This bill adds a new federal offense to Title 18 making it a crime to knowingly and intentionally administer an abortion-inducing drug to a pregnant woman without her informed consent when the conduct involves interstate or foreign commerce. It also creates a private civil cause of action for victims and inserts statutory definitions for terms such as ‘abortion-inducing drug’ and ‘informed consent.’
Why this matters: the measure reaches distribution and administration channels that cross state lines (including drugs shipped in interstate commerce) and pairs criminal exposure with treble statutory damages and fee-shifting, creating potential criminal and civil liability for providers, distributors, and others in the supply chain while centralizing federal jurisdiction over certain nonconsensual abortion conduct.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill adds §1532 to Title 18 to prohibit the knowing, intentional administration of an abortion-inducing drug to a woman without her informed consent when the conduct is in or affects interstate or foreign commerce. It also authorizes civil suits by victims and supplies statutory definitions for key terms.
Who It Affects
The rule targets anyone who administers or facilitates administration of abortion-inducing drugs that moved in interstate commerce — including clinicians, telemedicine prescribers, pharmacies, and intermediaries involved in shipping or distributing those drugs.
Why It Matters
By tying the offense to interstate commerce and defining conspiracy to include shipping without verification, the bill reaches modern distribution models (mail-order and telehealth). Compliance, risk assessment, and litigation exposure for entities handling abortion-inducing drugs would materially change if enacted.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill inserts a new federal crime into Title 18 that focuses on nonconsensual chemical abortions. It criminalizes the knowing and intentional administration of any drug intended to cause an abortion to a pregnant woman who has not given informed consent, but only when the act ‘‘is in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce.’' The statute separately treats attempts and conspiracies as subject to the same penalties as a completed offense.
If the nonconsensual administration results in serious bodily injury or death, the bill authorizes an additional term of imprisonment that can be stacked on top of the base penalty. Beyond criminal sanctions, the statute gives a directly harmed woman a civil cause of action against anyone who administered, attempted to administer, or conspired to administer an abortion-inducing drug.
The civil remedy includes objectively verifiable compensatory damages for physical and psychological injuries, statutory damages equal to three times the cost of those injuries, punitive damages, and a prevailing-plaintiff attorney’s-fee award; the court can award fees to a prevailing defendant only if it finds the plaintiff’s suit frivolous.The bill also supplies definitions to guide enforcement: ‘‘abortion-inducing drug’’ expressly covers drugs such as mifepristone and misoprostol; ‘‘conspires to commit an offense’’ is defined to include selling, shipping, or giving such drugs without taking reasonable steps to ensure the requester is a pregnant woman seeking an abortion; and ‘‘informed consent’’ is framed as voluntary, knowing agreement after being fully informed of nature, purpose, risks, and potential consequences. The measure makes small but consequential technical edits to chapter headings and the Title 18 table of chapters to move from the prior ‘‘partial-birth abortions’’ nomenclature to a broader ‘‘abortions’’ heading.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The new criminal offense carries a maximum prison term of up to 25 years for knowingly and intentionally administering an abortion-inducing drug without a woman’s informed consent.
If the nonconsensual administration causes serious bodily injury or death, the statute authorizes an additional prison term of up to 25 years to be imposed in addition to the base penalty.
The civil cause of action allows triple statutory damages equal to three times the cost of all injuries occasioned by the violation, plus punitive damages and compensatory recovery for psychological and physical harms.
The bill defines conspiring to commit the offense to include selling, shipping, or giving an abortion-inducing drug without taking reasonable measures to verify the requester is a pregnant woman seeking an abortion, explicitly catching mail-order and online distribution.
The statute specifically names mifepristone and misoprostol as examples of ‘abortion-inducing drugs’ and cross-references existing definitions for ‘serious bodily injury’ and ‘unborn child’ elsewhere in Title 18.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title — Forced Abortion Prevention and Accountability Act
This single-line section supplies the act’s short title for citation. Practically, it signals congressional intent to target nonconsensual chemical abortions and to attach both criminal and civil accountability to those acts.
Creates the core federal offense for nonconsensual administration
This subsection establishes the substantive crime: knowingly and intentionally administering an abortion-inducing drug to a pregnant woman without her informed consent when the conduct is in or affects interstate or foreign commerce. From an enforcement standpoint, the interstate-commerce trigger is the jurisdictional hook that allows federal prosecutors to bring charges when the drugs or conduct cross state lines; proof will require evidence linking the drug or conduct to interstate commerce and proof of the defendant’s knowledge and intent.
