Congress mandates surrogate payment—but expands abortion definition broadly
H.R. 9868 — Preventing Forced Abortions Act of 2026 · Filed by Andrew Ogles (R-TN) · 12 cosponsors · Introduced Jul 22, 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 federal courts from enforcing surrogacy contract clauses that require a surrogate mother to have an abortion, and mandates that courts enforce payment obligations to surrogates even if they refuse abortion. It creates federal jurisdiction over surrogacy disputes and defines key terms including a broad definition of abortion that covers pregnancy termination.
Why we flagged it
The bill's operative mechanism is a federal prohibition on enforcing abortion-requiring clauses in surrogacy contracts and a mandate to enforce payment. While framed as protecting surrogates from coercion, the bill also establishes federal jurisdiction and uses a notably expansive definition of abortion that extends beyond the stated surrogacy context.
What the text implies
- The broad definition of 'abortion' in Section 4(1) extends beyond surrogacy and may have unintended consequences for other federal statutes, regulations, or litigation involving pregnancy termination, potentially affecting healthcare access in non-surrogacy contexts.
- The definition of 'female' based on reproductive capacity (Section 4(2) — 'would have, but for a developmental or genetic anomaly') may create ambiguity in application and could affect transgender individuals, intersex individuals, or those with reproductive conditions in ways not explicitly addressed.
The full analysis lists 4 implications of this text.
Who stands to gain
Surrogate mothers (payment protection); Fertility clinics and surrogacy brokers (increased federal litigation and contract clarity)