Creates the Rhode Island Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, prohibiting the performance or induction of an abortion of an unborn child capable of feeling pain, unless necessary to prevent serious health risk to the unborn child's mother.
S0064 would add a new chapter to Rhode Island’s health and safety laws titled the “Rhode Island Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.” The bill would prohibit a physician from performing, inducing, or attempting to perform or induce an abortion on an unborn child deemed capable of feeling pain, which the bill defines as generally at 20 or more weeks post-fertilization, unless the abortion is necessary to prevent a serious health risk to the pregnant woman. The measure includes extensive legislative findings asserting that fetal pain can occur by 20 weeks and that the state has a compelling interest in protecting unborn children at that stage.
The bill also sets out detailed procedures for determining post-fertilization age, requires reporting by physicians who perform abortions, and establishes confidentiality rules for those reports. It creates civil remedies and criminal penalties for intentional or reckless violations, including felony liability for providers, private rights of action by the woman or the father of the unborn child in certain circumstances, attorney’s fees provisions, and privacy protections in court proceedings. It also creates a litigation defense fund to support defense of the law and includes severability language. The act would take effect on January 1, 2026.
If enacted, the bill would significantly restrict abortion access in Rhode Island after the point at which a fetus is determined to be capable of feeling pain, effectively creating a 20-week post-fertilization limit except in cases of serious health risk to the mother. It would amend Title 23 of the General Laws by adding a new chapter and would impose new duties on physicians, including age-determination steps, reporting requirements to the Department of Health, and compliance with detailed documentation and confidentiality rules. It would also expose providers to felony prosecution, civil lawsuits, injunctions, and professional discipline for violations, while expressly shielding the pregnant woman from penalties.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes, the available context suggests the measure is strongly aligned with abortion-restriction policy and is framed by its sponsors as a fetal-pain protection law. The bill’s findings and enforcement provisions indicate a clear intent to advance a pro-life regulatory approach. Because no committee transcripts or voting history are provided, there is no documented public debate in the supplied materials, but the structure of the bill suggests it would likely be viewed as highly consequential and politically sensitive.
The main point of contention is the bill’s central premise that fetal pain is present by 20 weeks post-fertilization and that this justifies restricting abortion before viability. Supporters, as reflected in the findings, rely on medical and constitutional arguments about state interest in protecting unborn life; opponents would likely challenge both the medical basis and the legality of imposing a pre-viability abortion ban. Additional likely flashpoints include the mandatory reporting regime, felony penalties for providers, private civil enforcement by the woman or father, and the bill’s narrow medical-emergency exception, which excludes psychological or emotional conditions.