A Republican bill with 23 Republican cosponsors · See all 23 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
The Second Chance at Life Act of 2025 requires abortion providers to inform women that it may be possible to reverse the effects of a chemical abortion if they change their minds. It mandates specific notifications by physicians at least 24 hours before the procedure and written instructions after the first drug is dispensed. Facilities must post signs informing patients about the possibility of reversal. The Department of Health and Human Services must also provide related information via a website and printed materials. The bill allows certain individuals to sue providers for damages if these requirements are not met. There is an exception for medical emergencies where the woman's life is in danger.
Yes
- Scored +4
Does this give the federal government more power?
Establishes federal mandates for abortion provider disclosures across interstate commerce.
- Scored +3
Would men be better off under this?
Grants fathers the right to sue providers for failure to provide the mandated disclosures.
- Scored +2
Would women be better off under this?
Provides information on reversal options for those who change their minds, though it limits overall access.
The opposite· 3 of 9
- Scored -6
Does this make abortion easier to get?
Imposes 24-hour notification delays and creates legal risks for providers, potentially reducing access to chemical abortions.
- Scored -4
Would business owners be better off under this?
Increases compliance costs and civil litigation risks for abortion clinic owners.
- Scored -4
Does this narrow the gap between how men and women are treated?
Places specific restrictions and notification mandates on women's healthcare decisions.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Access to Reversal Information: Women are informed that reversing a mifepristone-induced chemical abortion may be possible if they change their mind, providing an additional option (Section 3402(b)(1)(A)).
-
Availability of Resources: The Secretary must provide printed materials and a website in multiple languages to help women find assistance and resources to reverse the effects of a chemical abortion (Section 3405(a), 3405(b)).
-
Medical Emergency Protections: The informed consent and posting requirements do not apply if a physician certifies that a woman is in danger of death unless an abortion is performed (Section 3403(a)).
-
Legal Recourse: Women, fathers, or parents of minors can seek actual and punitive damages if a provider knowingly or recklessly violates these informed consent laws (Section 3406(a)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Provider Burden: Abortion providers must comply with strict notification timelines, specific written discharge statements, and sign-posting requirements in waiting and consultation rooms (Section 3402(b), 3404(a)).
-
Legal Risk for Providers: Providers face potential civil lawsuits and the possibility of paying attorney's fees if they are found to have violated the act (Section 3406(a), 3406(c)).
-
Strict Compliance Window: Physicians must ensure the woman is informed at least 24 hours before the chemical abortion, which may create a delay in receiving care (Section 3402(b)(1)).
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Healthcare
- Does this make abortion easier to get? — Imposes 24-hour notification delays and creates legal risks for providers, potentially reducing access to chemical abortions. Does this make health care easier to get in general? — Increases administrative burdens on providers which may limit service availability.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would men be better off under this? — Grants fathers the right to sue providers for failure to provide the mandated disclosures. Would women be better off under this? — Provides information on reversal options for those who change their minds, though it limits overall access. Would business owners be better off under this? — Increases compliance costs and civil litigation risks for abortion clinic owners. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Mandated delays and potential provider closures may disproportionately affect those with limited travel means. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Adds hurdles and delays for young women seeking chemical abortion services.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this narrow the gap between how men and women are treated? — Places specific restrictions and notification mandates on women's healthcare decisions.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this make it easier to run a small business? — Creates new compliance burdens and legal liabilities for small abortion clinics.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — Establishes federal mandates for abortion provider disclosures across interstate commerce. Does this leave more decisions to the states? — Creates a federal floor for disclosures that may override less restrictive state laws. Does this protect the individual right to speak freely? — Compels specific government-mandated speech/signage for healthcare providers.
- 7/13/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 11/12/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 10/31/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 10/17/2025
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 10/3/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 9/26/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 9/23/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 9/18/2025
- Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
- 15 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
Stephanie BiceRepublican · Oklahoma
Mike BostRepublican · Illinois
Sheri BiggsRepublican · South Carolina
Kat CammackRepublican · Florida
Dan CrenshawRepublican · Texas
Ron EstesRepublican · Kansas
Brad FinstadRepublican · Minnesota
Russell FryRepublican · South Carolina
Michael GuestRepublican · Mississippi
Craig GoldmanRepublican · Texas
David KustoffRepublican · Tennessee
Doug LaMalfaRepublican · California
Barry LoudermilkRepublican · Georgia
Julia LetlowRepublican · Louisiana
John MoolenaarRepublican · Michigan
Barry MooreRepublican · Alabama
Mark MessmerRepublican · Indiana
John McGuireRepublican · Virginia
John RoseRepublican · Tennessee
Marlin StutzmanRepublican · Indiana
Keith SelfRepublican · Texas
Randy WeberRepublican · Texas
Roger WilliamsRepublican · Texas