Oklahoma House Bill HB1724

Oklahoma 2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/3/25
• Refer: 2/4/25

Caption

Abortion pills; Prevention of Maternal Harm Act of 2025; coerced abortion; imprisonment; fines; Schedule IV; mifepristone and misoprostol; effective date.

Summary

HB1724, titled the "Prevention of Maternal Harm Act of 2025," creates a new criminal offense for "coerced criminal abortion by means of fraud." Under the bill, a person commits this offense by knowingly and intentionally using an abortion-inducing drug on a pregnant woman without her knowledge or consent and with the intent to cause an abortion. The bill sets felony penalties of five to ten years in prison and a $10,000 to $75,000 fine, with enhanced penalties of ten to twenty years and a $50,000 to $100,000 fine if the unborn child is more than three months gestational age. The measure also amends Oklahoma’s controlled substances schedule to add mifepristone and misoprostol to Schedule IV. Those drugs are commonly used in medication abortion, and the bill would place them alongside other controlled substances listed in Title 63. The bill preserves existing authority for the Board of Pharmacy to exempt certain products and maintains the current framework for OTC ephedrine-related exemptions and administrative rulemaking. In addition to the new offense, the bill states that prosecution under the coerced-abortion section does not prevent prosecution under other laws, including murder or attempted murder, if the drug use results in the death or serious bodily injury of the pregnant woman. The bill would take effect November 1, 2025, if enacted. The available context shows no recorded committee debate or votes, so there is no documented legislative sentiment from hearings or floor action. Based on the bill’s structure and caption, it appears to be framed by supporters as a maternal-protection and anti-coercion measure, while its inclusion of mifepristone and misoprostol in Schedule IV suggests it is also part of a broader effort to restrict abortion medication access. The main point of contention is likely the bill’s treatment of abortion pills as controlled substances and the criminal penalties tied to their use without consent. Supporters would likely emphasize preventing coerced abortion and protecting pregnant women from fraud or violence, while opponents would likely argue that the bill could further restrict lawful reproductive healthcare, complicate prescribing and dispensing of medication abortion drugs, and expand criminal liability in abortion-related cases.

Impact

HB1724 would add a new criminal statute to Title 63 addressing coerced abortion by fraud and would amend Oklahoma’s controlled dangerous substances schedule to include mifepristone and misoprostol as Schedule IV substances. It would also preserve existing pharmacy-board exemption authority and related administrative procedures. The bill would affect pregnant women, healthcare providers, pharmacists, law enforcement, and prosecutors by creating new felony penalties and by changing the legal status of two abortion-inducing drugs under state controlled-substances law.

Sentiment

There is no recorded committee transcript or vote history in the provided materials, so the formal legislative sentiment cannot be measured from debate or roll call. The bill’s title and provisions indicate a strong anti-coercion, pro-enforcement posture, suggesting support from lawmakers concerned with maternal harm and forced abortion. At the same time, the inclusion of abortion medications in the controlled-substances schedule indicates the bill is likely to be controversial among reproductive-rights advocates and medical stakeholders.

Contention

The central controversy is whether the bill is a targeted anti-coercion measure or an indirect restriction on abortion access. Supporters are likely to focus on criminalizing nonconsensual administration of abortion-inducing drugs and increasing penalties when the pregnancy is more advanced. Opponents are likely to object to classifying mifepristone and misoprostol as Schedule IV controlled substances, arguing that doing so could stigmatize medication abortion, burden legitimate medical care, and create broader criminal and regulatory consequences beyond the stated anti-fraud purpose.