West Virginia House Bill HB2151

West Virginia 2025 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/12/25
• Refer: 2/12/25

Caption

Requiring publicly funded medical schools to teach certain life-saving methods

Summary

HB2151 would create a new article in West Virginia law requiring publicly funded medical schools to teach what the bill describes as the most current evidence-based, life-saving methods related to pregnancy care. The bill specifically names abortion pill reversal, treatment of ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage treatment, and perinatal hospice as topics that must be included in medical education. It also defines several terms, including “abortion pill reversal,” “medication abortion,” “informed consent,” and “publicly-funded medical school.” The bill further states that medical schools receiving local, state, or federal funding could face loss of state funding if they do not comply, subject to review by the Legislative Oversight Commission on Education Accountability. It includes legislative findings asserting that abortion pill reversal is possible, that prenatal diagnoses of life-limiting conditions are often false positives, and that perinatal hospice should be taught as part of pre- and postnatal care. The bill is framed as an immediate public health and safety measure.

Impact

If enacted, HB2151 would impose a new curriculum requirement on publicly funded medical schools in West Virginia and create a potential funding penalty for noncompliance. It would affect medical education institutions that receive public money and would likely influence how future physicians are trained on pregnancy-related care, especially medication abortion, ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage management, and perinatal hospice. The bill would also embed its own definitions of these medical terms into state law, including a definition of abortion pill reversal that is not universally accepted in mainstream medical practice.

Sentiment

The bill’s text reflects a strongly pro-life policy position and presents the required instruction as medically necessary and protective of women and preborn children. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes in the provided context, there is no documented legislative debate or vote history to gauge broader chamber sentiment. Based on the bill language alone, the measure appears designed to advance a specific ideological and medical viewpoint rather than to reflect a consensus position.

Contention

The main points of contention are likely to be the bill’s requirement that medical schools teach abortion pill reversal and its characterization of that practice as evidence-based and life-saving. Critics would likely question the scientific support for abortion pill reversal, the bill’s framing of medication abortion, and the use of state funding threats to influence medical school curricula. Supporters would likely emphasize informed consent, fetal life, and instruction on ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, and perinatal hospice as essential care topics. The bill also appears likely to draw disagreement over whether the Legislature should direct medical education content in this way.