HB78, titled the “Pregnant Women Health and Safety Act of 2025,” would amend federal criminal law to create a new offense related to abortion procedures. The bill requires physicians who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 15 miles of the physician’s principal office and the abortion site, and to inform the patient of the hospital where follow-up care can be obtained if complications arise. A physician who knowingly performs an abortion without meeting those requirements would be subject to federal fines, imprisonment for up to two years, or both. The bill expressly bars prosecution of the patient for the procedure or for related conspiracy or accomplice offenses under the same section.
The bill also conditions federal funds or assistance to abortion clinics on state licensure and compliance with ambulatory surgery center standards under Medicare law, while allowing state health boards to waive certain structural requirements as determined appropriate by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. It defines an abortion clinic broadly as a non-hospital, non-ambulatory-surgery-center facility where first-, second-, or third-trimester abortions are performed during any 12-month period. In effect, the bill would add new federal regulatory and criminal requirements for abortion providers and impose facility standards on clinics receiving federal support.
Impact
HB78 would amend chapter 74 of title 18 of the U.S. Code by adding a new section governing abortion procedures and by making conforming changes to the chapter heading and table of sections. It would also create a new federal funding condition tied to abortion clinic licensure and ambulatory surgery center-type standards, potentially affecting clinics’ eligibility for federal funds or assistance and increasing compliance obligations for providers and facilities. The bill would not authorize prosecution of the pregnant patient, but it would expose physicians to federal criminal penalties for noncompliance.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes, the measure appears to be framed by its sponsors as a health and safety bill for pregnant women, emphasizing hospital access and follow-up care. The overall posture of the legislation is strongly restrictive toward abortion providers, suggesting support from anti-abortion lawmakers and likely opposition from abortion-rights advocates. No formal vote history or transcript record is available here to show broader legislative sentiment.
Contention
The main points of contention are likely to be the admitting-privileges requirement, the 15-mile hospital proximity rule, and the requirement that abortion clinics meet ambulatory surgery center standards as a condition of receiving federal funds or assistance. Supporters would likely argue these provisions improve patient safety and continuity of care, while opponents would likely contend they are medically unnecessary, impose burdensome facility requirements, and could reduce access to abortion services. The bill’s use of federal criminal law to regulate physician conduct in abortion care is also likely to be controversial, as is the potential for the funding condition to pressure clinics to close or limit services.