S-3650-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsored by Ashley Moody (R-FL)
What it does
This bill would add two new chapters to the federal criminal code. It would make it a federal crime, punishable by up to 1 year in prison and a fine, to knowingly take a minor across state lines for an abortion when this bypasses her home state's parental consent, notification, or court-approval law. It would also require physicians to give 24 hours' notice to a parent before performing an abortion on an out-of-state minor, with exceptions for compliance with a state law, court waivers, abuse reports, life-threatening conditions, or a parent's presence. Parents could sue for harm, and minors and their parents could not be prosecuted.
Who benefits
Parents in states with parental involvement laws, who would gain a federal enforcement tool and a civil claim when those laws are bypassed. Supporters of parental-involvement laws, who would see those state laws made harder to avoid by travel. Minors facing coercion by adults, since the bill separately targets people who commit incest and then transport the minor, and it requires abuse reporting in one exception.
Who is hurt
Minors seeking abortions who cannot involve a parent, including those in unsafe or unsupportive homes, who may face delays or fewer options. Adult relatives, friends, clergy, and clinic escorts who help a minor travel and could face federal charges unless they qualify for a defense. Abortion providers, who would face new federal criminal liability, notice duties, and civil suits. Abortion clinics in border states, which may see lower patient volume and higher compliance costs.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that parents have a recognized interest in guiding their minor children's medical decisions, and that state parental involvement laws are easily evaded by crossing a state line. They contend a federal law is needed because no single state can regulate conduct across borders, and they point to the bill's exemptions for abuse, life-threatening conditions, court waivers, and the immunity for minors and parents as protections that target adult facilitators.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill would burden minors in vulnerable circumstances, including those with abusive or unsupportive parents, by criminalizing the adults they might turn to for help. They contend it raises serious constitutional problems under the right to travel and state sovereignty, and that its narrow exceptions, short of a general health exception, and its criminal liability for relatives, clergy, and providers are overbroad and may delay care.
Constitutional context
Congress would rely on its Commerce Clause power over interstate transport, as in the Mann Act tradition, while challengers may invoke the constitutional right to travel (Saenz v. Roe, 1999) and Due Process limits on vague or overbroad criminal laws. Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022) returned abortion regulation to elected bodies, but whether one state may reach conduct lawful in another, and how a federal law interacts with state sovereignty, remains unresolved.
Checks and balances
Congress would expand federal criminal law and the Justice Department's prosecutorial authority, while federal courts would review challenges and states keep their own parental involvement laws and judicial bypass systems.
Historical precedent
Versions of this idea, such as the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act and the Child Custody Protection Act, passed the House in 1998, 1999, 2005, and 2006 but were never enacted.