SB2172 adds Section 498F to the Public Health Service Act to bar abortion providers from causing fetal remains to be placed into publicly owned water systems. The bill defines key terms (including ‘fetal remains’ and ‘publicly owned water system’), excludes the patient from provider liability, and makes violations a federal crime punishable by fines under Title 18 and up to five years’ imprisonment.
This is a narrow, operationally focused federal criminal statute that reaches disposal practices and the waste-disposal chain. If enacted, clinics and their contractors will need to reassess on-site disposal, contracts with medical-waste firms, and documentation; municipal wastewater operators and public-health officials will face fewer direct contamination concerns but potential new requests for cooperation in investigations.
The bill also raises interpretive issues about causation, mens rea, and overlap with existing environmental and state medical-waste law.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill prohibits an abortion provider from causing fetal remains or any medical waste associated with an abortion to be placed into a publicly owned water system and attaches federal criminal penalties (fines under Title 18 and up to 5 years imprisonment). It adds the prohibition as a new Section 498F in the Public Health Service Act.
Who It Affects
Primary targets are abortion providers and clinic operators, but the rule also reaches medical-waste contractors, municipal wastewater treatment plants, and public-health/regulatory agencies that manage or monitor publicly owned water systems.
Why It Matters
The statute federalizes a disposal prohibition and imposes criminal liability at the provider level, potentially shifting disposal practices, contracts, and enforcement responsibilities and creating new intersections with environmental and state medical-waste rules.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB2172 creates a stand-alone federal offense in the Public Health Service Act that makes it illegal for an abortion provider to cause fetal remains or any other medical waste associated with an abortion to enter a publicly owned water system. A violation exposes the provider to criminal prosecution under federal law with fines pursuant to Title 18 and up to five years behind bars.
The law is targeted at the actor who “causes” the placement into a public water system rather than at the system operator or the patient.
The bill spells out definitions that determine scope. ‘Fetal remains’ covers tissue from an abortion and, notably, “any other medical waste associated with an abortion,” broadening the reach beyond fetal tissue to disposables, contaminated materials, and fluids tied to the procedure. The term ‘abortion’ itself is defined to cover procedures that intentionally kill the unborn child or terminate pregnancy unless the procedure is intended to produce a live birth, preserve the life or health of the child, or remove a dead unborn child.
The statute explicitly excludes the individual upon whom the abortion is performed from the ‘abortion provider’ label and from criminal liability under this provision.The phrase ‘publicly owned water system’ is defined to include government-owned or controlled systems used to provide, transport, or treat water, and specifically notes drains, pipes, and other devices that connect to such systems. That means discharges to public sewers, on-site drains that tie into municipal collection systems, and connected plumbing are within the prohibition.
Because the statute targets the act of “causing” placement into such systems, the law will implicate not only direct disposal by clinic staff but also disposal via contractors or practices that foreseeably result in entry to a municipal system.Practically, clinics will need to review waste-handling chains: where tissue and associated waste are stored, how medical-waste contractors handle and transport material, and whether any on-site discharges or sink disposals could be construed as causing placement into a public system. For regulators and prosecutors, the bill raises evidentiary questions — proving causation, and potentially intent — and interacts with state medical-waste statutes and EPA rules.
The act’s text also includes a clause stating it does not preempt a state or local requirement that prohibits an abortion provider from causing fetal remains to enter a publicly owned water system, signaling Congress did not intend to override stricter local rules but leaving open how the federal prohibition sits alongside less restrictive state frameworks.
The Five Things You Need to Know
SB2172 adds a new Section 498F to the Public Health Service Act that makes it a federal crime for an abortion provider to cause fetal remains to be placed into a publicly owned water system.
A violating abortion provider faces federal criminal penalties: fines ‘in accordance with Title 18’ and imprisonment for up to five years.
The statute defines ‘fetal remains’ to include both the remains of an aborted fetus (or portions thereof) and ‘any other medical waste associated with an abortion,’ creating a broad material scope.
‘Publicly owned water system’ is defined to cover government-owned or -controlled systems and explicitly includes drains, pipes, and devices that connect to those systems — capturing sewer discharges and connected plumbing.
The bill excludes the person undergoing the abortion from the definition of ‘abortion provider’ and bars criminal liability for that individual under this provision.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title — Respectful Treatment of Unborn Remains Act of 2025
This single-line section provides the bill’s short title. It signals the sponsor’s framing but carries no operative effect on implementation or enforcement.
Core prohibition — no causing fetal remains into public water systems
This subsection contains the operative ban: an abortion provider may not cause fetal remains to be placed into a publicly owned water system. The wording focuses liability on the actor who causes placement rather than the passive presence of remains in the environment. For compliance officers, the key practical question is what conduct ‘causes’ placement — direct flushing, routing to a drain that connects to a municipal sewer, or contracting disposal methods that ultimately deliver material to a public treatment plant.
