HR-8603-119
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsored by Kat Cammack (R-FL)
What it does
This bill would add a new federal criminal statute (18 U.S.C. § 1532) prohibiting physicians from performing what it defines as a "dismemberment abortion" — a procedure in which instruments such as clamps, forceps, or scissors are used to remove an unborn child piece by piece from the uterus. Violators would face fines and/or up to two years in federal prison. The bill includes a life-of-the-mother exception but no exception for rape, incest, or fetal anomaly. It also creates a civil cause of action for the woman on whom the procedure was performed, or for a parent of a minor patient, to sue the physician for damages, including treble damages and attorney's fees. The woman herself is explicitly shielded from criminal prosecution and civil monetary liability.
Who benefits
Pregnant women who, under the bill's framing, are protected from a procedure its sponsors consider harmful; parents of minor patients who gain a private right of action; anti-abortion advocacy organizations whose legislative goals would be advanced; physicians who do not perform this procedure and would face no competitive disadvantage; and states that have already enacted similar bans, which would gain federal reinforcement of their policies.
Who is hurt
Physicians who perform dilation and evacuation (D&E) procedures — the most common second-trimester surgical abortion method — who would face criminal and civil liability; pregnant patients in the second trimester who would lose access to this specific procedure, potentially including those with fetal anomalies or serious health conditions not rising to the life-endangering threshold; abortion providers and clinics whose services would be curtailed; patients in states with few or no alternative providers who may face greater logistical and financial burdens accessing other methods; and medical training programs that include this procedure in their curricula.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that dismemberment abortion — typically performed in the second trimester — is a uniquely brutal procedure that inflicts pain on a developed fetus and that no comparable medical necessity requires this specific method over alternatives. They contend that the Supreme Court upheld a similar procedure-specific federal ban, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, in Gonzales v. Carhart (2007), establishing that Congress may prohibit specific abortion methods without banning abortion entirely, and that this bill follows that same constitutional framework. They further argue that the bill's explicit protections for the woman — shielding her from prosecution and civil liability — demonstrate that the law targets medical providers, not patients.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that dilation and evacuation is the safest and most medically established method for second-trimester abortions, used in the vast majority of procedures after 14 weeks, and that banning it would force physicians to use riskier alternatives or deny care entirely. They contend that the bill's life-of-the-mother exception, which excludes health-based exceptions, conflicts with the standard the Supreme Court articulated in Planned Parenthood v. Casey and that post-Dobbs state-level bans have already documented cases of patients being denied medically necessary care under similarly narrow exceptions. They further argue that criminalizing the procedure with up to two years imprisonment will cause physicians to abandon second-trimester care altogether, creating a de facto ban beyond what the statute's text describes.
Constitutional context
Post-Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022), the Constitution no longer provides a recognized federal right to abortion, returning the question to legislatures. Congress's authority to enact this ban rests on the Commerce Clause, using the same "in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce" jurisdictional hook upheld in Gonzales v. Carhart (2007), which sustained the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act — the most directly analogous precedent. The absence of a health exception may be scrutinized under the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, though Dobbs significantly altered the applicable standard of review.
Checks and balances
Congress would gain new federal criminal jurisdiction over a specific abortion procedure; the Executive Branch (DOJ) would hold prosecutorial discretion; federal courts would review constitutional challenges and adjudicate civil suits brought under the bill's private right of action.
Historical precedent
The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 similarly prohibited a specific late-term abortion procedure by federal statute and was upheld by the Supreme Court in Gonzales v. Carhart (2007), establishing the constitutional template this bill follows.