This bill adds a new chapter to Title 18 that targets the disposal of fetal remains following an abortion. It makes certain disposals of fetal tissue a federal criminal offense and sets out a limited definitional framework for what counts as ‘‘fetal remains’’ and where unlawful disposal can occur.
The change matters because it takes conduct that has typically been regulated at the state level — disposal and handling of biological waste related to abortions — and creates a federal prosecutorial route that entangles criminal law with environmental definitions. That raises operational, evidentiary, and jurisdictional questions for clinics, tissue processors, waste contractors, and federal enforcement agencies.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill creates a new federal offense for the reckless disposal or abandonment of fetal remains in two specified settings: landfills and the navigable waters of the United States. Violations are punishable by a term of imprisonment not exceeding three years, a fine, or both. The text also excludes cremated fetal tissue from the definition of fetal remains.
Who It Affects
Entities involved in post-procedure handling and disposal — abortion providers, hospitals, third-party tissue processors, clinical waste contractors, and landfill operators — become potential subjects of federal criminal investigation. Federal prosecutors and agencies with enforcement roles under environmental statutes may be brought into cases that previously would have been handled at the state or regulatory level.
Why It Matters
By specifying criminal exposure tied to disposal locations and importing existing environmental statute definitions, the bill creates cross-cutting obligations that intersect public-health waste practices and maritime/environmental law. That can shift where and how disputes are litigated, change compliance responsibilities for private actors, and introduce novel coordination requirements for federal and state authorities.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill appends a new chapter to the federal criminal code that establishes an offense tied to the disposal of fetal tissue after an abortion. It is structured as a single statutory provision with three subsections: the substantive offense, a carve-out preventing prosecution of a woman for disposing of her own unborn child’s remains, and a definitions subsection that supplies the meaning of terms used elsewhere in the provision.
Practically, a prosecutor must show reckless conduct in the disposal or abandonment of fetal tissue in either a landfill or in navigable waters. The text does not create a civil remedial scheme or regulatory compliance process; it creates a standalone criminal prohibition.
By anchoring ‘‘landfill’’ and ‘‘navigable waters’’ to preexisting federal statute definitions, the bill delegates technical boundaries (for example, what counts as a sanitary landfill) to other federal statutes rather than spelling out new environmental metrics inside the criminal provision.The definitions are consequential: the bill limits ‘‘fetal remains’’ to parts of a human fetus deceased by reason of an abortion and explicitly excludes cremated portions. The rule of construction shielding a woman from prosecution narrows the statute’s target to third parties who handle, transport, or dispose of remains.
That means clinics, private waste handlers, or others in the chain of custody are the realistic subjects of enforcement. Because the mental state the bill requires is recklessness, prosecutions will hinge on evidence of conscious disregard for proper disposal practices — for instance, deliberate dumping into a nonpermitted site or intentional abandonment — rather than on strict liability for any inadvertent mishandling.Implementation will raise operational questions: how investigators establish the origin of biological material, how chain-of-custody and waste manifests are used as proof, and how federal investigators coordinate with state public-health inspectors and local prosecutors.
The bill’s reliance on environmental statute definitions also means that disputes over whether a disposal occurred ‘‘in’’ a regulated landfill or ‘‘in’’ navigable waters will invoke technical lines drawn by other laws and agencies (e.g., EPA, the Coast Guard), shaping the contours of criminal exposure without creating new administrative standards within the criminal code itself.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds a new Chapter 125 to Title 18 and places the offense at section 2741 of the United States Code.
It makes a federal crime the reckless disposal or abandonment of fetal remains specifically in a landfill or in the navigable waters of the United States.
The statutory penalty ceiling is imprisonment for not more than three years, a fine under Title 18, or both.
The text includes a rule of construction that explicitly bars prosecuting any woman for disposing of the remains of her own unborn child.
Definitions import external statutes: ‘‘landfill’’ references the sanitary landfill definition in the Solid Waste Disposal Act and ‘‘navigable waters’’ references the definition in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Formal name for the statute
This section supplies the bill’s short title, which has no operative legal effect but frames the measure as protecting dignity and signals its policy purpose. It is a conventional opening; the operative law begins in the next section.
Creates the criminal prohibition and structure
This is the operative insertion into federal criminal code. It establishes one new section (2741) containing three subsections: the offense (subsection (a)), a non-prosecution carve-out for women (subsection (b)), and definitions (subsection (c)). Structurally, placing the offense in Title 18 treats unlawful disposal as a federal crime rather than a regulatory violation, making federal prosecutors the primary enforcers and exposing violators to criminal penalties rather than administrative fines alone.
