Federal law shields abortion providers from state prosecution, overriding state bans
H.R. 9445 — Let Doctors Provide Reproductive Health Care Act · Filed by Kim Schrier (D-WA) · 5 cosponsors · Introduced Jun 24, 2026 · Referred to committee
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 prohibits states and government officials from restricting, preventing, or disadvantaging health care providers who offer abortion, contraception, IVF, and related reproductive services that are lawful in their state. It creates federal enforcement mechanisms (including private lawsuits against states), bars federal funding from being used to prosecute providers, and appropriates $80 million for legal defense and security grants for reproductive health care providers.
Why we flagged it
The bill's core function is to establish federal protections for reproductive health care providers and patients against state-level restrictions, using federal enforcement authority and appropriations to support that goal. It is substantively a civil-rights enforcement mechanism, not a deregulation or subsidy bill.
What the text implies
- The bill's definition of 'reproductive health care services' includes any service 'in any way affects commerce over which the US has jurisdiction'—a broad jurisdictional hook that may extend federal authority beyond traditional interstate commerce boundaries and could invite constitutional challenge.
- The abrogation of state sovereign immunity (Eleventh Amendment) and removal of Tenth Amendment defenses is a significant federalism shift that may face judicial scrutiny; the bill does not address how courts should balance federal enforcement against state regulatory authority.
- Private right of action allows patients, providers, and entities to sue states directly for attorney's fees and costs, potentially creating high-volume litigation that could strain state budgets and judicial systems.
- The $40 million legal defense fund and $40 million security fund are ongoing appropriations 'to remain available until expended'—no sunset clause, meaning perpetual federal spending on reproductive health care provider support.
- The bill does not define 'medically accurate manner' for reproductive health care services, leaving interpretation to courts and potentially creating disputes over what constitutes lawful service.
Who it affects
Ordinary citizens gain access to reproductive health care services without state-level legal barriers, and providers gain federal protection to offer lawful services. The bill removes state-imposed restrictions on medical practice and creates enforcement tools to protect both patients and providers from state-level prosecution or licensing penalties.
Who stands to gain
- pharmaceutical companies (contraception, medication abortion)
- reproductive health care clinics and providers
- law firms specializing in health care litigation
- security and cybersecurity firms (facility upgrades, data protection)
Named in the bill
Attorney General, Secretary of Health and Human Services, U.S. District Courts, States (all 50 + DC, territories), Health care providers (physicians, nurse-midwives, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, pharma, Professional liability insurers, Pharmaceutical companies (BMY, PFE, JNJ mapped), Dialysis/health services providers (DVA, GH mapped)
Where it stands
5 cosponsors: 5 Democrats.
- Jun 24, 2026 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
- Jun 24, 2026 — Referred to House Committee on the Judiciary and House Committee on Energy and Commerce · Congress.gov: “Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a…”
Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.
Money around this bill
3 lobbying clients named this bill on 3 disclosure filings across 1 quarter, Jun 2026 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $762,680 in lobbying spend. A filing names 21 bills on average, so that figure is what each filing reported, not a share belonging to this bill.
More lobbying clients named this bill than 61% of bills with at least one filing.
Kim Schrier, the sponsor, reported $984,999 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.
- Planned Parenthood Federation of America Inc — $652,972 on 1 filing
- Planned Parenthood Action Fund Inc — $79,708 on 1 filing
- Reproductive Freedom for All — $30,000 on 1 filing
Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 20, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.
How this was measured
Analysis — Quorum's AI read the full bill text on Jul 19, 2026; transparency and hidden-provision scores are compared against the median of 16,222 analysed bills.
Status and sponsors — Congress.gov's bill record — actions, committee referrals and cosponsors — loaded nightly. The timeline shows status changes, not every procedural action.
Money — Senate Lobbying Disclosure Act filings whose specific-issue field names this bill for quarters ending Jun 2026 to Jun 2026. A filing's amount is reported whole beside the median number of bills a filing names; it is never divided across them. PAC receipts are FEC-reported contributions to the sponsor's candidate committee in the 2026 cycle.
As of — lobbying records through Jul 20, 2026 · page rendered 2026-10-20.
“Federal law shields abortion providers from state prosecution, overriding state bans” QuorumCivic. https://share.quorumcivic.app/bill/119/hr9445 Report an error
The week in bills
One email, Sunday: what Congress passed, what it changed, and who paid.
One link arrives to confirm the address. It is used for this email and nothing else, and every issue carries an unsubscribe link.