PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 24, 2025
Protecting Life from Chemical Abortions Act
This bill nullifies certain changes made by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to dispensing requirements for mifepristone. (Mifepristone is a drug that is approved to end pregnancies through 10 weeks gestation when used in conjunction with the drug misoprostol. The procedure is often referred to as medication abortion or the abortion pill.)
The FDA regulates mifepristone through the Mifepristone Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) program. The program requires health care providers to comply with certain requirements in order to prescribe or dispense mifepristone to end a pregnancy; the program previously included an in-person dispensing requirement that required mifepristone to be directly dispensed to patients in clinics, medical offices, or hospitals. During the COVID-19 public health emergency, the FDA stopped enforcing the in-person dispensing requirement, which allowed mail-order pharmacies to fill and dispense mifepristone prescriptions.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
In January 2023, the FDA modified program requirements so as to (1) remove the in-person dispensing requirement, and (2) require pharmacies to be program-certified in order to dispense mifepristone. The modifications allow certified retail pharmacies to dispense mifepristone pursuant to prescriptions that are written by certified prescribers.
The bill nullifies the January 2023 changes and prohibits the FDA from (1) exercising any enforcement discretion with respect to program requirements, or (2) reducing program protections until every state submits certain data regarding abortions to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The bill also generally prohibits the declaration of a public health emergency with respect to abortions.
People & committees
Rep. Hern, Kevin [R-OK-1] · R–OK
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
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: Jun 11, 2026. 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.1525 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.1525 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.1525 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.1525 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 · 2025-02-24 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 restrict federal officials’ use of certain public-health emergency powers concerning abortion. It would require abortion drugs covered by the specified drug-safety requirements to be dispensed only in clinics, medical offices, and hospitals, by or under a certified provider’s supervision, affecting patients and providers using those drugs. It would also restrict officials’ ability to relax those requirements. The supplied text is an introduced proposal, not evidence of enacted law.
The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall not use or declare any public health emergency under section 319 or 319F–3 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 247d, 247d–6b) with respect to abortion.
shall, effective on the date of the enactment of this Act, reinstate the requirement under such strategy that abortion drugs be dispensed in only clinics, medical offices, and hospitals by or under the supervision of a certified health care provider
may not reduce protections (including by means of any update) in such strategy until every State submits
2025-02-24: Introduced in House
Section 1 would name the legislation the Protecting Life from Chemical Abortions Act.
This Act may be cited as the Protecting Life from Chemical Abortions Act.
Section 2 would prohibit the Secretary of Health and Human Services from using or declaring an abortion-related public-health emergency under either of two specified Public Health Service Act provisions. Any such declaration in effect when the bill became law would terminate at enactment.
(a) Prohibition The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall not use or declare any public health emergency under section 319 or 319F–3 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 247d, 247d–6b) with respect to abortion. (b) Termination of any declaration in effect Any declaration described in subsection (a) that is in effect as of the date of enactment of this Act is hereby terminated.
Section 3 would prohibit Health and Human Services officials, including the Food and Drug Administration commissioner, from exercising enforcement discretion—choosing whether to enforce a requirement—under the applicable abortion-drug risk evaluation and mitigation strategy, a drug-safety framework.
The Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, or any other official within the Department of Health and Human Services, with respect to the applicable risk evaluation and mitigation strategy under section 505–1 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355–1) relating to abortion drugs— (1) may not exercise enforcement discretion with respect to any requirement under such strategy;
At enactment, those officials would have to reinstate the in-person dispensing requirement: covered abortion drugs could be dispensed only in clinics, medical offices, and hospitals, by or under a certified health care provider’s supervision. Officials could not waive that requirement.
(2) shall, effective on the date of the enactment of this Act, reinstate the requirement under such strategy that abortion drugs be dispensed in only clinics, medical offices, and hospitals by or under the supervision of a certified health care provider (commonly referred to as the in-person dispensing requirement).
(2) may not waive the requirement under such strategy that such drugs be dispensed in only clinics, medical offices, and hospitals by or under the supervision of a certified health care provider (commonly referred to as the in-person dispensing requirement).
Officials could not reduce protections in the applicable abortion-drug safety framework, including through updates, until every state submitted aggregate abortion data to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s abortion surveillance system using a standardized worksheet covering the bill’s specified variables. Meeting this condition would not remove the separate prohibition on waiving in-person dispensing.