Substantive offense and mens rea
This subsection defines the prohibited conduct as reckless disposal or abandonment of fetal remains in a landfill or in navigable waters. The choice of the term ‘‘recklessly’’ sets a culpability threshold requiring proof that the defendant consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk when disposing of remains, which is higher than negligence and lower than intentional conduct. Practically, that shapes investigation strategies: prosecutors will develop evidence that waste was intentionally diverted from proper channels or specific disposal decisions were made with conscious risk-taking.
Non-prosecution clause for the pregnant woman
This clause expressly prevents the statute from being read to authorize prosecution of any woman for disposal of her own unborn child’s remains. It narrows the law’s target to third-party actors in the chain of custody (providers, handlers, transporters). The carve-out matters for charging decisions and will likely be a central defense argument where factual scenarios implicate a woman’s own conduct.
Scope-defining terms and reliance on other federal statutes
This subsection defines ‘‘fetal remains’’ as parts of a human fetus deceased by reason of an abortion but excludes cremated parts. It also ties ‘‘landfill’’ and ‘‘navigable waters’’ to definitions in the Solid Waste Disposal Act and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, respectively. By importing those external definitions, the bill delegates technical determinations (what qualifies as a sanitary landfill; what counts as navigable waters) to the interpretive regimes and agencies already governing those domains, rather than creating new technical standards within the criminal statute.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Justice across all five countries.
Explore Justice in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Advocacy groups seeking federal remedies: The statute creates a federal enforcement path that some advocacy organizations can use to push for investigations when they believe state action is inadequate.
- Municipalities with environmental concerns: Localities that encounter illegal dumping in public landfills or waterways gain an additional federal enforcement tool to deter and punish intentional, reckless disposals affecting public sanitation or water quality.
- Agencies that coordinate on environmental enforcement: Federal agencies (e.g., EPA, Coast Guard) may obtain clearer statutory hooks to support criminal investigations where disposal implicates navigable waters or regulated landfills.
Who Bears the Cost
- Clinics and health-care providers: They face increased compliance risk and potential criminal exposure if a third party in their disposal chain mishandles remains or if internal protocols are found reckless; they may need to revise contracts and auditing practices with waste vendors.
- Medical waste contractors and landfill operators: Companies that transport, process, or receive clinical waste could confront criminal investigations, higher insurance and compliance costs, and operational scrutiny tied to proof of proper disposal.
- Federal prosecutors and investigative agencies: DOJ, EPA, and other enforcement entities will need to allocate investigative resources and technical expertise to investigate disposal incidents and resolve questions about site jurisdiction (landfill versus waters), potentially diverting resources from other priorities.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between deterring and punishing intentional, disrespectful disposal of fetal tissue by private actors and avoiding a criminal regime that sweeps in routine or poorly documented disposal practices by clinics and waste handlers; the bill tightens enforcement via federal criminal law but relies on definitions and proof standards that make practical application messy and potentially burdensome for both regulated entities and enforcement agencies.
The bill creates a classic policy trade-off between preventing intentional misconduct and avoiding overcriminalization of health-care and waste-management activities. Prosecutors must prove recklessness, which narrows exposure relative to strict liability, but real-world fact patterns (cross-border transport, bundled waste streams, limited documentation) can make it difficult to separate negligent paperwork errors from reckless abandonment.
The reliance on external statutory definitions for ‘‘landfill’’ and ‘‘navigable waters’’ imports into criminal prosecutions a host of technical questions — for example, whether a particular disposal occurred inside a facility that meets the statutory definition of a sanitary landfill or whether a water body qualifies as ‘‘navigable’’ — and will require prosecutors to litigate terrain more commonly addressed in environmental civil cases.
Another implementation challenge is evidentiary: linking particular remains to a particular disposal event requires chain-of-custody proof that medical waste tracking systems and manifests may not currently provide. The carve-out preventing prosecution of a woman narrows liability, but it does not resolve scenarios where providers or staff act under instruction or where waste-handling is outsourced.
Finally, federalization raises predictable federalism questions: the bill does not expressly preempt state laws nor create a compliance safe harbor for compliance with state disposal rules, so actors may face overlapping obligations and duplicative enforcement risks from both state regulators and federal prosecutors.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.