New York Assembly Bill A00301

New York 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/8/25
• Refer: 1/8/25
• Refer: 1/7/26

Caption

Establishes the crime of fertility fraud as an assisted reproduction procedure using the health care provider's own spermatozoon or ovum or using human reproductive material without the donor's consent.

Summary

This bill would create a new crime of “fertility fraud” in the New York Penal Law. It makes it a class E felony for a health care provider to knowingly or intentionally perform an assisted reproduction procedure using the provider’s own sperm or ovum, or any other donor’s sperm or ovum, without the patient’s informed written consent. It also covers situations where a provider intentionally performs an assisted reproduction procedure knowing, or reasonably should have known, that human reproductive material was used without the donor’s consent or in a way that exceeded the donor’s consent. The bill defines “human reproductive material” broadly to include sperm, ova, and human organisms from fertilized ovum to embryo. The measure is aimed at misconduct in fertility treatment and assisted reproduction settings, and it would take effect 120 days after becoming law.

Impact

The bill would amend the Penal Law by adding a new section 190.90, creating a standalone felony offense for fertility fraud. It would expose health care providers involved in assisted reproduction to criminal liability for unauthorized use of their own genetic material or for misuse of donor reproductive material, and it would provide a clearer statutory basis for prosecuting nonconsensual fertility-related conduct. Patients, donors, and fertility clinics would be directly affected by the new consent and disclosure requirements embedded in the offense definition.

Sentiment

The available materials suggest generally supportive sentiment, with the bill framed as a consumer-protection and accountability measure for fertility treatment. The bill’s caption and text indicate an intent to address serious misconduct in assisted reproduction, and there is no recorded committee debate or vote history in the provided materials showing opposition or amendment concerns. Overall, the bill appears to be presented as a targeted criminal-law response to a specific form of reproductive abuse.

Contention

The main potential points of contention are the scope of criminal liability and the knowledge standard. The bill reaches not only intentional misconduct but also conduct where a provider “knows or reasonably should have known” that reproductive material was used without consent or beyond the scope of consent, which could raise concerns about proof, professional liability, and how broadly the offense might apply in complex fertility practices. Another possible issue is the breadth of the definition of human reproductive material and whether the class E felony penalty is the appropriate level of punishment for these offenses.