Pennsylvania House Bill HB1740

Pennsylvania 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 7/16/25
• Refer: 7/16/25

Caption

In abortion, further providing for legislative intent, providing for fetal heartbeat examination and further providing for medical consultation and judgment and for abortion on unborn child of 24 or more weeks gestational age; and making an editorial change.

Summary

HB1740 would substantially revise Pennsylvania’s abortion statutes by replacing the current 24-week framework with a fetal-heartbeat standard. The bill adds legislative findings stating that fetal heartbeat is a key predictor of live birth and that pregnant patients have an interest in knowing whether cardiac activity is present. It then requires a physician, before performing an abortion, to conduct a physical examination to determine whether a fetal heartbeat is detectable, using the physician’s best clinical judgment. If a fetal heartbeat is detected, the bill generally prohibits abortion. If no heartbeat is detected, an abortion may proceed only if the physician determines in best clinical judgment that it is necessary or obtains a written certification from another physician. The bill also revises the existing prohibition on abortions at 24 or more weeks’ gestational age so that the operative trigger becomes the presence of a detectable fetal heartbeat rather than gestational age. Reporting requirements are updated to reflect the new terminology, and the act would take effect 60 days after enactment.

Impact

The bill would amend Title 18 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, specifically the abortion provisions in sections 3202, 3203.1, 3204, 3211, and 3214. In practical terms, it would create a new pre-abortion examination requirement, narrow when abortions may be performed, and shift the legal threshold from gestational age to fetal cardiac activity. It would also affect physicians, abortion providers, and reporting obligations to the Department of Health by changing the information tied to abortion reporting and the statutory basis for compliance.

Sentiment

No committee transcript or recorded vote information was provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or floor sentiment in the available materials. Based on the bill text and sponsorship, the measure appears to be strongly supported by anti-abortion lawmakers and framed as a protection for unborn children and informed patient decision-making. The absence of recorded votes or hearing testimony means the broader legislative reaction cannot be determined from the supplied record.

Contention

The central point of contention is the bill’s replacement of the 24-week standard with a fetal-heartbeat ban, which would significantly restrict abortion access earlier in pregnancy. Supporters are likely to emphasize fetal cardiac activity, informed consent, and the state’s interest in protecting unborn life, while opponents would likely object to the medical feasibility of the heartbeat examination, the reliance on physician judgment, and the practical effect of sharply limiting abortion care. The bill also raises likely disputes over exceptions, enforcement, and whether the new standard conflicts with existing constitutional or statutory abortion protections.