Protecting Girls with Turner Syndrome Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Feenstra, Randy [R-IA-4]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jan 21, 2026
Bottom line
This bill seeks to federally prohibit abortions based on a diagnosis of Turner syndrome, imposing criminal and civil liabilities on medical providers while explicitly protecting the pregnant woman from prosecution.
What it actually does
This bill amends title 18 of the United States Code to make it unlawful to perform an abortion if the provider knows it is sought, in whole or in part, due to a diagnosis or suspicion of Turner syndrome in the unborn child. It also requires abortion providers to inquire about a Turner syndrome diagnosis and inform the pregnant woman of the prohibition if such a diagnosis is known. The bill establishes criminal penalties for violations, allows for civil actions by affected parties, and mandates reporting of violations by medical professionals.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this legislation is essential to prevent discrimination against unborn children based on a genetic condition, asserting that all lives, regardless of disability, deserve protection. They contend that allowing abortions based on a Turner syndrome diagnosis devalues individuals with the condition and promotes a discriminatory view of human life, emphasizing the dignity and worth of every individual.
Opponents contend
Opponents contend that this bill infringes upon a woman's fundamental right to make her own reproductive healthcare decisions, arguing that medical decisions should remain between a patient and her doctor without government interference. They express concerns that such bans could lead to reduced access to prenatal screening and counseling, and could force women to carry pregnancies to term against their will, potentially impacting their health and autonomy.
The bill is short and clearly written, making it accessible for an informed reader to evaluate within a reasonable timeframe.
Sec. 2(a), new 18 U.S.C. 250(b)(1)
Prohibition on Turner Syndrome-Based Abortions
This provision makes it illegal for any person to perform an abortion if they know that the pregnant woman is seeking it, even partially, because the unborn child has or might have Turner syndrome. Before performing an abortion, providers must ask if the woman is aware of any Turner syndrome diagnosis or suspicion and, if so, inform her of this prohibition. This aims to prevent abortions specifically motivated by a diagnosis of Turner syndrome.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that this provision is a crucial step to prevent discrimination against individuals with disabilities, starting in utero. They believe it upholds the principle that a genetic diagnosis should not be a reason to terminate a pregnancy, thereby protecting vulnerable lives and promoting inclusivity.
Critics contend
Critics contend that this provision interferes with a woman's deeply personal medical decisions and her constitutional right to an abortion. They argue it could lead to a chilling effect on open communication between patients and providers, and may force women to continue pregnancies that they are not prepared for, especially in cases of severe fetal anomalies.
Tradeoffs
This provision navigates the tension between protecting the lives of unborn children with disabilities and preserving a woman's reproductive autonomy. It seeks to prevent discrimination while potentially limiting a woman's choices regarding her pregnancy.
Sec. 2(a), new 18 U.S.C. 250(c)
Criminal Penalties for Violations
This section establishes criminal penalties for anyone who violates or attempts to violate the prohibition on Turner syndrome-based abortions. Offenders can face fines under title 18 of the U.S. Code, imprisonment for up to 5 years, or both. This provision provides a strong deterrent against non-compliance with the bill's core prohibition.
Sec. 2(a), new 18 U.S.C. 250(d)
Civil Remedies for Affected Parties
This section allows several parties to bring civil lawsuits against individuals who violate the abortion prohibition. A woman on whom an abortion was performed in violation of the coercion clause (subsection (b)(2)), the father of the unborn child (unless involved in criminal conduct or consented), or a maternal grandparent (if the woman is a minor) can sue for monetary damages (including psychological and physical injuries, loss of companionship, and punitive damages) and injunctive relief. The Attorney General can also seek injunctive relief to prevent further violations.
Sec. 2(a), new 18 U.S.C. 250(g)
Reporting Requirement for Medical Professionals
This provision mandates that physicians, physician's assistants, nurses, counselors, and other medical or mental health professionals must report any known or suspected violations of this section to appropriate law enforcement authorities. Failure to comply with this reporting requirement can result in a fine under title 18, imprisonment for up to 1 year, or both. This aims to ensure that potential violations are brought to the attention of authorities.
Sec. 2(a), new 18 U.S.C. 250(f)
Loss of Federal Funding for Discrimination
This section states that a violation of the prohibition on Turner syndrome-based abortions will be considered discrimination for the purposes of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. This means that entities found in violation could face the loss of federal funding, as Section 504 prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance.
The bill defines 'unborn child' as 'an individual of the species homo sapiens from the beginning of the biological development of that individual, including fertilization, until the point of being born alive, as defined in section 8(b) of title 1.'
Sec. 2(a), new 18 U.S.C. 250(a)(4)
Why it matters:Defining key terms is standard legislative practice to ensure clarity and scope. However, the specific phrasing of 'unborn child' has significant legal and political implications, extending protection from fertilization.
Case for: Proponents argue that this definition provides a clear and consistent legal standard for when life begins, aligning with their view that protection should extend from conception. They believe it removes ambiguity and ensures comprehensive coverage under the act.
Case against: Opponents argue that this broad definition of 'unborn child' is a legal strategy to establish fetal personhood from conception, which has far-reaching implications for reproductive rights and could be used to challenge other forms of reproductive healthcare. They contend it is a politically charged definition that goes beyond scientific consensus on viability.
Estimated impact: This definition establishes the earliest possible point at which the bill's protections apply, potentially influencing legal interpretations of personhood in other contexts.
The bill explicitly states that 'A woman upon whom an abortion is performed may not be prosecuted or held civilly liable for any violation of this section or for a conspiracy to violate this section.'
Sec. 2(a), new 18 U.S.C. 250(e)
Why it matters:This is a common legislative tactic in abortion restriction bills to focus legal and criminal liability solely on the medical providers, rather than the pregnant woman. While it protects the woman, its placement ensures the primary focus remains on the prohibitions against providers.
Case for: Proponents argue that this provision is crucial to ensure that the focus of the law remains on the actions of abortion providers and to avoid victimizing women who may be in difficult circumstances. They believe it clarifies that the intent is to regulate medical practice, not to punish women.
Case against: Critics acknowledge the protection for women but argue that it is a strategic move to make the underlying abortion ban more palatable. They contend that while women are not directly prosecuted, the restrictions on providers still severely limit women's options and autonomy, effectively punishing them by restricting access to care.
Estimated impact: This provision shifts the entire legal and criminal burden of the bill onto healthcare providers, significantly increasing their risk while removing direct legal risk from pregnant women.