Attempts/conspiracies treated as the offense; stacked penalty for serious harm
Subsection (b) makes attempts and conspiracies punishable as the completed offense. Subsection (c) authorizes an additional prison term (up to 25 years) if the act results in serious bodily injury or death, to be imposed in addition to the base punishment. Practically, the combination broadens prosecutorial tools (conspiracy liability for accomplices and upstream actors) and allows sentencing enhancements that may stack, increasing exposure for defendants in high-harm cases.
Private cause of action with treble statutory damages and limited fee shifting
This subsection gives victims a civil pathway to recover multiple categories of relief: compensatory damages for verifiable injuries, statutory damages equal to three times the cost of those injuries, and punitive damages. It also mandates attorney’s fees for prevailing plaintiffs while permitting fee awards to prevailing defendants only if the court finds the original suit frivolous. For providers and insurers, this creates a predictable litigation exposure profile combining large statutory multiples and the risk of punitive awards.
Key definitional scaffolding that shapes who and what is covered
The bill defines ‘‘abortion,’’ ‘‘abortion-inducing drug’’ (calling out mifepristone and misoprostol), ‘‘informed consent,’’ ‘‘conspires to commit an offense’’ (including shipping/selling without reasonable verification), and imports Title 18’s definitions for ‘‘serious bodily injury’’ and ‘‘unborn child.’' These definitions will control the scope of both criminal and civil liability and are likely to be major focal points in litigation and enforcement — especially the standards for what counts as adequate verification and what constitutes informed consent in remote or telehealth contexts.
Technical edits to chapter headings and table of chapters
The bill replaces the existing chapter heading language referencing ‘‘partial-birth abortions’’ with a broader ‘‘Abortions’’ heading and updates the Title 18 table of chapters. While clerical, these changes reflect a broader statutory framing and may simplify citation and cross-referencing for future criminal provisions covering abortion-related conduct.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Criminal Justice across all five countries.
Explore Criminal 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
- Women subjected to nonconsensual administration: The bill creates both criminal penalties and a private civil remedy that provides compensatory recovery, treble statutory damages, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees for prevailing plaintiffs.
- State and federal prosecutors focusing on nonconsensual reproductive harms: The interstate-commerce hook and explicit criminal language expand tools for prosecution when drugs or conduct cross state lines.
- Advocacy organizations and litigants pursuing accountability for coerced or forced abortions: The civil statutory framework gives a clear cause of action and damage multipliers that make civil litigation a viable enforcement path.
Who Bears the Cost
- Telemedicine prescribers and online pharmacies: The conspiracy definition that includes shipping without taking reasonable measures to verify a requester’s status imposes compliance and verification burdens on remote providers and may force changes to intake, ID verification, or in-person requirements.
- Pharmacies and distributors that ship abortion-inducing drugs across state lines: Entities in the supply chain face criminal and civil exposure if prosecutors or plaintiffs link their distribution practices to inadequate verification procedures.
- Healthcare providers and clinics handling medication abortions: Providers may face expanded criminal liability for alleged nonconsensual administration and greater civil exposure, prompting changes in consent documentation, recordkeeping, and patient screening protocols.
- Insurers and employers offering pharmacy benefits: Increased litigation and statutory damages could raise claims costs and premiums for plans covering medications at issue.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between bolstering remedies for women who are coerced into chemical abortions and imposing broad criminal and civil liability that may sweep in lawful providers, distributors, and modern telemedicine models; protecting victims requires effective enforcement, but the statute’s definitional gaps and interstate reach risk chilling legitimate care and complicating proof about consent, administration, and verification.
The bill trades a clear protective objective — making nonconsensual chemical abortions punishable and compensable — for a set of imprecise legal hooks that will determine its real-world reach. Two definitions in particular — ‘‘informed consent’’ and what counts as ‘‘reasonable measures’’ to verify a requester’s pregnancy and intent — are underspecified and will drive litigation over both criminal culpability and civil liability.
In telehealth and mail-order contexts, courts will have to grapple with what documentation, verification, or interaction suffices to avoid conspiracy liability under the statute.
The interstate-commerce language grants federal reach but also imports implementation challenges. Prosecutors must link a defendant’s conduct to interstate commerce to establish federal jurisdiction; at the same time, the conspiracy definition expressly targets shipping and selling, so distributors and platforms will need to revise compliance practices.
The combination of treble statutory damages, punitive awards, and potential stacking of 25-year prison terms for serious bodily injury or death produces meaningful exposure for defendants and a strong incentive for plaintiffs to litigate — or for defendants to settle — even where factual disputes exist about consent. Finally, proving the requisite mens rea (knowing and intentional administration) in cases involving self-administration of mailed drugs or third-party facilitation may raise novel evidentiary questions about who ‘‘administered’’ the drug and how to prove a defendant’s knowledge of the woman’s lack of consent.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.