PEARL Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Burchett, Tim [R-TN-2]
- Committees
- Energy and Commerce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Apr 20, 2026
Bottom line
This bill aims to federally protect pharmacists' religious freedom to refuse participation in abortion services by declining to dispense specific drugs, granting them legal recourse against adverse actions.
What it actually does
This bill establishes a federal protection for pharmacists, allowing them to refuse to dispense or sell the abortion-inducing drugs mifepristone and misoprostol if doing so conflicts with their sincerely held religious beliefs. It prohibits any punishment, such as license revocation or loss of federal funding, for such a refusal. Additionally, it creates a private right of action, enabling pharmacists to sue for injunctive relief if their rights under this Act are violated.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this bill upholds fundamental religious freedom rights, ensuring that healthcare professionals are not forced to violate their conscience to maintain their livelihood. They contend it prevents discrimination against pharmacists based on their deeply held beliefs regarding the sanctity of life or moral objections to abortion-inducing drugs.
Opponents contend
Opponents contend that this bill could impede access to essential reproductive healthcare, particularly in rural or underserved areas where alternative pharmacies may not be readily available. They argue it prioritizes individual religious beliefs over patient care and could lead to discriminatory practices against patients seeking legally prescribed medications.
The bill is extremely short and straightforward, making it very accessible for any reader to understand its provisions quickly.
Section 2(a)
Protection for Refusal to Dispense Abortion-Inducing Drugs
This provision establishes that pharmacists cannot be compelled to dispense or sell mifepristone and misoprostol for abortion services if doing so conflicts with their sincerely held religious beliefs. It also prohibits any punishment, such as license revocation or loss of federal funding, for such a refusal, explicitly stating this protection applies 'Notwithstanding any other law'.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision is crucial for protecting the religious liberty and conscience rights of pharmacists, ensuring they are not forced to participate in procedures that violate their deeply held moral or religious convictions. They believe it prevents discrimination against individuals based on their faith.
Critics contend
Opponents argue this provision could create significant barriers to healthcare access for patients, particularly those in emergencies or in areas with limited pharmacy options. They contend it allows individual beliefs to supersede patient needs and could lead to inconsistent healthcare availability.
Tradeoffs
This provision navigates the tension between an individual's right to religious freedom and a patient's right to access legally prescribed medical services. It prioritizes the pharmacist's conscience over the universal availability of specific medications for abortion services.
Section 2(b)
Enforcement through Civil Action
This provision grants pharmacists who believe their rights under the Act have been violated the ability to file a civil lawsuit in federal district court. The purpose of such a lawsuit would be to seek an injunction, which is a court order to stop the person or entity from imposing the requirement or punishment.