Penalties — federal criminal consequences
Violations are criminalized with penalties tied to Title 18 fines and imprisonment up to five years. The bill does not specify a particular criminal classification (e.g., misdemeanor vs. felony) but instead cross-references Title 18’s fine structure and sets a maximum custodial term. That creates prosecutorial discretion about charging, and it places investigatory responsibility on federal law-enforcement and U.S. Attorney offices to develop proof that the provider caused the placement.
Liability carve-out for patients and relation to state/local law
Subsection (c) makes explicit that the individual upon whom an abortion is performed is not liable for offenses under this section — and the person is excluded from the statutory definition of ‘abortion provider.’ Subsection (d) states that nothing in the section may be construed to preempt a State or local requirement that prohibits such placement, preserving stricter local prohibitions. The clause does not, however, explain how federal enforcement will interact with less-restrictive state schemes or with state criminal laws, which could create parallel enforcement pathways or conflicts in practice.
Definitions — abortion, abortion provider, fetal remains, publicly owned water system
This subsection supplies precise definitions that determine the statute’s reach. ‘Abortion’ is defined broadly but carves out procedures intended to produce live birth or to preserve life/health or remove a dead unborn child. ‘Fetal remains’ is broad, covering tissue and other medical waste tied to the abortion. ‘Publicly owned water system’ is tied to government ownership or control and expressly includes drains and connecting devices. These definitions will be the primary battleground for interpreting whether routine clinic disposal practices or contractor actions fall within the prohibition.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Healthcare across all five countries.
Explore Healthcare 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
- Municipal wastewater utilities — the law narrows a specific disposal pathway (public sewer) for fetal tissue and related waste, reducing the downstream presence of such material in publicly owned treatment systems and the reputational and operational issues that can arise when it appears there.
- Public-health and environmental regulators — they gain an explicit federal prohibition that clarifies one disposal pathway is criminal, which can support inspections and coordination with local authorities.
- Medical-waste treatment firms that handle off-site disposal — demand for certified off-site treatment and transport (incineration, autoclaving, regulated disposal) could increase as clinics move away from any practice that risks sewer discharge.
- Advocacy organizations that prioritize restrictions on abortion-related disposal — the statute provides a federal policy tool that aligns with their objectives and could be used to press for compliance and publicity around enforcement.
Who Bears the Cost
- Abortion providers and clinic operators — they face potential criminal liability, higher compliance costs to ensure proper disposal, updates to standard operating procedures, staff training, and possibly increased contracting costs for waste management.
- Medical-waste contractors and transporters — they may need to change routing and treatment operations, add documentation to prove wastes did not enter public sewers, and face secondary scrutiny or subpoenas in enforcement actions.
- Federal prosecutors and courts — enforcement will require investigation into causation and chain-of-custody, increasing prosecutorial and judicial resource demands if cases are brought.
- State and local governments — while some will welcome the federal backstop, others may face coordination burdens responding to federal inquiries, adjusting local ordinances, or defending differing regulatory schemes.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits a legitimate public-interest goal — protecting publicly owned water systems and clarifying prohibited disposal routes — against the costs of criminalizing clinical disposal practices and the operational burden that places on providers and waste-handling chains; the core dilemma is whether criminal penalties are the right tool to correct disposal practices that could otherwise be addressed through regulation, inspection, and civil enforcement.
The statute’s wording leaves several implementation and legal uncertainties. First, the operative verb — “cause” — is broad and unspecified: it does not articulate any required mental state (intent, knowledge, recklessness, or negligence).
Prosecutors will face the practical difficulty of proving that a provider’s actions caused placement into a public system rather than, for example, an independent contractor’s later acts. Second, the definition of ‘fetal remains’ to include ‘any other medical waste associated with an abortion’ is expansive and could sweep in items (disposables, fluids, swabs) that are already governed by state and federal medical-waste rules, raising issues of overlap and potentially inconsistent standards across jurisdictions.
The bill intersects with existing regulatory frameworks — sewer-use ordinances, EPA and state environmental controls, and state medical-waste statutes — without establishing a clear hierarchy for conflict resolution except to preserve state/local prohibitions that are stricter. That creates a patchwork risk: in some states the federal law will supplement stricter local bans; in others it may introduce new federal criminal exposure in settings where state regulatory regimes already manage disposal through civil or administrative mechanisms.
Finally, the lack of civil or administrative enforcement provisions and the exclusive focus on criminal penalties may limit regulatory flexibility and create perverse incentives for either overcriminalization or under-enforcement depending on local prosecutorial priorities.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.