A Republican bill with 12 Republican cosponsors · See all 12 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 "Ban Abortion by Mail Act" aims to stop the remote prescription of mifepristone and other abortion drugs. It requires REMS-certified providers to conduct an in-person visit with the patient. Additionally, providers must hold a medical license in the state where the patient lives. Providers who violate these rules will lose their REMS-certified status for at least two years. The Secretary of Health and Human Services must report annual losses of certification to Congress.
Yes
- Scored +4
Does this give the federal government more power?
The bill increases federal oversight by mandating REMS certification standards and reporting to Congress.
- Scored +3
Does this leave more decisions to the states?
The bill reinforces state medical licensing requirements by requiring providers to be licensed in the patient's state.
- Scored +2
Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see?
Requires the Secretary of HHS to submit annual reports to Congress on certification losses.
The opposite· 3 of 19
- Scored -9
Would people in rural areas be better off under this?
Rural residents are most severely impacted by the ban on mail-order drugs and the requirement for in-person visits.
- Scored -9
Does this make abortion easier to get?
The bill significantly restricts access to abortion medications by banning mail-order prescriptions and requiring in-person visits.
- Scored -8
Would women be better off under this?
The bill directly restricts women's access to abortion medications through mandatory in-person visits.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
- Patient Observation: Section 2 states that medical experts advise patients be closely observed for signs and symptoms of adverse effects, which suggests that requiring in-person visits could address safety concerns.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Loss of Provider Access: Section 3(a) and 3(b) mandate that providers will lose their REMS-certified status for at least 2 years if they prescribe abortion drugs without an in-person visit or without a license in the patient's state. This could reduce the number of certified providers available to prescribe these medications.
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.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Rural residents are most severely impacted by the ban on mail-order drugs and the requirement for in-person visits. Would women be better off under this? — The bill directly restricts women's access to abortion medications through mandatory in-person visits. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Low-income individuals are more dependent on telehealth and mail-order services due to transportation and cost barriers. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Rural Native American populations face extreme challenges with in-person visit requirements due to geographic isolation. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — Mandatory in-person visits create significant hurdles for individuals with mobility or health-related disabilities. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Increased barriers to telehealth often disproportionately impact marginalized communities with limited provider access. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — Increased barriers to telehealth often disproportionately impact marginalized communities with limited provider access. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Increased barriers to telehealth often disproportionately impact marginalized communities with limited provider access. Would immigrants be better off under this? — Immigrants may face additional fear or logistical hurdles when required to visit clinics in person. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Women of reproductive age face increased restrictions on accessing abortion medication. Would students be better off under this? — Students may lack the resources to travel to a licensed provider in their specific state. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Young adults seeking reproductive health services may face increased barriers to access. Would LGBTQ people be better off under this? — Transgender and non-binary individuals seeking reproductive health services face increased barriers. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Increases the cost and logistical burden of accessing specific medical treatments. Would people in cities be better off under this? — While clinics are more available, the restriction on mail-order still limits options. Would high-income households be better off under this? — High-income individuals are less affected as they have more resources to travel for in-person visits.
- Healthcare
- Does this make abortion easier to get? — The bill significantly restricts access to abortion medications by banning mail-order prescriptions and requiring in-person visits. Does this make health care easier to get in general? — Requiring in-person visits and state-specific licensing reduces the overall availability of certain healthcare providers.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill increases federal oversight by mandating REMS certification standards and reporting to Congress. Does this leave more decisions to the states? — The bill reinforces state medical licensing requirements by requiring providers to be licensed in the patient's state. Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — Requires the Secretary of HHS to submit annual reports to Congress on certification losses.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this narrow the gap between how men and women are treated? — The restrictions on abortion medication disproportionately affect women's reproductive autonomy.
- 10/26/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 9/3/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 9/2/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 8/6/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 7/20/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 7/14/2026
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 7/9/2026
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 7/6/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 6/24/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
Mike BostRepublican · Illinois
Michelle FischbachRepublican · Minnesota
Brad FinstadRepublican · Minnesota
Russell FryRepublican · South Carolina
Andy HarrisRepublican · Maryland
Harriet HagemanRepublican · Wyoming
Ralph NormanRepublican · South Carolina
Pete StauberRepublican · Minnesota
W. SteubeRepublican · Florida
Claudia TenneyRepublican · New York
William TimmonsRepublican · South Carolina
Roger WilliamsRepublican · Texas