abortion once a detectable fetal heartbeat is present, except in limited circumstances such as a medical emergency. The bill also requires physicians to document gestational age, the method used to determine it, and the test used to detect cardiac activity, and it requires additional written documentation when an abortion is performed for a medical emergency or for health-related reasons.
The bill also replaces Maryland’s existing abortion framework with a more restrictive informed-consent and ultrasound/sonogram regime. Before an abortion, the physician or an agent must provide specified disclosures about risks, alternatives, public assistance, child support, and pregnancy-prevention services; provide printed materials from the Department; perform or arrange a sonogram; make the images and heartbeat audible when present; and obtain a signed election form acknowledging these disclosures. It further requires that abortions be performed by physicians rather than qualified providers, and it repeals or revises existing statutory provisions related to abortion procedures, information, and refusal to participate or refer.
A major structural feature of the bill is its enforcement mechanism. The restrictions on pre-heartbeat abortions and related documentation requirements would be enforced exclusively through private civil actions, not by the State or local governments. Any non-governmental person could sue alleged violators or those who aid or abet a violation, with statutory damages of at least $10,000 per abortion, plus injunctive relief, costs, and attorney’s fees. The bill also includes provisions limiting defenses, restricting state intervention, addressing venue, and barring certain plaintiffs, while preserving immunity for the State and its officials in challenges to the law.
The bill’s impact on state law would be significant: it would replace Maryland’s current viability-based abortion protections with a fetal-heartbeat standard, impose new provider and disclosure requirements, and create a private-enforcement model similar to other heartbeat or civil-enforcement abortion laws. It would also preserve and restate conscience protections for health care providers and hospitals that refuse to perform, participate in, or refer for abortions, while adding language intended to prevent repeal by implication and to make abortion-related statutes severable.
No committee transcript or vote history was provided, so there is no recorded floor or committee sentiment to summarize. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears strongly anti-abortion and designed to sharply limit abortion access, which would likely make it highly controversial. The main points of contention are the fetal-heartbeat prohibition, the private right of action with monetary penalties, the mandatory sonogram and disclosure requirements, and the bill’s attempt to insulate itself from state enforcement and constitutional challenges.
HB 108 would amend Title 20 of the Health – General Article by repealing Maryland’s current abortion procedure, information, and refusal-to-participate framework and replacing it with a fetal-heartbeat-based regulatory scheme. It would require abortions to be performed by physicians, prohibit abortions once a detectable fetal heartbeat is found except in limited emergency circumstances, and impose detailed documentation and informed-consent requirements. The bill would also create a private civil enforcement system with statutory damages and attorney’s fees, while limiting state enforcement and certain defenses, and it would preserve conscience protections for providers and hospitals.
No voting record or committee discussion was provided, so there is no documented legislative sentiment from hearings or votes. From the bill text, the measure is clearly intended to restrict abortion access and is framed as protecting fetal life and informing pregnant patients, suggesting support from anti-abortion advocates. The structure and scope of the restrictions indicate it would likely face strong opposition from abortion-rights supporters, medical providers, and civil-liberties advocates.
The central points of contention are the bill’s prohibition on abortions after a detectable fetal heartbeat, its replacement of the existing viability standard, and its private-enforcement model that allows any non-government person to sue alleged violators or aiders and abettors. Additional controversy is likely to arise from the mandatory sonogram, waiting period, and scripted disclosures, as well as the bill’s damages provisions, limits on defenses, and restrictions on state intervention. Supporters would likely emphasize fetal protection, informed consent, and physician-only performance requirements, while opponents would likely focus on access to care, patient autonomy, medical judgment, and the bill’s enforcement structure.