This bill adds §61‑2‑31 to the West Virginia Code to criminalize conspiracies to deny victims of sexual exploitation, sexual assault, incest, or sexual abuse access to licensed medical care for injuries or conditions proximately caused by those offenses. The offense is an inchoate conspiracy crime: an agreement to block access is punishable even without proof that medical care was actually withheld.
The statute explicitly calls out, as an example, situations tied to the performance of an unlawful abortion under §16‑2R‑1, and prescribes a felony sentence of 5–10 years, fines up to $50,000, or both. For practitioners, the bill raises immediate questions about the scope of "licensed medical care," how prosecutors will prove a conspiratorial agreement, and how this new offense will interact with existing conspiracy, obstruction, and abortion statutes.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill makes it a felony to willfully conspire to prevent a sexual‑offense victim from obtaining licensed medical care for injuries or conditions proximately caused by the offense; it treats an agreement as the criminal act and duplicates the offense language in two subsections to capture in‑state and cross‑border conspirators.
Who It Affects
Potential defendants include anyone who agrees—alone or with others—to block a victim’s access: family members, caregivers, private actors who coerce or direct victims, and out‑of‑state conspirators who coordinate with people inside West Virginia. Hospitals, forensic examiners, and prosecutors will also be affected operationally.
Why It Matters
This creates a standalone tool for prosecutors to target coordinated obstruction of victim care, but it also broadens criminal exposure in areas already occupied by conspiracy and obstruction laws and intersects with West Virginia’s abortion statute, creating interpretive and enforcement questions for courts and agencies.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill establishes a new criminal offense that targets agreements to deny medical care to people who have suffered sexual exploitation, sexual assault, incest, or sexual abuse. It does not require that medical care actually be denied or that the victim suffer further injury beyond the underlying sexual offense; the criminal act is the willful agreement itself.
The covered medical care must be "licensed medical care" for conditions or injuries proximately caused by the sexual conduct, but the bill does not define "licensed" or specify particular types of clinical services.
The statute contains two near‑identical subsections that together aim to reach conspiracies that involve participants located inside West Virginia and conspirators outside the state who coordinate with people inside the state. Both subsections treat the same set of underlying harms and prescribe identical punishments: a felony with a mandatory custody range of 5 to 10 years, fines up to $50,000, or both.
By explicitly mentioning the "performance of an unlawful abortion" under §16‑2R‑1, the bill signals that conduct tied to abortion‑related scenarios is an intended example, though the phrase "including, but not limited to" keeps the provision broader than that single example.Practically, prosecutors would need to prove the defendant entered into a willful agreement to deny access, and they may rely on communications, coordination, or conduct showing a meeting of the minds. Because the statute is inchoate, prosecutors can charge at the agreement stage before any denial of care occurs.
The bill does not create civil remedies, administrative reporting requirements, or a private right of action; nor does it supply statutory definitions, exceptions, or safe harbors for caregivers, parents, religious advisors, or medical triage decisions. Those gaps are likely to shape both prosecution strategies and defense challenges if the law is enforced.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill criminalizes an agreement to deny a sexual‑offense victim access to "licensed medical care" for injuries proximately caused by the offense; conviction is a felony.
It prescribes identical punishments in both subsections: imprisonment from 5 to 10 years, a fine up to $50,000, or both.
The text explicitly references conduct tied to the "performance of an unlawful abortion" under §16‑2R‑1 as an example but uses the phrase "including, but not limited to," keeping the statute's reach broader.
The two subsections are structured to capture conspirators both present within West Virginia and those outside the state who conspire with persons present inside West Virginia.
The bill contains no statutory definitions, exceptions, or express defenses for parental decision‑making, religious counseling, or emergency medical triage.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
In‑state conspirator clause
Subsection (a) targets any person who is physically present in West Virginia and who willfully conspires with one or more persons to deny a covered victim access to licensed medical care. Practically, this captures an actor inside the state who agrees—whether with in‑state or out‑of‑state collaborators—to obstruct care. Prosecutors will rely on evidence of an agreement (texts, calls, directives) rather than the success of any effort to block treatment.
