Ultrasounds Save Lives Act

Summary#

The Ultrasounds Save Lives Act of 2025 is a proposed federal law; it does not amend an existing Act. Its stated goal is to give women information about abortion risks and fetal development before they consent. It has been introduced in the House and referred to committee; it is not law, and the bill sets no start date.

  • Covered abortion providers who knowingly perform or attempt an abortion would generally have to perform an ultrasound, share its results, and obtain a signed consent form before beginning the procedure.
  • The provider would have to present the form in person at least 24 hours before the abortion. The patient, provider, and a witness would sign it.
  • The form would state the probable gestational age in days, medical risks of the abortion drug or procedure, and listed developmental characteristics, including heartbeat, response to painful stimuli, and development of organs, appendages, and facial features.
  • Providers would have to keep the signed form in the patient’s medical file. The bill allows exceptions for a medical emergency and when compliance would pose a greater risk of death or substantial, irreversible impairment of a major bodily function.
  • The bill would require federal civil enforcement and allow certain private lawsuits. It would not penalize the pregnant woman, and it would not override state laws with more extensive disclosure requirements or penalties.

What it means for you#

  • People seeking an abortion: If the bill became law and applies to the provider, they would generally have to receive an ultrasound and the specified information at least 24 hours before the procedure. The bill does not ban abortion or change who is eligible for one. It defines abortion broadly to include prescribing a drug or device intended to end a pregnancy, with stated exceptions including removing a dead fetus and certain post-viability care.
  • Abortion providers: They would have to follow the ultrasound, disclosure, signing, and record-retention requirements. The bill covers providers acting in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce who knowingly perform or attempt an abortion.
  • Patients and parents of minors: A woman, or a parent of a minor, could sue a provider if an abortion was performed in violation of the requirements. The pregnant woman could not be fined or otherwise made to pay monetary relief under the bill.
  • Federal and state officials: The Attorney General would have to start a civil case for a knowing violation. If a court assesses a civil penalty, the Attorney General must notify the relevant state medical licensing authority.

Money#

No cost information is in the available material.

  • Providers would have to arrange ultrasounds, present and retain forms, and meet the timing and signing requirements; the bill gives no cost estimate.
  • Courts could impose civil penalties of $100,000–$150,000 per violation in the first proceeding against a provider, and $150,001–$250,000 per violation in a later proceeding.
  • A successful private lawsuit could seek verifiable injury damages, damages equal to three times the abortion’s cost, and punitive damages. A winning plaintiff must receive reasonable attorney’s fees.
  • The bill gives no estimate of federal enforcement or recordkeeping costs.

What is unclear#

  • The bill does not define “medical emergency,” “all medical risks,” or how to determine the “major developmental characteristics” for a particular case.
  • It does not set out detailed procedures for carrying out the requirements, beyond the form, timing, signatures, ultrasound, and record retention.
  • The required form must state that providers and other medical personnel face criminal and civil penalties. But the bill’s penalty provisions specify civil penalties and civil lawsuits; they do not set a criminal penalty.
  • The bill does not say when it would take effect. The supplied material does not include state laws, so existing state requirements cannot be compared.

Case for#

  • The bill appears intended to ensure that patients receive specified medical and developmental information before an abortion, rather than only at the time of the procedure.
  • Requiring an ultrasound and sharing its results could give patients information about the pregnancy before deciding whether to proceed.
  • A private right to sue and federal enforcement could give the requirements consequences if a provider knowingly fails to follow them.
  • The bill preserves stricter state disclosure laws rather than replacing them with a less extensive federal standard.

Case against#

  • A required ultrasound and 24-hour wait could delay care, including for people seeking medication abortions; the bill does not explain how that delay would affect individual cases beyond its medical exceptions.
  • The bill requires a broad set of disclosures but does not explain how providers should determine or present every risk and developmental characteristic.
  • Large civil penalties and private damages could expose providers to substantial financial liability, while the bill leaves some key terms and implementation details open.
  • The bill does not explain how the requirements would interact with existing state rules in practice, and the available material gives no estimate of the cost of compliance or enforcement.