Criminal Law - Causing Ingestion of an Abortion-Inducing Drug - Prohibition (Women's Freedom From Coercion Act)
Summary
SB933 creates a new criminal offense in Maryland for knowingly and willfully causing another person to ingest an abortion-inducing drug under specified circumstances. The bill applies when the actor knows or believes the other person is pregnant and the ingestion occurs without consent, through fraud or coercion, or by force or threat of force. The measure defines “abortion-inducing drug” broadly as a drug, medicine, or chemical preparation intended to induce an abortion.
The bill is titled the “Women’s Freedom From Coercion Act” and is framed as a criminal-law response to coerced or nonconsensual abortion-related conduct. It does not regulate lawful medical care directly, but instead targets conduct involving deception, coercion, or violence used to cause ingestion of such drugs. The bill would take effect October 1, 2025, and would add a new section to Maryland’s Criminal Law Article.
Impact
SB933 would add Section 3-216 to the Maryland Criminal Law Article, creating a standalone felony offense with a maximum penalty of 25 years’ imprisonment. Its practical effect would be to expand state criminal law to specifically address forced, fraudulent, or coerced administration of abortion-inducing drugs, giving prosecutors a distinct charge in cases involving pregnancy-related coercion. The bill would affect individuals accused of such conduct and could also influence how law enforcement and courts handle allegations involving reproductive coercion, assaultive conduct, and drug-related offenses.
Sentiment
Based on the bill title and text, the measure appears to be strongly protective of pregnant persons and framed around preventing coercion and abuse. However, there is no committee transcript or recorded vote history provided, so there is no direct evidence of support, opposition, or amendments from legislative debate. The available record suggests the bill was introduced as a criminal justice and personal safety measure rather than as a broader abortion policy bill.
Contention
The main point of contention likely concerns how the bill intersects with abortion policy, reproductive rights, and criminal enforcement. Supporters would likely emphasize protection from coercion, fraud, and violence, while critics may worry about overbreadth, evidentiary issues in proving knowledge or belief about pregnancy, and whether the law could be applied in ways that implicate consensual medical decision-making or abortion access debates. Because no hearing transcript or vote record is available, specific positions by legislators, advocates, or opponents cannot be confirmed from the provided materials.