Cross‑border conspirator clause
Subsection (b) mirrors (a) but flips the jurisdictional language to reach persons who conspire with one or more persons present in West Virginia. That drafting choice appears designed to sweep in out‑of‑state actors who arrange or induce denials of care with in‑state partners. The duplicate penalty schema ensures the same sentencing exposure whether the defendant is in or out of state at the time of the conspiracy.
Explicit abortion‑related example; broad catch‑all language
By referencing "the performance of an unlawful abortion in violation of, and conspiracy to violate, the provisions of §16‑2R‑1," the statute signals that abortion‑linked scenarios are among the conduct contemplated. At the same time, the qualifying phrase "including, but not limited to" prevents courts from reading the provision as limited to abortion‑related denials. That combination creates potential overlap with existing abortion statutes and raises the question of how prosecutors will choose charging theories when multiple statutes could apply.
Felony exposure, sentencing range, and prosecutorial practicalities
Both subsections impose a uniform felony penalty—5 to 10 years imprisonment, up to $50,000 fine, or both—placing the offense among more serious inchoate crimes. The bill provides no sentencing enhancements, mitigation guidelines, or statutory factors to guide charging decisions. Because the offense is conspiratorial, enforcement will turn on proving intent to agree and the existence of a meeting of the minds rather than proof of a completed deprivation of care.
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
- Victims of sexual exploitation, assault, incest, or abuse: The statute creates a criminal tool specifically aimed at coordinated attempts to block access to medical evaluation and treatment, which can preserve forensic evidence and timely care.
- Sexual‑assault response providers and hospitals: The law may deter third‑party interference with SANE exams, emergency care, and other forensic/medical services, potentially reducing obstruction during critical windows.
- State prosecutors and law enforcement: Prosecutors gain a standalone conspiracy charge tailored to this conduct, which can simplify charging decisions when a concerted effort—rather than a single act—blocked care.
Who Bears the Cost
- Private individuals who intervene to prevent care (family members, guardians, escorts): Those who coordinate to withhold treatment may face felony prosecution even if they did not physically block access.
- Out‑of‑state actors coordinating with West Virginia residents: The bill explicitly reaches cross‑border conspirators, expanding criminal exposure for actors operating from other jurisdictions.
- Health care institutions and clinicians: Hospitals and clinicians may face increased investigative demands and will need to document access‑related interactions carefully; in some instances staff could be drawn into prosecutions if prosecutors allege they participated in conspiracies.
- State criminal justice system and corrections: New felony prosecutions and potential prison sentences will create additional caseload and incarceration costs for courts and correctional facilities.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits two legitimate objectives against each other: protecting sexual‑offense victims from coordinated obstruction of timely medical care, and avoiding an overbroad criminal law that sweeps in benign or constitutionally protected speech, private family decisions, or reasonable medical triage—an ambiguity that leaves prosecutors and judges to balance victim protection against risks of disproportionate criminalization.
The statute’s core protective aim—preventing coordinated denial of medical care to sexual‑offense victims—relies on criminalizing agreements rather than only completed acts. That inchoate approach is powerful for early intervention but raises proof challenges: prosecutors must demonstrate a willful meeting of the minds, which often depends on circumstantial evidence and interpretations of communications or group conduct.
The bill provides no statutory definition of key terms such as "deny," "access," or "licensed medical care," leaving courts to apply existing law to concrete disputes and inviting litigation over scope.
The express invocation of §16‑2R‑1 (related to unlawful abortion) complicates enforcement choices. On one hand, naming abortion‑related scenarios shows legislative concern about denial of care in those contexts; on the other hand, coupling that example with broad catch‑all language can produce overlap with other criminal statutes (conspiracy, obstruction, aiding and abetting) and with existing abortion prohibitions, prompting questions about charging discretion, double exposure for defendants, and potential duplicative punishments.
The bill also contains no procedural guidance—no reporting duties, no civil remedies for victims, no exemption for emergency medical decision‑making—so implementing agencies and courts will need to fill those gaps.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.