HR-7177-119
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsored by Randy Feenstra (R-IA)
What it does
This bill would add a new federal crime (18 U.S.C. 250) barring abortions performed with knowledge that the woman is seeking one because of a Turner syndrome diagnosis or suspected diagnosis. It would also require providers to ask every patient about any Turner syndrome evidence before an abortion and to tell her about the prohibition. Violations would carry up to 5 years in prison, fines, civil suits by the father or a minor's maternal grandparents, loss of federal funds under the Rehabilitation Act, and a duty on medical and counseling staff to report suspected violations (up to 1 year in prison for failing to report). The woman herself could not be prosecuted or sued.
Who benefits
People with Turner syndrome and disability-rights advocates who view diagnosis-based abortion as discrimination. Fathers and maternal grandparents of minors, who would gain a right to sue. Supporters of limiting abortion who want a federal restriction on abortion. Women who say they feel pressured toward abortion after a diagnosis, since the bill penalizes coercion and shields the woman from liability.
Who is hurt
Abortion providers, who would face criminal liability, civil suits, injunctions, and possible loss of federal funds. Physicians, nurses, counselors, and mental health professionals, who would have to report suspected violations or face prosecution, which could strain patient confidentiality. Pregnant women with a Turner syndrome diagnosis who seek abortions, and women generally, who would be questioned about prenatal test results before an abortion. Those who help, fund, or transport women for such abortions, who would face criminal exposure. Federally funded health institutions that risk losing funds.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that Turner syndrome is a condition many people live with for decades, and that ending a pregnancy because of a diagnosis treats a girl's life as less valuable because of a disability. They contend the bill follows existing state laws on diagnosis-based abortion, protects the woman from prosecution, and uses privacy protections and a knowledge requirement to target providers and coercers rather than patients.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill would intrude on private medical decisions, require providers to question every abortion patient about prenatal results, and force clinicians to report suspected violations, which could damage trust and confidentiality. They contend that the knowledge standard is hard to apply, that criminal penalties could chill care, and that giving fathers and grandparents the right to sue could expose women to family conflict or control.
Constitutional context
Congress would rely on the Commerce Clause, and Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022) returned abortion regulation to elected legislatures, though it did not decide whether Congress may regulate abortion nationwide. Gonzales v. Carhart (2007) upheld a federal abortion restriction, and the bill's civil-suit provisions raise questions about standing, vagueness, and compelled reporting under the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments.
Checks and balances
Congress would create new federal crimes and civil causes of action, the Attorney General and private plaintiffs would enforce them, and federal courts would review them under an expedited-docket mandate.
Historical precedent
Congress previously enacted the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, upheld in Gonzales v. Carhart (2007), and similar bills banning diagnosis-based abortion have been introduced, while several states have enacted their own such laws that have faced court challenges.