QuorumCivic. Hidden in plain sight Get the app
Bill intelligence

Federal abortion bill expands liability, creates 24-hour delay, mandatory ultrasound

H.R. 797 — Ultrasounds Save Lives Act of 2025 · Filed by Mary Miller (R-IL) · 12 cosponsors · Introduced Jan 28, 2025 · Referred to committee

75%
Transparency
Typical bill: 82%
25/100
Hidden-provision risk
Typical bill: 15/100
Abortion Informed Consent & Liability…

Your members of Congress

Enter a ZIP to see where your representative and both senators stood on this bill.

Looked up on this device — your ZIP is never stored on our servers.

What it does

This bill requires abortion providers to perform an ultrasound, share results with the patient, and obtain a signed informed-consent form at least 24 hours before an abortion, disclosing gestational age, medical risks, and fetal developmental characteristics. Violations trigger civil penalties of $100,000–$250,000 per violation (enforced by the Attorney General) and a private right of action allowing patients to sue for damages, statutory penalties (3× abortion cost), punitive damages, and attorney's fees.

Why we flagged it

The bill's operative mechanism is a federal informed-consent mandate with mandatory ultrasound, 24-hour waiting period, and dual enforcement (government civil action + private right of action with treble damages). It is not primarily a disclosure bill—it is a liability-expansion bill that uses disclosure as the trigger for civil and punitive exposure.

What the text implies

  • The private right of action with treble damages and punitive liability may incentivize litigation against providers even for technical or good-faith compliance disputes, potentially increasing malpractice insurance costs and reducing provider supply in certain markets.
  • The 24-hour waiting period, combined with mandatory ultrasound, may disproportionately burden patients with limited mobility, time off work, or geographic distance to providers, effectively creating access barriers that vary by socioeconomic status and region.

The full analysis lists 5 implications of this text.

Who stands to gain

medical malpractice insurers (increased litigation and claims); litigation-focused law firms (private right of action creates fee-generating cases); ultrasound equipment manufacturers (mandatory ultrasound requirement)

Correlative observation from public records — not evidence of coordination or wrongdoing, and not financial advice.
This page is the record as of today. The app tells you when it changes.
Quorum analysis of the full bill text · 119th Congress · public record