Preventing Forced Abortions Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Ogles, Andrew [R-TN-5]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 22, 2026
Bottom line
The bill aims to protect surrogate mothers from being compelled to have abortions by contract and establishes federal court jurisdiction for related disputes, potentially altering the legal landscape for surrogacy nationwide.
What it actually does
This bill prohibits Federal courts from enforcing any provision in a surrogacy contract that requires a surrogate mother to have an abortion at the request of an intended parent or any party to the contract. It further mandates that Federal courts must enforce compensation clauses for surrogate mothers, even if they refuse an abortion, explicitly disallowing liquidated damages or payment reductions based on such refusal. Additionally, the bill grants Federal district courts original jurisdiction over civil actions involving surrogacy contracts that affect interstate or foreign commerce.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this bill is essential to protect the bodily autonomy and reproductive rights of surrogate mothers, ensuring they cannot be coerced into unwanted abortions by contractual obligations. They contend it upholds ethical standards in surrogacy by prioritizing the surrogate's well-being and aligns with broader efforts to protect unborn life, preventing contracts from overriding fundamental human rights.
Opponents contend
Opponents may argue that while protecting a surrogate's autonomy is important, this bill could introduce significant legal uncertainties and complications into surrogacy arrangements, potentially deterring intended parents and making it harder for families to be formed. They might contend it interferes with contractual freedoms and could lead to complex disputes regarding parental rights and financial responsibilities, especially if a surrogate's refusal to abort conflicts with the intended parents' medical or personal wishes for the pregnancy.
The bill is very short and straightforward, making it highly accessible for a reader to evaluate its core provisions quickly.
Section 2(1)
Prohibition on Enforcement of Abortion Clauses
This provision states that a Federal court cannot enforce any part of a surrogacy contract that demands a surrogate mother undergo an abortion at the request of the intended parents or any other party involved in the contract. This directly prevents courts from compelling a surrogate to terminate a pregnancy against her will, even if such a requirement was initially agreed upon in the contract.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision is crucial for safeguarding the fundamental rights and bodily autonomy of surrogate mothers, ensuring they are not treated as mere vessels but as individuals with ultimate decision-making power over their bodies and pregnancies.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that this provision could create uncertainty for intended parents who rely on surrogacy to build families, potentially leading to disputes over medical decisions and increasing the risks associated with surrogacy arrangements.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the contractual expectations of intended parents with the bodily autonomy and reproductive rights of surrogate mothers, prioritizing the latter in cases of abortion.
Section 2(2)
Enforcement of Surrogate Compensation
This section mandates that Federal courts must enforce the payment of agreed-upon compensation to a surrogate mother, even if she refuses to have an abortion, regardless of any contract clauses to the contrary. It specifically prohibits reducing payment or imposing liquidated damages if a surrogate declines an abortion requested by other parties.
Section 3
Federal Court Jurisdiction over Surrogacy Contracts
This section amends Chapter 85 of title 28, United States Code, by adding a new section (1370) that grants Federal district courts original jurisdiction over all civil actions concerning surrogacy contracts that are 'in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce.' This means that disputes arising from surrogacy contracts meeting this commerce criterion can be heard directly in Federal courts.
Section 4
Definitions
This section defines key terms used in the Act. Notably, 'abortion' is defined as intentionally killing an unborn child or terminating a pregnancy with intentions other than producing a live birth after viability to preserve the child's life/health, or removing a dead unborn child. 'Female' is defined as an individual with a reproductive system that produces, transports, and utilizes eggs for fertilization, or would have but for anomaly or accident. 'Intended parent' and 'surrogate mother' are also defined based on their roles in a 'surrogacy contract'.
The bill provides a highly specific definition of 'abortion,' detailing what constitutes an abortion for the purposes of this Act. It includes the use of instruments, medicine, or drugs to intentionally kill an unborn child or terminate a pregnancy, but explicitly excludes procedures after viability to produce a live birth and preserve the child's life/health, or to remove a dead unborn child.
Section 4(1) - Definition of 'Abortion'
Why it matters:While definitions are standard legislative practice, the precise wording of 'abortion' here is critical and could have significant implications for medical practice and legal interpretation, making its placement in the definitions section potentially underappreciated for its impact.
Case for: Proponents would argue that this precise definition is essential to prevent misinterpretation and ensure the Act's protections against forced abortions are applied as intended, distinguishing between prohibited actions and necessary medical interventions.
Case against: Opponents might argue that such a specific definition could inadvertently create legal complexities for medical professionals, potentially impacting their ability to provide comprehensive care in sensitive situations, or could be seen as an attempt to codify a particular view of abortion into federal law.
Estimated impact: This definition could influence how medical procedures are categorized and performed in the context of surrogacy, potentially affecting the standard of care or legal liability.
The bill defines 'female' as 'an individual who has, had, will have, or would have, but for a developmental or genetic anomaly or historical accident, a reproductive system that at some point produces, transports, and utilizes eggs for fertilization.'
Section 4(2) - Definition of 'Female'
Why it matters:Defining 'female' in such specific biological terms is not strictly necessary for the core purpose of protecting surrogate mothers from forced abortions, but it sets a narrow biological parameter for who can be a 'surrogate mother' under the Act. This specificity could be seen as standard for legal precision or as a subtle way to exclude certain interpretations of gender identity.
Case for: Proponents would argue that this definition provides necessary biological clarity for the term 'surrogate mother,' ensuring that the Act's provisions apply to individuals capable of gestation and birth as traditionally understood.
Case against: Critics might argue that this highly specific biological definition of 'female' could be seen as exclusionary or discriminatory towards transgender individuals who may participate in surrogacy arrangements, or as an unnecessary foray into gender definitions in a bill primarily about contract enforcement.
Estimated impact: This definition could limit the scope of who is recognized as a 'surrogate mother' under federal law, potentially affecting a small but significant number of individuals.