Dismemberment Abortion Ban Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Cammack, Kat [R-FL-3]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Apr 30, 2026
Bottom line
This bill federally bans a specific abortion procedure, imposing criminal penalties on physicians and creating civil avenues for redress, while explicitly protecting women from prosecution.
What it actually does
This bill amends title 18 of the United States Code to prohibit physicians from knowingly performing 'dismemberment abortions' that result in the death of an unborn child, with an exception to save the life of the mother. It establishes criminal penalties for violating physicians and creates civil remedies for women and parents of minors on whom such abortions are performed, while explicitly granting immunity from prosecution to women undergoing the procedure.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill protects unborn children from a brutal and inhumane procedure, reflecting a moral imperative to safeguard fetal life. They emphasize the exception for the mother's life and the immunity for women as compassionate elements, asserting that the bill targets the procedure, not the patient.
Opponents contend
Opponents contend that such bans interfere with medical practice and restrict access to abortion, potentially endangering women's health by limiting options, especially in later stages of pregnancy. They may argue the definitions are overly broad or medically inaccurate, and that the bill is part of a larger effort to undermine abortion access.
The bill is relatively short and clearly written, allowing for a quick understanding of its core provisions.
Section 2(a), new 18 U.S.C. 1532(a)
Prohibition of Dismemberment Abortion
This provision makes it a federal crime for any physician to knowingly perform a 'dismemberment abortion' that results in the death of an unborn child, if the act occurs in or affects interstate or foreign commerce. Violators face fines, imprisonment for up to 2 years, or both. This establishes a direct federal ban on the specified procedure.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue this provision is essential to protect unborn children from a cruel and inhumane procedure, reflecting a moral imperative to safeguard fetal life and dignity.
Critics contend
Opponents contend that this provision restricts medical options for women, particularly in later stages of pregnancy, and interferes with the physician-patient relationship, potentially endangering women's health.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the protection of fetal life against a woman's access to abortion procedures and a physician's autonomy in medical practice.
Section 2(a), new 18 U.S.C. 1532(a) proviso
Life of the Mother Exception
This clause specifies that the prohibition on dismemberment abortions does not apply if the procedure is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including life-endangering conditions caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself. This ensures that life-saving medical interventions remain permissible.
Section 2(a), new 18 U.S.C. 1532(b)
Scope of Prohibition Clarification
This rule of construction clarifies that nothing in the section limits abortions performed for any reason, including when the pregnancy is a result of rape or incest, provided the abortion is performed by a method other than dismemberment abortion. This aims to specify that the bill is not a blanket ban on all abortions.
Section 2(a), new 18 U.S.C. 1532(c)
Civil Remedies for Violations
This section establishes civil actions allowing a woman upon whom a prohibited abortion was performed, or a parent of a minor (unless the parent's criminal conduct caused the pregnancy), to sue the person who committed the violation. 'Appropriate relief' includes objectively verifiable money damages for psychological and physical injuries, statutory damages equal to three times the cost of the abortion, and punitive damages. Prevailing plaintiffs are awarded attorney's fees, while prevailing defendants can receive fees if the suit is found frivolous. No damages or fees can be assessed against the woman who underwent the abortion, except in cases of frivolous lawsuits.
Section 2(a), new 18 U.S.C. 1532(d)
Immunity from Prosecution for Women
This section explicitly states that a woman upon whom a dismemberment abortion is performed cannot be prosecuted under this section, for a conspiracy to violate this section, or for aiding and abetting based on a violation of this section. This provision ensures that criminal liability rests solely with the medical provider.
Section 2(a), new 18 U.S.C. 1532(e)
Key Definitions
This section defines critical terms for the bill, including 'abortion,' 'dismemberment abortion,' 'minor,' 'physician,' and 'unborn child.' The definition of 'dismemberment abortion' is highly specific, detailing instruments and actions, while excluding suction abortions (unless specific instruments are used to cause death) and procedures for deceased unborn children. Crucially, 'unborn child' is defined as a human organism from fertilization until live birth.
The detailed definition of 'dismemberment abortion' specifies the instruments (clamps, grasping forceps, tongs, scissors) and actions (slice, crush, grasp to cut, rip off, or crush) that constitute the prohibited procedure. It explicitly excludes suction abortions unless these specific instruments are used to cause death, and also excludes procedures to remove a deceased unborn child from miscarriage or medical emergency.
Section 2(a), new 18 U.S.C. 1532(e)(2)
Why it matters:While it is standard legislative practice to define terms, the specificity and exclusions within this definition are highly consequential for the bill's enforceability and its practical impact on medical procedures. Its placement ensures legal precision but requires careful reading.
Case for: Proponents argue this precise definition is necessary to target the intended procedure without inadvertently banning other forms of abortion or legitimate medical interventions for deceased fetuses, thus ensuring the bill is narrowly tailored.
Case against: Opponents argue the definition is medically inaccurate, designed to confuse, or could be interpreted broadly by courts to restrict procedures beyond the stated intent, creating a chilling effect on legitimate medical practice.
Estimated impact: This definition significantly impacts the types of procedures physicians can legally perform without risking criminal or civil penalties, and will likely be a central point of contention in any legal challenges.
The bill defines 'unborn child' as 'an individual organism of the species homo sapiens, beginning at fertilization, until the point of being born alive as defined in section 8(b) of title 1.' This establishes a legal recognition of human life from the moment of conception within the context of this specific federal statute.
Section 2(a), new 18 U.S.C. 1532(e)(5)
Why it matters:It is standard legislative practice to define terms, but this particular definition is highly contentious. Its placement in the definitions section is technically correct but also ensures that the bill's underlying premise regarding the beginning of life is established without being a standalone, highly visible provision.
Case for: Proponents argue this definition establishes a clear legal recognition of human life from conception, aligning with their moral and ethical stance on abortion and providing a consistent framework for protecting fetal life.
Case against: Opponents argue this definition is a legal strategy to confer personhood on a fetus from fertilization, which could have far-reaching implications beyond this bill, potentially impacting reproductive technologies, legal rights, and other areas of law.
Estimated impact: While specific to this bill, this definition sets a precedent for how 'unborn child' is legally defined in federal statute, potentially influencing future legislation and legal interpretations regarding fetal personhood and reproductive rights.