Targeted Regulation of Abortion Provider (TRAP) laws impose unique and burdensome regulations on doctors and health care facilities which perform abortions. Supporters claim these laws provide safer conditions for women undergoing this procedure. However, most TRAP laws require abortion clinics to install unnecessary expensive equipment, perform extensive renovations that may not be physically possible, or mandate higher employee qualifications than needed. Some TRAP laws allow unannounced state inspections when patients are present. Other TRAP laws require abortion clinics to have hospital admitting privileges which can be nearly impossible to attain.

Critics say this regulation is unnecessary because abortion is our safest and most common medical procedure. Less than 0.3% of all patients experiencing a complication require hospitalization. This excellent safety record often prevents abortion clinics from attaining hospital admitting privileges, many of which require at least 5 admissions a year.

Supporters claim there is no legitimate reason to require abortion providers to have admitting privileges. There are now 25 states with TRAP laws, many of them identical. They say the only purpose of these laws is to force abortion providers out of business. They also say TRAP laws are discriminatory because they don’t apply to other facilities that provide outpatient surgery or other basic medical services.

Pending Legislation: H.R.12 - Women’s Health Protection Act of 2025
Sponsor: Rep. Judy Chu (CA)
Status: Referred to the House Committees on Energy and Commerce, and the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker,
House Speaker: Speaker Mike Johnson (LA)

• I oppose reforming current TRAP law policy and wish to donate resources to the campaign committee of Speaker Mike Johnson (LA).
• I support establishing a federal right to abortion access nationwide and banning TRAP laws by:
  
  1.) Prohibiting any governmental restriction on abortion services before fetal viability, including restrictions on specific procedures, bans on telemedicine for abortion, and requirements for medically unnecessary in-person visits.
  
  2.) Prohibiting, after fetal viability, restrictions on abortion when a healthcare provider determines in good-faith medical judgment that it is necessary to protect the life or health of the patient.
  
  3.) Protecting a person's right to travel between states to obtain or provide abortion services, and to those who assist someone in exercising this right.
  
  4.) Banning regulations that single out abortion and are more burdensome than restrictions placed on medically comparable procedures.
  
  5.) Giving the Department of Justice, healthcare providers, and individuals a right to sue states or government officials who enforce measures that violate the Act.
  
  And wish to donate resources to the campaign committee of Speaker Mike Johnson (LA) and/or to an advocate group currently working with this issue.