New York Senate Bill S01978

New York 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/14/25
• Refer: 1/14/25
• Refer: 1/7/26

Caption

Prohibits the use of state funds for non-residents seeking an abortion or any other procedure that results in the intentional termination of a pregnancy at any stage of gestation.

Summary

S01978 would amend the New York State Finance Law to bar the state comptroller, state departments, and state agencies from certifying or making payments to, or on behalf of, non-residents when the payment is intended for an abortion or any related procedure. The bill defines a “related procedure” broadly as any procedure that results in the intentional termination of a pregnancy at any stage of gestation. It would take effect immediately if enacted. In practical terms, the bill would restrict the use of state funds for abortion-related services provided to people who are not New York residents, including reimbursement payments to providers. It does not appear to change abortion law generally for residents, but instead targets state financial support and payment mechanisms for non-resident patients and the providers who serve them.

Impact

The bill would add a new subdivision to Section 8 of the State Finance Law, creating a payment prohibition tied to residency status and abortion-related services. State agencies and the comptroller would be prohibited from certifying claims or issuing payments for abortions or related procedures when the beneficiary is a non-resident, which could affect public funding streams, provider reimbursements, and administrative billing practices. The measure would not directly criminalize abortion or alter the substantive legality of the procedure, but it would limit state fiscal participation in such services for non-residents.

Sentiment

No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no documented legislative debate or vote history to gauge support or opposition. Based on the bill text and sponsor list, the measure appears to reflect a restrictive policy approach focused on limiting state spending on abortion services for non-residents. The absence of recorded action suggests the bill was introduced and referred to committee without further documented consideration in the materials provided.

Contention

The central point of contention is likely the bill’s restriction on state funding for abortion-related care for non-residents, which could be viewed by supporters as a fiscal and residency-based limitation and by opponents as an access barrier that could affect patients and providers. Another likely issue is the bill’s broad definition of “related procedure,” which could create uncertainty about what services are covered and whether reimbursement for associated medical care would be denied. Because the bill targets non-residents specifically, residency verification and administrative enforcement would also likely be disputed.