PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 13, 2025
Women’s Protection in Telehealth Act
This bill excludes providers of abortion-inducing drugs from participating in Medicare unless the provider is a physician who physically examines the patient, is physically present when the drug is administered, and schedules an in-person follow-up visit with the patient within 14 days of administering the drug.
People & committees
Rep. Steube, W. Gregory [R-FL-17] · R–FL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Dec 2, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1349 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1349 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1349 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1349 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2025-02-13 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
This proposal would permanently exclude individuals and entities from Medicare participation if they prescribe, administer, dispense, or furnish an abortion-inducing drug without meeting four conditions. The provider would have to be a physician, physically examine the patient, be in the same room when the patient is administered, takes, or uses the drug, and schedule an in-person follow-up to occur within 14 days afterward. The new exclusion would apply to conduct on or after enactment.
(or, in the case of individuals and entities described in paragraph (5), from participation in the Medicare program under title XVIII)
Any individual or entity that, on or after the date of the enactment of this paragraph, prescribes, administers, dispenses, or furnishes an abortion-inducing drug to a patient, unless such individual or entity— (A) is a physician; (B) physically examines the patient; (C) is physically present in the same room with the patient at the time the patient is administered, takes, or uses (as applicable) such drug; and (D) schedules an in-person follow-up visit for the patient to occur not more than 14 days after the patient is administered, takes, or uses (as applicable) such drug.
In the case of an exclusion under subsection (a)(5), the exclusion shall be permanent.
Section 1 would name the bill the “Women’s Protection in Telehealth Act.”
This Act may be cited as the Women’s Protection in Telehealth Act.
Section 2 would add a Medicare exclusion covering prescribing, administering, dispensing, or furnishing an abortion-inducing drug. It would cover individuals and entities engaging in those activities on or after enactment unless they meet all four required conditions.
(or, in the case of individuals and entities described in paragraph (5), from participation in the Medicare program under title XVIII)
Any individual or entity that, on or after the date of the enactment of this paragraph, prescribes, administers, dispenses, or furnishes an abortion-inducing drug to a patient, unless such individual or entity— (A) is a physician; (B) physically examines the patient; (C) is physically present in the same room with the patient at the time the patient is administered, takes, or uses (as applicable) such drug; and (D) schedules an in-person follow-up visit for the patient to occur not more than 14 days after the patient is administered, takes, or uses (as applicable) such drug.
Avoiding the new exclusion would require all four conditions: physician status, a physical examination, presence in the same room when the patient is administered, takes, or uses the drug, and scheduling an in-person follow-up to occur within 14 days afterward. The follow-up condition requires scheduling the visit; it does not expressly require that the patient attend.
unless such individual or entity— (A) is a physician; (B) physically examines the patient; (C) is physically present in the same room with the patient at the time the patient is administered, takes, or uses (as applicable) such drug; and (D) schedules an in-person follow-up visit for the patient to occur not more than 14 days after the patient is administered, takes, or uses (as applicable) such drug.
Exclusion under the proposed provision would be permanent.
(H) In the case of an exclusion under subsection (a)(5), the exclusion shall be permanent.
The bill would also amend section 1128(c)(3): subparagraph (A) would reference subsection (a)(5) alongside (b)(12); subparagraph (B) would reference subparagraphs (G) and (H) instead of only (G); and subparagraph (G) would except paragraph (5) from its reference to subsection (a). The existing provisions are not reproduced, so the supplied text does not establish the full effects of these changes.
(2) in subsection (c)(3)— (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking subsection (b)(12) and inserting subsection (a)(5) or (b)(12); (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking subparagraph (G) and inserting subparagraphs (G) and (H); (C) in subparagraph (G), by inserting (other than under paragraph (5) of such subsection) after subsection (a);
The proposed definition of an abortion-inducing drug would cover any medicine, drug, or other substance prescribed, administered, dispensed, or furnished with the intent to end a clinically diagnosable pregnancy and knowledge that the termination would with reasonable likelihood cause the death of the “unborn child.” It expressly includes off-label drug use. The meaning of “unborn child” would come from section 1841 of title 18, United States Code, whose text is not supplied.
the term abortion-inducing drug means any medicine, drug, or any other substance that is prescribed, administered, dispensed, or furnished with the intent of terminating the clinically diagnosable pregnancy of a woman and with knowledge that the termination will with reasonable likelihood cause the death of the unborn child (including the off-label use of any such drug).
The term unborn child has the meaning given such term in section 1841 of title 18, United States Code.
The bill would make existing subsections (d) and (g) of Social Security Act section 1128 inapplicable to this new exclusion. The supplied text does not reproduce those subsections, so it does not establish which existing procedures or protections this would remove.
(3) in subsection (d), by adding at the end the following new paragraph: (4) The provisions of this subsection shall not apply in the case of an exclusion under subsection (a)(5). ; (4) in subsection (g), by adding at the end the following new paragraph: (4) The provisions of this subsection shall not apply in the case of an exclusion under subsection (a)(5).
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated December 2, 2025, records introduction in the House on February 13, 2025, and referral that day to the Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce committees for consideration within their respective jurisdictions.
Source snapshot updated 2025-12-02T09:05:54Z.
2025-02-13: Introduced in House
2025-02-13: Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-02-13. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy change attached to appropriations was identified after reviewing the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified after reviewing the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials; formal earmark disclosures and related materials are not supplied.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow carve-out, special exemption, or preferential benefit warranting a finding was identified after reviewing the complete supplied introduced text. Conditions defining the main exclusion policy do not by themselves establish such a benefit. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Dec 2, 2025. How PlainBill uses AI