The Capitol LedgerEvery move in Congress, on the record
HomeBillsRecordsLedger AI

The Capitol Ledger

Built from the Congressional Record and Congress.gov. Every summary links to its source.

AboutFAQFeedbackTerms of ServicePrivacy Policy
Follow us onlineInstagram

Summaries are AI-generated from primary sources. Verify anything important against the original record.

The Capitol Ledger

Built from the Congressional Record and Congress.gov. Every summary links to its source.

The projectAboutFAQFeedback
LegalTerms of ServicePrivacy Policy
Follow us onlineInstagram

Summaries are AI-generated from primary sources. Verify anything important against the original record.

All bills
S. 4701·119th Congress·Introduced Jun 8, 2026

Freedom to Travel for Health Care Act of 2026

IntroducedCivil Rights and Liberties, Minority IssuesMajor
View bill text
Sponsor
Sen. Cortez Masto, Catherine [D-NV]
Committees
Judiciary Committee (primary)
Last action
Jun 8, 2026

Bottom line

This bill aims to federally protect the right to interstate travel for reproductive healthcare and the provision of such care across state lines, preempting state laws that attempt to restrict these activities.

What it actually does

This bill prohibits any person or government from restricting individuals traveling to another state to receive or provide reproductive health care that is legal in that state. It also prevents sanctions against those who assist such travel or against providers offering care to out-of-state residents. The Act establishes federal preemption over inconsistent state laws and provides both the Attorney General and private individuals/entities with a right to civil action for enforcement, including remedies like damages and injunctive relief, and abrogates state immunity.

Proponents argue

Supporters argue this bill is a necessary response to state-level efforts to restrict access to reproductive healthcare following the Dobbs decision, asserting it upholds fundamental constitutional rights to interstate travel and ensures access to legal medical services. They contend it prevents states from imposing extraterritorial jurisdiction and protects both patients and providers from legal repercussions.

Opponents contend

Opponents might argue that this bill oversteps federal authority, infringing on states' rights to regulate healthcare within their borders and potentially undermining state laws regarding abortion. They may contend it could facilitate what they view as illegal or immoral acts by circumventing state-level protections for unborn life, representing an undue federalization of a state issue.

The bill is short and relatively straightforward, allowing for a quick and informed read by anyone interested in its provisions.

Section 1

Short Title

prominently featuredstraightforward

This section formally names the Act as the "Freedom to Travel for Health Care Act of 2026," providing a concise and recognizable title for the legislation. This title clearly communicates the bill's primary objective to protect the ability of individuals to cross state lines for medical services.

GroupImpactMechanismScale
GroupGeneral PublicImpactProvides a clear and concise name for the law, aiding public understanding and discussion.MechanismScale
GroupLegal CommunityImpactEstablishes the official reference for the legislation in legal discourse and documentation.MechanismScale

Supporters argue

Supporters argue that a clear and descriptive short title helps the public and legal community easily identify and refer to the legislation's purpose, making it more accessible and understandable.

Critics contend

No specific opposition is typically raised against a bill's short title, as it is a procedural element that does not alter the substantive content of the legislation.

Tradeoffs

None.

Section 2

Congressional Findings on Right to Travel

prominently featuredmoderately complex

This section outlines Congress's legal basis for enacting the bill, citing the 14th Amendment's Privileges and Immunities and Equal Protection Clauses, and the Commerce Clause (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3). It references Supreme Court precedents affirming the fundamental right to interstate travel for services, including medical care, and notes state attempts to interfere with travel for reproductive healthcare since the Dobbs decision. These findings establish the constitutional framework for the bill's provisions.

Section 3(a)

Prohibition on Restricting Interstate Travel for Reproductive Healthcare

prominently featuredmoderately complex

This core provision makes it unlawful for any person or government to restrict, sanction, hold liable, discriminate against, or otherwise disadvantage individuals traveling to another state for legal reproductive healthcare. It also prohibits similar actions against those who assist such travel, or against reproductive healthcare providers offering services to out-of-state residents if such services are legal in the provider's state. This aims to create a federal shield against state-level penalties.

Section 3(b)

Federal Preemption of Inconsistent State Laws

prominently featuredmoderately complex

This section explicitly states that any state law inconsistent with the bill's protections for interstate travel for reproductive healthcare shall be preempted and have no legal effect. It prohibits state officials or anyone acting under color of law from enforcing or applying any such inconsistent state laws. This ensures that federal law takes precedence in this specific area.

Section 3(c)

Civil Actions and Remedies for Enforcement

prominently featuredhighly complex

This section establishes robust enforcement mechanisms. It grants the Attorney General the power to initiate civil actions against states or individuals violating the Act. It also creates a private right of action, allowing adversely affected individuals, entities, or reproductive healthcare providers (on behalf of themselves, staff, or patients) to sue in state or federal court. Courts can award appropriate relief, including damages, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief, and must award costs and reasonable attorney's fees to any prevailing plaintiff.

Section 3(c)(7)

Abrogation of State Sovereign and Qualified Immunity

mentioned in summaryhighly complex

This specific enforcement clause states that neither a State that enforces or maintains, nor a government official who implements or enforces, any limitation or requirement that violates this section shall be immune from action in a Federal or State court of competent jurisdiction. This abrogation applies to immunity under the Tenth Amendment, Eleventh Amendment, the doctrine of sovereign immunity, and the doctrine of qualified immunity, removing significant legal defenses for state actors.

Section 3(c)(8)

Right to Remove State Proceedings to Federal Court

mentioned in summaryhighly complex

This provision grants a defendant the right to remove any civil or criminal proceeding from state court to federal court if that proceeding aims to interfere with or impose liability for the exercise of the travel right protected by this Act. It also allows for immediate review of an order remanding the case to state court, preventing delays in federal adjudication. This mechanism ensures federal oversight of cases impacting these rights.

Section 3(d)

Key Definitions

mentioned in summarystraightforward

This section defines key terms used throughout the Act to ensure clarity and consistent application. "Government" includes all branches, departments, agencies, instrumentalities, and officials of the United States or of a State. "Reproductive health care" is broadly defined to include medical, surgical, counseling, or referral services and care related to pregnancy, including the prevention or termination of a pregnancy, and other reproductive care. "State" includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, territories, and any subdivision of a State.

Section 4

Severability Clause

prominently featuredstraightforward

This standard clause ensures that if any provision of this Act, or its application to any person, entity, government, or circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of the Act, or the application of such provision to all other persons, entities, governments, or circumstances, shall not be affected thereby. This means the core intent of the law can survive even if specific parts are challenged.

About this analysis. AI-Generated from the official bill text and available committee reports. Gaps in available data are noted explicitly. Verify important details with the official Congress.gov record.

On this page

  • Executive summary
  • Key provisions
  • Follow the money
  • Critical analysis
  • Questions to ask
  • Implementation
  • Political analysis
Ask Ledger AI about this