AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 4; Title 29; Title 33; Title 37; Title 39; Title 40; Title 53; Title 56; Title 62; Title 63; Title 68 and Title 71, relative to women's health.
SB1425 would amend Tennessee’s criminal abortion law to create and define additional exceptions to the offense of criminal abortion. The bill adds definitions for “lethal fetal anomaly” and for “serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function,” and it specifies that the latter does not include conditions related to a woman’s mental health. It also identifies examples of qualifying pregnancy complications such as preeclampsia, inevitable abortion, and premature rupture of membranes, while noting that other conditions like diabetes or multiple sclerosis may qualify depending on the circumstances.
Under the bill, a licensed physician performing an abortion in a licensed hospital or ambulatory surgical treatment center would not commit criminal abortion if, using reasonable medical judgment, the physician determines the abortion is necessary to prevent the pregnant woman’s death or serious irreversible bodily harm and uses the method most likely to allow fetal survival unless that would increase the risk to the woman. The bill also creates a separate exception for pregnancies involving a lethal fetal anomaly, but only if two additional physicians concur in writing and the patient is informed that perinatal hospice and perinatal palliative care are available alternatives to abortion. In that circumstance, the physician may perform an abortion or a premature delivery to address the anomaly or reduce risks to the woman.
The bill’s impact would be to narrow and clarify Tennessee’s abortion restrictions by expressly carving out additional medical exceptions and procedural requirements. It would affect physicians, hospitals, ambulatory surgical treatment centers, pregnant patients facing severe pregnancy complications, and cases involving fatal fetal diagnoses. It would also add documentation, concurrence, and counseling requirements to the medical record and clinical decision-making process.
Overall sentiment cannot be determined from committee discussion or votes because no transcripts or voting history were provided. Based on the text alone, the bill appears to be framed as a women’s health measure that seeks to balance abortion restrictions with medical exceptions for life-threatening conditions and lethal fetal diagnoses. The main points of contention likely concern how broadly the medical exceptions apply, the exclusion of mental health conditions, the requirement for two additional physician concurrences, and whether the bill meaningfully expands access to abortion or simply codifies limited exceptions.
SB1425 would amend Tennessee Code Annotated Section 39-15-213, the state’s criminal abortion statute, by adding new definitions and exceptions that could shield certain abortion-related conduct from criminal liability. It would require physicians to document medical judgments, obtain written concurrence from two other physicians in lethal fetal anomaly cases, and provide information about perinatal hospice and palliative care. The bill would directly affect abortion providers, medical facilities authorized to perform abortions, and patients with severe pregnancy complications or fatal fetal diagnoses.
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of legislative sentiment from debate or roll call. From the bill text, the measure is presented as a women’s health bill and appears designed to create medically based exceptions within Tennessee’s abortion restrictions. The likely overall framing is cautious and medically oriented rather than expansive, with support presumably centered on protecting pregnant patients in extreme medical circumstances and opposition likely focused on abortion policy implications.
The most likely areas of contention are the scope of the medical exception, the definition of “serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment,” and the exclusion of mental health conditions from that definition. Another likely point of dispute is the lethal fetal anomaly exception, especially the requirement for written concurrence from two additional physicians and mandatory counseling about perinatal hospice and palliative care. Supporters would likely emphasize patient safety and physician discretion, while opponents may argue the bill still permits abortion and could broaden exceptions beyond current law.