(1) may not reduce protections (including by means of any update) in such strategy until every State submits to the abortion surveillance system of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention the abortion data collected in the aggregate from the States and entered into a standardized worksheet that includes questions on the variables specified in subsection (c); and (2) may not waive the requirement under such strategy that such drugs be dispensed in only clinics, medical offices, and hospitals by or under the supervision of a certified health care provider (commonly referred to as the in-person dispensing requirement).
The data variables would be mandatory questions for purposes of the cited Social Security Act provision. They would cover maternal age in years, gestational age in completed weeks at abortion, race, ethnicity and race by ethnicity, abortion method, marital status, previous pregnancies including numbers of live births, induced abortions and spontaneous abortions, state or county of residence, whether the child survived the abortion, and congenital anomalies.
(c) Mandatory variables The mandatory variables specified in this subsection shall be treated as mandatory questions for purposes of section 1903(bb) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396b(bb)) and shall include the following: (1) Maternal age in years. (2) Gestational age in completed weeks at the time of abortion. (3) Maternal race. (4) Maternal ethnicity. (5) Maternal race by ethnicity. (6) The abortion method type. (7) Maternal marital status. (8) Previous pregnancies of the mother, including the number of previous live births, the number of previous induced abortions, and the number of previous spontaneous abortions. (9) Maternal residence (State or county). (10) Whether the child survived the abortion. (11) Congenital anomalies.
For section 3, abortion would mean using or providing an instrument, drug, substance, or device either to intentionally kill the unborn child of a woman known to be pregnant or to intentionally end her pregnancy. The pregnancy-termination branch would exclude specified intentions: producing a live birth after viability while preserving the born child’s life and health, with premature birth medically indicated; treating an ectopic pregnancy; or removing a dead unborn child.
(d) Definitions In this section: (1) The term abortion means the use or provision of any instrument, medicine, drug, or any other substance or device— (A) to intentionally kill the unborn child of a woman known to be pregnant; or (B) to intentionally terminate the pregnancy of a woman known to be pregnant, with an intention other than— (i) after viability to produce a live birth that, if premature, is medically indicated, and to preserve the life and health of the child born alive; (ii) to treat an ectopic pregnancy; or (iii) to remove a dead unborn child.
Section 3 would define an abortion drug broadly as any medicine, drug, substance, or combination used for an abortion. It would define “unborn child” as an individual human organism from fertilization until being born alive under the cited federal definition.
(2) The term abortion drug means any medicine, drug, or any other substance or combination of drugs, medicine, or substances used for an abortion.
(4) The term unborn child means 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 18, United States Code.
A certified health care provider would have to complete the specified Prescriber Agreement Form and agree that they can accurately assess pregnancy duration and diagnose ectopic pregnancies. They would also need the ability to provide surgical care for incomplete abortion or severe bleeding, or have made plans for others to provide that care, and the ability to assure patient access to facilities equipped for blood transfusions and resuscitation when necessary.
(3) The term certified health care provider means a health care provider that has completed a Prescriber Agreement Form pursuant to the elements for safe use under the applicable risk evaluation and mitigation strategy under section 505–1 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355–1) relating to abortion drugs, under which the provider agrees to the following: (A) The provider has the following qualifications: (i) Ability to assess the duration of pregnancy accurately. (ii) Ability to diagnose ectopic pregnancies. (iii) Ability to provide surgical intervention in cases of incomplete abortion or severe bleeding, or to have made plans to provide such care through others, and ability to assure patient access to medical facilities equipped to provide blood transfusions and resuscitation, if necessary.
The provider agreement would also require the provider to follow the mifepristone-use guidelines under the applicable abortion-drug safety framework.
(B) The provider will follow the guidelines for use of mifepristone under the applicable risk evaluation and mitigation strategy under section 505–1 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355–1) relating to abortion drugs.
The supplied actions snapshot, updated June 11, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on February 24, 2025.
Source snapshot updated 2026-06-11T08:07:02Z. 2025-02-24: Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. 2025-02-24: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-02-24. 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 in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not cover 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 in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not establish the absence of earmarks in other versions or accompanying materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow carve-out, special exemption, preferential treatment, or exception warranting a targeted-benefit finding was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not cover other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Jun 11, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI