--- title: "District of Columbia — abortion law" description: "Abortion is legal at every stage of pregnancy in Washington, D.C. There is no ban, no gestational cutoff, no waiting period, and no parental permission requirement for minors. D.C. law expressly recognizes the right to abortion and prohibits the government from interfering with that right. However,…" type: "legislation" jurisdiction: "District of Columbia" as_of_date: "2026-07-12" source_url: "https://www.abhortion.org/legislation/dc.html" --- # District of Columbia — abortion law _District of Columbia · United States_ ## Overview **Legal at all stages; statutorily protected** Abortion is legal at all stages of pregnancy in the District of Columbia, codified by statute with no gestational limit, though Congress retains the power to override DC law. Abortion is legal at every stage of pregnancy in Washington, D.C. There is no ban, no gestational cutoff, no waiting period, and no parental permission requirement for minors. D.C. law expressly recognizes the right to abortion and prohibits the government from interfering with that right. However, because D.C. is not a state, Congress has constitutional authority over its laws and could pass legislation to restrict or ban abortion here — a risk that does not exist for any state. Congress has already restricted D.C. from using its own locally raised tax dollars to cover abortion through its Medicaid program. > "The District shall recognize the right of every individual who becomes pregnant to decide whether to carry a pregnancy to term, to give birth, or to have an abortion." > — D.C. Code § 7-2086.01(b) **Legal analysis** The District of Columbia has codified an affirmative right to abortion through the Strengthening Reproductive Health Protections Amendment Act of 2020, D.C. Law 23-90 (codified at D.C. Code § 7-2086.01), and the Enhancing Reproductive Health Protections Amendment Act of 2022, D.C. Law 24-254. These laws establish that the District 'shall recognize the right of every individual who becomes pregnant to decide whether to carry a pregnancy to term, to give birth, or to have an abortion,' and prohibit the District from denying, interfering with, or restricting that right. D.C.'s pre-Roe criminal abortion statute was repealed in 2004 (D.C. Law 15-154). D.C. is also a shield jurisdiction under D.C. Law 24-257 (Human Rights Sanctuary Amendment Act of 2022). However, D.C. remains subject to congressional oversight under the Home Rule Act (D.C. Code § 1-206.02(c)(1)), and Congress could override D.C. abortion law through legislation or appropriations riders. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · D.C. Code § 7-2086.01(b), subsection (b), [D.C. Law Library (Council of the District of Columbia)](https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/7-2086.01) · D.C. Law 23-90, [D.C. Law Library](https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/laws/23-90)* **Editor's note.** Congress may override DC law under its Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 powers, and a bill to repeal DC's shield law was introduced in December 2025 (the D.C. Shield Law Repeal Act). ## At a glance Every machine-readable determination in the research document. Each value is derived from a sourced finding below. | Field | Value | | --- | --- | | Legal classification | Protected by statute | | Gestational limit weeks | — | | Limit measured from | — | | Abortion currently available | Yes | | Ban or limit enjoined | No | | Mother expressly exempt | Yes | | Mother prosecutable in practice | No | | Self managed abortion criminalized | No | | Abortion charged as homicide | No | | Fetal homicide law | No | | Fetal wrongful death action | Yes | | Personhood language in law | No | | Personhood contradiction | Yes | | Medication abortion distinct status | No | | Mailing pills banned | No | | Method bans | None | | Telehealth prescribing allowed | Yes | | Physician only law | No | | Provider max penalty | — | | Helpers criminally exposed | No | | Travel assistance criminalized | No | | Civil bounty law | No | | Shield state | Yes | | Waiting period hours | — | | State scripted counseling | No | | Ultrasound required | None | | In person visits required | 0 | | Parental involvement | None | | Judicial bypass available | Not applicable | | Spousal consent or notice on books | No | | Medicaid coverage | Hyde only | | Private insurance restricted | No | | State funding posture | Neutral | | Rape incest exception | Not applicable | | Exceptions present | None | | Major pending change | Yes | ## Definitions **'Abortion' not statutorily defined; SMA defined** DC Code does not contain a standalone definition of 'abortion,' but defines 'self-managed abortion product' as FDA-approved medication for pregnancy termination made available outside the licensed operation of a health care provider. D.C. law does not have a single statutory definition of 'abortion.' Instead, it protects the right to decide whether to 'carry a pregnancy to term, to give birth, or to have an abortion' without defining the term formally. The law does define 'self-managed abortion product' — medication approved by the FDA for terminating a pregnancy when obtained outside formal health-care channels. Because there is no criminal abortion statute, the absence of a definition does not create ambiguity about what conduct is prohibited. The law does not carve out or exclude miscarriage management, ectopic-pregnancy treatment, or IVF from its protections, and nothing in D.C. law would treat those as criminal acts. > "'Self-managed abortion product' means a medication that is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for use, either alone or in combination with other approved medication, in terminating a pregnancy, and that is made available to one or more pregnant individuals other than through the licensed operation of a health care provider or health care professional." > — D.C. Code § 2-1401.02(27C) **Legal analysis** D.C. Code § 7-2086.01 uses the term 'abortion' without defining it. D.C. Code § 2-1401.02(27C) defines 'self-managed abortion product' as 'a medication that is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for use, either alone or in combination with other approved medication, in terminating a pregnancy, and that is made available to one or more pregnant individuals other than through the licensed operation of a health care provider or health care professional.' D.C. Code § 7-2086.01(c)(3)(D) protects 'any act of providing, dispensing, administering, or transferring possession of self-managed abortion product.' No statute criminalizes any form of abortion; the prior criminal statute (former D.C. Code § 22-101) was repealed in 2004. No separate definition of 'abortion' for regulatory purposes appears in D.C. health facility licensing statutes, and the absence of a criminal prohibition means there is no definitional boundary to litigate. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · D.C. Code § 2-1401.02(27C), subsection (27C), [D.C. Law Library](https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/2-1401.02) · D.C. Code § 7-2086.01, subsection (b), [D.C. Law Library](https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/7-2086.01)* **Editor's note.** No D.C. statute defines 'abortion' as a medical procedure generally; the absence of a criminal prohibition reduces the stakes of this definitional gap. ## Current status **No ban; right affirmatively codified** Abortion is legal at all stages of pregnancy; D.C. Code § 7-2086.01 affirmatively codifies the right, and no criminal prohibition exists. Abortion is legal in Washington, D.C. at any point in pregnancy. In 2020, the D.C. Council passed a law that explicitly recognizes every pregnant person's right to decide whether to have an abortion. The pre-Roe criminal abortion ban was repealed in 2004. There is no gestational age limit, no mandatory waiting period, and no other restriction on when an abortion may be performed. Abortion is treated as health care, and D.C. law prohibits the government from interfering with reproductive health decisions. > "The District shall not: (1) Deny, interfere with, or restrict, in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information, the right of an individual, including an individual under District control or supervision, to: (A) Choose or refuse contraception or sterilization; or (B) Choose or refuse to carry a pregnancy to term, to give birth, or to have an abortion." > — D.C. Code § 7-2086.01 **Legal analysis** D.C. Code § 7-2086.01, enacted by D.C. Law 23-90 (effective May 6, 2020) and amended by D.C. Law 24-254 (effective February 23, 2023), establishes an affirmative right to abortion without gestational limit. Section 7-2086.01(b) recognizes the right 'to decide whether to carry a pregnancy to term, to give birth, or to have an abortion.' Section 7-2086.01(c)(1) prohibits the District from denying, interfering with, or restricting that right. The former criminal abortion statute (D.C. Code § 22-101) was repealed in 2004 by D.C. Law 15-154 (the Elimination of Outdated Crimes Amendment Act of 2003). No replacement criminal prohibition was enacted. The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022) had no effect on D.C. law because D.C. abortion rights are codified in statute rather than reliant on the federal constitutional right that Dobbs overruled. Congress retains plenary authority over the District under Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution and the Home Rule Act, and could theoretically enact a federal abortion restriction applicable to D.C. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · D.C. Code § 7-2086.01, subsection (c)(1), [D.C. Law Library](https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/7-2086.01) · D.C. Law 15-154 (repealing D.C. Code § 22-101), Title 22, Chapter 1, [D.C. Law Library](https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/titles/22/chapters/1)* ## Law-in-effect vs. law-on-the-books **Fully in effect; no injunctions** All D.C. abortion-protective statutes are fully in effect with no judicial injunctions, though federal litigation over mifepristone and congressional action could alter the landscape. All of D.C.'s laws protecting abortion access are currently in full effect. No court has blocked or limited them. The District's Attorney General has confirmed that the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision did not change D.C. law. The only uncertainty comes from outside D.C.: Congress could pass a law overriding D.C.'s protections, and federal court cases about the abortion pill mifepristone could affect nationwide access, including in D.C. > "No. DC's local laws protecting access to abortion are strong and they have not changed because of the Supreme Court's decision in the Dobbs case." > — D.C. Office of the Attorney General, Consumer Alert: Questions and Answers on Abortion Care and Freedom of Expression in the District of Columbia **Legal analysis** No injunction, stay, or other judicial order currently limits any D.C. abortion-protective statute. The D.C. Office of the Attorney General issued a Consumer Alert confirming that D.C. law was unaffected by Dobbs. D.C. Code § 7-2086.01, § 2-1461.01, § 2-1461.02, § 31-3834.03a, and § 22-1314.02 are all operative. Federal developments that could affect D.C. include: (1) Louisiana v. FDA, in which the Fifth Circuit ordered reinstatement of in-person dispensing requirements for mifepristone — the Supreme Court stayed that order pending further proceedings, preserving current access; (2) congressional legislation such as the D.C. Shield Law Repeal Act introduced in December 2025 by Rep. Andrew Clyde, which if enacted would nullify D.C. Law 24-257. EMTALA preemption litigation (e.g., Moyle v. United States / Idaho v. United States) does not directly affect D.C. because D.C. has no conflicting state abortion ban. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · D.C. Office of the Attorney General, Consumer Alert: Questions and Answers on Abortion Care and Freedom of Expression in the District of Columbia, [D.C. Office of the Attorney General](https://oag.dc.gov/release/consumer-alert-questions-and-answers-abortion-care) · Supreme Court Order, Danco Laboratories, LLC v. Louisiana, No. 25A1015 (U.S. May 14, 2026), [SCOTUSblog](https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/05/court-allows-for-access-to-abortion-pill-by-mail-for-now)* **Editor's note.** The federal mifepristone litigation (Louisiana v. FDA) and potential congressional override create substantial uncertainty about the durability of the current regime even though no injunction currently operates against D.C. law. ## Exceptions ### Life of the mother **Not applicable; no ban to except from** Because D.C. has no abortion ban or gestational limit, there is no need for a 'life exception' — abortion is legal at all stages and in all circumstances. D.C. does not restrict abortion at any stage of pregnancy, so there is no need for an exception to protect the pregnant person's life. Abortion is legal whenever a patient and their doctor determine it is medically appropriate, including when pregnancy endangers the patient's life. This is a full permission, not an exception to a prohibition. **Legal analysis** D.C. has no statutory abortion prohibition from which to carve exceptions. D.C. Code § 7-2086.01 affirmatively protects the right to abortion at all stages. The former criminal statute (D.C. Code § 22-101) was repealed in full. EMTALA requires Medicare-participating hospitals in the District to provide stabilizing treatment, including emergency abortion if necessary, but because D.C. has no conflicting state ban, there is no preemption conflict to resolve. *Sources — No law on this point · High confidence · D.C. Code § 7-2086.01, subsection (b), [D.C. Law Library](https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/7-2086.01)* ### Physical health **Not applicable** No abortion restriction exists, so no physical health exception is needed; abortion is lawful whenever medically indicated in the judgment of the patient and provider. Because D.C. law does not restrict abortion at any stage, there is no need for a 'physical health exception.' Abortion is available whenever a physician and patient determine it is medically appropriate, including for physical health reasons at any point in pregnancy. **Legal analysis** D.C. imposes no conditions on when abortion may be performed beyond the general standard of care applicable to all medical procedures. D.C. Code § 7-2086.01(c)(2) protects the decision of health care professionals 'acting within the scope of the health care professional or health care provider's license' to participate in abortion. No separate exception framework exists. *Sources — No law on this point · High confidence · D.C. Code § 7-2086.01(c)(2), subsection (c)(2), [D.C. Law Library](https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/7-2086.01)* ### Mental health **Not applicable** No abortion restriction exists, so no mental health exception is needed. D.C. law does not limit abortion based on mental health justification. Abortion is legal at all stages, and the patient's reasons — including mental health — are not subject to legal gatekeeping. **Legal analysis** D.C. has no statutory or regulatory framework conditioning abortion access on enumerated exceptions. Mental health is not a limitation trigger because there is no limitation to trigger it. *Sources — No law on this point · High confidence* ### Rape **Not applicable** No abortion restriction exists, so no rape exception is needed. D.C. law does not condition abortion on whether a pregnancy resulted from rape. Abortion is legal in all circumstances. **Legal analysis** No abortion restriction against which a rape exception could operate. The Hyde Amendment and Dornan Amendment restrictions on federal and local Medicaid funding do include a rape exception for funding purposes, but that is a funding restriction, not a criminal exception. *Sources — No law on this point · High confidence* ### Incest **Not applicable** No abortion restriction exists, so no incest exception is needed. D.C. law does not condition abortion on whether a pregnancy resulted from incest. Abortion is legal in all circumstances. **Legal analysis** No abortion restriction against which an incest exception could operate. Incest is relevant only to the funding context under the federal Hyde Amendment. *Sources — No law on this point · High confidence* ### Fatal fetal anomaly **Not applicable** No abortion restriction exists, so no fetal anomaly exception is needed. D.C. does not restrict abortion, so there is no need for an exception for fatal fetal anomalies. Abortion is available when medically appropriate at any stage for any reason. **Legal analysis** No restriction exists against which a fetal-anomaly exception would operate. *Sources — No law on this point · High confidence* ### Ectopic pregnancy & miscarriage care **Not applicable** No abortion restriction exists; treatment for ectopic pregnancy and miscarriage management are lawful as general medical care. Because D.C. has no abortion ban, there is no need for a legal carve-out for ectopic pregnancy or miscarriage treatment. These medical procedures are lawful and are not treated as 'abortions' under any criminal statute. D.C. law also explicitly protects from penalty any act or omission during pregnancy based on its potential or actual impact on the individual's health. > "Any act or omission by an individual during the individual's pregnancy based on the potential or actual impact on the individual's health or pregnancy, unless the act or omission is otherwise prohibited by District law." > — D.C. Code § 7-2086.01(c)(3)(B) **Legal analysis** D.C. Code § 7-2086.01(c)(3)(B) explicitly shields from penalty '[a]ny act or omission by an individual during the individual's pregnancy based on the potential or actual impact on the individual's health or pregnancy, unless the act or omission is otherwise prohibited by District law.' This provision, combined with the absence of any criminal abortion statute, ensures that miscarriage management and ectopic-pregnancy treatment are not criminalized. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · D.C. Code § 7-2086.01(c)(3)(B), subsection (c)(3)(B), [D.C. Law Library](https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/7-2086.01)* ## Methods ### Procedural surgical **Legal at all stages** Procedural (surgical) abortion is legal at all stages of pregnancy in D.C., with no method-specific bans. Procedural abortion — including dilation and evacuation (D&E) and dilation and extraction (D&X, sometimes called 'partial-birth' abortion) — is legal in D.C. at any point in pregnancy. D.C. has no ban targeting any specific surgical method. The federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (18 U.S.C. § 1531) applies nationwide, but it does not prohibit D&E and has been interpreted narrowly by the Supreme Court in Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007) to apply only to intact D&X when no exception for the patient's health is required. Because D.C. has no independent state-law method bans, the federal act is the only limitation. > "The District shall recognize the right of every individual who becomes pregnant to decide whether to carry a pregnancy to term, to give birth, or to have an abortion." > — D.C. Code § 7-2086.01(b) **Legal analysis** D.C. has no statute restricting or banning any particular abortion method. D.C. Code § 7-2086.01 broadly protects the right to abortion without regard to method. The former criminal statute (D.C. Code § 22-101) was repealed. No separate 'dismemberment' or D&E ban exists in D.C. law. The federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 (18 U.S.C. § 1531) applies in D.C. as it does nationwide, but that act was upheld against facial challenge in Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007), where the Court construed it to cover only intact D&X procedures. The Carhart Court emphasized that the Act does not prohibit the standard D&E procedure. In practice, given the absence of state enforcement and the narrow federal construction, procedural abortion faces no practical restriction in D.C. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · D.C. Code § 7-2086.01(b), subsection (b), [D.C. Law Library](https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/7-2086.01) · Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007), 550 U.S. at 147, [U.S. Supreme Court](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/550/124/)* ### Medication **Legal; telehealth and mail permitted** Medication abortion using mifepristone and misoprostol is legal in D.C., available via telehealth and by mail under current FDA rules preserved by Supreme Court stay. Medication abortion — using the two-pill regimen of mifepristone and misoprostol — is legal in D.C. A person can get a prescription through a telehealth appointment, pick up the medication at a pharmacy, or have it mailed to them. The FDA has approved this for use up to 10 weeks of pregnancy, though it may be prescribed later for evidence-based use. D.C. law explicitly protects those who provide, dispense, or transfer self-managed abortion products. As of mid-2026, the Supreme Court has stayed a lower court order that would have banned mailing mifepristone, so mail access continues while litigation proceeds. > "Any act of providing, dispensing, administering, or transferring possession of self-managed abortion product." > — D.C. Code § 7-2086.01(c)(3)(D) **Legal analysis** D.C. imposes no state-law barrier to medication abortion. No physician-only dispensing mandate exists in D.C. law, and no in-person visit requirement applies. D.C. Code § 7-2086.01(c)(3)(D) protects 'any act of providing, dispensing, administering, or transferring possession of self-managed abortion product.' Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington, DC offers medication abortion via telehealth. The federal legal landscape is significant: In Louisiana v. FDA, the Fifth Circuit ordered reinstatement of in-person dispensing requirements for mifepristone, but the Supreme Court stayed that order in May 2026, preserving the status quo (telehealth prescribing and mail dispensing) while litigation continues. The Office of Legal Counsel at DOJ issued a memorandum in December 2022 concluding that 18 U.S.C. § 1461 (the Comstock Act) does not prohibit mailing abortion medication where the sender lacks the intent that the recipient will use it unlawfully, a construction that protects the practice given that abortion is lawful in D.C. *Sources — Verified at source · Medium confidence · D.C. Code § 7-2086.01(c)(3)(D), subsection (c)(3)(D), [D.C. Law Library](https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/7-2086.01) · Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington, DC — Medication Abortion at Home (Telehealth), [Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington, DC](https://www.plannedparenthood.org/planned-parenthood-metropolitan-washington-dc/patient-resources/abortion-dc/medication-abortion-home-telehealth)* **Editor's note.** Confidence is medium because the Louisiana v. FDA litigation could result in reimposition of in-person dispensing requirements for mifepristone nationwide, including in D.C. Monitor Supreme Court docket. ### Self managed **Expressly protected from penalty** D.C. law expressly prohibits penalizing anyone for self-managing their own abortion or for assisting someone who does, making self-managed abortion legally protected. In D.C., a person who ends their own pregnancy outside the formal health-care system — for example, by obtaining abortion pills by mail and taking them at home — is expressly protected from any penalty. The law says the District government 'shall not penalize a person for seeking, inducing, or attempting to induce the person's own abortion.' This means you cannot be prosecuted, fined, or otherwise punished for self-managing an abortion. This protection extends to anyone who assists you, and to anyone who provides or transfers self-managed abortion products. The only exceptions are if the product is given without voluntary consent, or if it involves adulterated or counterfeit medication. > "The District shall not: (3) Penalize a person for: (A) Seeking, inducing, or attempting to induce the person's own abortion." > — D.C. Code § 7-2086.01(c)(3)(A) **Legal analysis** D.C. Code § 7-2086.01(c)(3) provides that the District shall not penalize a person for: '(A) Seeking, inducing, or attempting to induce the person's own abortion; (C) Assisting an individual who is seeking, inducing, or attempting to induce their own abortion; (D) Any act of providing, dispensing, administering, or transferring possession of self-managed abortion product.' The protection in (C) is conditioned on the abortion being performed by 'a licensed health care provider or professional acting within the scope of licensed practice' on a consenting individual. The protection in (D) excludes acts involving lack of consent, negligent or intentional adulteration, intentional misrepresentation of safety information, or provision of counterfeit medication. The provision of protection for (D) operates distinctly from (C): (D) protects the transfer of the product itself even when a licensed provider does not perform the abortion, so long as consent and medication integrity are maintained. This framework places D.C. among the jurisdictions most protective of self-managed abortion. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · D.C. Code § 7-2086.01(c)(3)(A), subsection (c)(3)(A), [D.C. Law Library](https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/7-2086.01) · D.C. Code § 7-2086.01(c)(3)(C)-(D), subsection (c)(3)(C)-(D), [D.C. Law Library](https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/7-2086.01)* **Editor's note.** Note the distinction between (C) and (D): (C) protects helpers but requires that the procedure itself be performed by a licensed provider; (D) protects transfers of the product without that condition, so long as consent and product integrity requirements are met. ## Actors ### Who may perform **Licensed health care professionals** D.C. law protects abortion provision by any 'health care professional or health care provider acting within the scope of their license,' without a physician-only restriction. In D.C., licensed health care professionals — not only physicians — can provide abortion care if it falls within the scope of their license. This includes advanced practice clinicians such as nurse practitioners, certified nurse-midwives, and physician assistants. D.C. does not have a 'physician-only' law limiting who may perform abortions. For medication abortion, any licensed prescriber within their scope of practice can prescribe. D.C. law also prohibits discrimination against health care professionals based on their participation in abortion care, including in employment, admitting privileges, and licensure. > "Interfere with or restrict in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information, the decision of a health care professional or health care provider acting within the scope of the health care professional or health care provider's license to participate in a consenting individual's use of contraception, prenatal care, labor, delivery, or abortion." > — D.C. Code § 7-2086.01(c)(2) **Legal analysis** D.C. Code § 7-2086.01(c)(2) protects 'the decision of a health care professional or health care provider acting within the scope of the health care professional or health care provider's license to participate in a consenting individual's use of... abortion.' D.C. Code § 2-1402.92 (enacted by D.C. Law 23-90) prohibits employment discrimination against health care professionals based on their participation in abortion or sterilization procedures. The D.C. shield law (D.C. Code § 3-1205.14(e-1)) prohibits a board from taking adverse action based on another state's discipline for providing reproductive health care lawful in D.C. There is no physician-only statute. However, certified nurse-midwives are restricted from providing surgical abortion under D.C. Mun. Regs. tit. 17, § 5808.5, which limits their scope with respect to surgical procedures. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · D.C. Code § 7-2086.01(c)(2), subsection (c)(2), [D.C. Law Library](https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/7-2086.01) · D.C. Code § 2-1402.92, [D.C. Law Library](https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/laws/23-90)* **Editor's note.** Certified nurse-midwives are restricted from performing surgical abortion per D.C. Mun. Regs. tit. 17, § 5808.5, though they may provide medication abortion within their scope. ### Criminal civil exposure #### Pregnant woman **Expressly exempt from all penalty** D.C. law expressly provides that the District shall not penalize a person for seeking, inducing, or attempting to induce their own abortion. A pregnant person in D.C. cannot be prosecuted, fined, or otherwise penalized for ending their own pregnancy or attempting to do so. The law says this explicitly. This protection covers self-managed abortion by any method, including medication obtained by mail. There is no criminal abortion statute under which a pregnant person could be charged. D.C. law also protects against penalty for any act or omission during pregnancy based on its impact on the pregnancy or the person's health, meaning that a person cannot be prosecuted for pregnancy outcomes. > "The District shall not: (3) Penalize a person for: (A) Seeking, inducing, or attempting to induce the person's own abortion." > — D.C. Code § 7-2086.01(c)(3)(A) **Legal analysis** D.C. Code § 7-2086.01(c)(3)(A) expressly prohibits the District from penalizing a person for '[s]eeking, inducing, or attempting to induce the person's own abortion.' Section 7-2086.01(c)(3)(B) further prohibits penalization for '[a]ny act or omission by an individual during the individual's pregnancy based on the potential or actual impact on the individual's health or pregnancy, unless the act or omission is otherwise prohibited by District law.' The former criminal abortion statute (D.C. Code § 22-101) was repealed in 2004. D.C. has no fetal homicide statute. The pregnant woman thus faces zero criminal exposure under D.C. law for self-managing an abortion or for any pregnancy outcome. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · D.C. Code § 7-2086.01(c)(3)(A), subsection (c)(3)(A), [D.C. Law Library](https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/7-2086.01) · D.C. Code § 7-2086.01(c)(3)(B), subsection (c)(3)(B), [D.C. Law Library](https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/7-2086.01)* #### Physician **No criminal exposure; protected** Physicians face no criminal liability for providing abortion in D.C.; the former criminal statute was repealed, and current law affirmatively protects their participation. Physicians who provide abortion care in D.C. face no criminal penalties. The old criminal abortion law was repealed in 2004. Current D.C. law protects health care professionals' decisions to participate in abortion care and prohibits employment discrimination against them. A physician could face professional discipline for conduct falling below the standard of care, as with any medical procedure, but not for the act of providing abortion itself. The shield law also protects physicians from adverse licensing actions based on out-of-state discipline for providing abortion care that is lawful in D.C. > "A board shall not take reciprocal adverse or disciplinary action... against a person whose license, registration, or certification in another state has been revoked, suspended, or restricted by adverse or disciplinary action if: (1) The person's license... was revoked, suspended, or restricted solely because they provided or facilitated... (A) An abortion or other reproductive health care service." > — D.C. Code § 3-1205.14(e-1) **Legal analysis** No criminal abortion statute exists in D.C. to charge physicians. The former D.C. Code § 22-101 was repealed in 2004. D.C. Code § 7-2086.01(c)(2) prohibits interference with health care professionals' decisions to participate in abortion. D.C. Code § 2-1402.92 prohibits employment discrimination. D.C. Code § 3-1205.14(e-1) protects against reciprocal discipline based on out-of-state actions for providing reproductive health care lawful in D.C. Professional discipline under D.C. Code § 3-1205.14 is available for substandard care, but not for abortion provision per se. The shield law (D.C. Code § 2-1461.01) prohibits District cooperation with out-of-state investigations. The clawback provision (D.C. Code § 2-1461.02) enables recovery of damages from parties who obtain out-of-state judgments against providers. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · D.C. Code § 3-1205.14(e-1), subsection (e-1)(1)(A), [D.C. Law Library](https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/3-1205.14) · D.C. Code § 2-1461.02, subsection (a), [D.C. Law Library](https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/2-1461.02)* #### Prescriber pharmacist **Protected; no criminal exposure** Non-physician prescribers and pharmacists who prescribe or dispense abortion medication within their scope of practice face no criminal liability under D.C. law. Nurse practitioners, certified nurse-midwives, physician assistants, and pharmacists who prescribe or dispense abortion medication in D.C. face no criminal liability. D.C. law protects health care professionals acting within their scope of license. Pharmacists filling prescriptions for mifepristone and misoprostol — including prescriptions from out-of-state providers — are not subject to any D.C. abortion-specific restriction. The shield law also prohibits D.C. from cooperating with out-of-state investigations of these activities. > "The District and its officers and employees acting in their official capacities shall not provide any information or expend or use time, money, facilities, property, equipment, personnel, or other resources in furtherance of any interstate investigation or proceeding seeking to impose civil or criminal liability upon any person for... (1) Receiving or seeking an abortion or contraception; (2) Performing or inducing an abortion with the voluntary consent of the pregnant person." > — D.C. Code § 2-1461.01(a)(1)-(2) **Legal analysis** D.C. Code § 7-2086.01(c)(2) broadly protects 'health care professional[s] or health care provider[s] acting within the scope of the health care professional or health care provider's license.' No D.C. law restricts who may prescribe abortion medication. Under FDA REMS, mifepristone may be dispensed by certified pharmacies. D.C. imposes no additional state-law dispensing restrictions. The shield law (D.C. Code § 2-1461.01(a)) protects those who provide, facilitate, or aid abortion by prohibiting District cooperation with interstate investigations. For out-of-state prescriptions filled in D.C., general pharmacy law applies; no abortion-specific barrier exists. The federal Comstock Act (18 U.S.C. § 1461) argument that mailing abortion pills is illegal remains unsettled in litigation but does not currently prevent dispensing. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · D.C. Code § 2-1461.01(a)(1)-(2), subsection (a)(1)-(2), [D.C. Law Library](https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/2-1461.01)* #### Nurses and staff **Protected; no criminal exposure** Clinical staff assisting in abortion care face no criminal liability; D.C. law protects those who assist, and the shield law blocks out-of-state investigations. Nurses, medical assistants, and other clinical staff who assist in providing abortion care in D.C. face no criminal exposure. D.C. law protects anyone who assists someone seeking an abortion, and the shield law prevents D.C. agencies from cooperating with out-of-state investigations targeting these activities. Staff are also protected from employment discrimination based on their participation in abortion care. > "Assisting an individual who is seeking, inducing, or attempting to induce their own abortion." > — D.C. Code § 7-2086.01(c)(3)(C) **Legal analysis** D.C. Code § 7-2086.01(c)(3)(C) protects persons who assist an individual seeking or inducing their own abortion, though with the proviso that the procedure itself must be performed by a licensed provider on a consenting individual. D.C. Code § 2-1461.01(a) prohibits District cooperation with interstate investigations targeting those who aid or abet abortion. D.C. Code § 2-1402.92 prohibits employment discrimination against health care professionals based on abortion participation. No criminal abortion statute exists under which staff could be charged as accomplices. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · D.C. Code § 7-2086.01(c)(3)(C), subsection (c)(3)(C), [D.C. Law Library](https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/7-2086.01)* #### Other helpers **Protected; no criminal exposure** Anyone who helps another obtain an abortion — by driving, paying, providing information, or otherwise assisting — is protected from penalty under D.C. law. Friends, family members, clergy, employers, or anyone else who helps a person obtain an abortion in D.C. — by providing a ride, paying for the procedure, offering a place to stay, or giving information — faces no criminal or civil liability under D.C. law. The law explicitly protects those who assist someone seeking an abortion. The shield law also prevents D.C. agencies from helping other states investigate or prosecute such assistance. > "The District and its officers and employees acting in their official capacities shall not provide any information or expend or use time, money, facilities, property, equipment, personnel, or other resources in furtherance of any interstate investigation or proceeding seeking to impose civil or criminal liability upon any person for the following conduct, or for attempting, aiding, abetting, advising, facilitating, or intending or conspiring to achieve the following conduct." > — D.C. Code § 2-1461.01(a) **Legal analysis** D.C. Code § 7-2086.01(c)(3)(C) prohibits penalizing a person for '[a]ssisting an individual who is seeking, inducing, or attempting to induce their own abortion.' D.C. Code § 7-2086.01(c)(3)(D) protects 'providing, dispensing, administering, or transferring possession of self-managed abortion product.' D.C. Code § 2-1461.01(a) prohibits District cooperation with interstate investigations targeting those who aid, abet, advise, facilitate, intend, or conspire to achieve the protected conduct. D.C. has no 'abortion trafficking' statute, no civil bounty law, and no travel-assistance criminalization. Employers who cover abortion travel expenses as part of health benefits may do so without fear of liability under D.C. law, though tax treatment is governed by federal law. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · D.C. Code § 2-1461.01(a), subsection (a), [D.C. Law Library](https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/2-1461.01)* ## Aiding & assisting ### Travel assistance **Protected; no travel restrictions** Helping someone travel to or from D.C. for an abortion is not criminalized; D.C. has no 'abortion trafficking' statute and its shield law blocks interstate enforcement. It is legal in D.C. to help someone travel to obtain an abortion, whether the travel is within D.C. or from another state into D.C. D.C. has no law criminalizing 'abortion trafficking' or the transportation of a minor for abortion — there is no parental involvement law to trigger such a concern. The shield law prevents D.C. from helping other states investigate or prosecute someone for assisting with travel. **Legal analysis** D.C. has no statute criminalizing assistance with travel for abortion. No 'abortion trafficking' or 'aiding and abetting' travel statute exists. D.C. has no parental notification or consent requirement, so there is no statutory basis for a claim that transporting a minor for abortion violates D.C. law. The shield law (D.C. Code § 2-1461.01(a)) prohibits District resources from being used in furtherance of interstate investigations targeting those who aid, abet, advise, or facilitate abortion, which would encompass travel assistance. Federal proposals such as the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, if enacted by Congress, could impose restrictions on transporting minors across state lines, but no such federal statute is currently in effect. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · D.C. Code § 2-1461.01(a), subsection (a), [D.C. Law Library](https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/2-1461.01) · D.C. Office of the Attorney General Consumer Alert, [D.C. Office of the Attorney General](https://oag.dc.gov/release/consumer-alert-questions-and-answers-abortion-care)* ### Funding **Protected; no funding prohibition** Paying for someone else's abortion or abortion-related travel is lawful in D.C.; nonprofit abortion funds operate openly, and no D.C. law restricts private funding. Private funding of abortion — by individuals, nonprofits, employers, or anyone else — is legal in D.C. The DC Abortion Fund openly helps people pay for abortion care and related travel. Employers may include abortion travel benefits in their health plans. D.C. does not restrict private funding of abortion. The only funding restriction is on government money: Congress blocks D.C. from using its own locally raised tax dollars to pay for abortion through Medicaid, and federal funds are restricted by the Hyde Amendment to cases of rape, incest, or life endangerment. > "An individual health plan or group health plan shall provide coverage for abortion and abortion-care services, including follow-up services, to an enrollee." > — D.C. Code § 31-3834.03a(a)(1) **Legal analysis** No D.C. statute restricts private funding of abortion. The DC Abortion Fund operates legally within the District. The Dornan Amendment (a congressional appropriations rider) restricts the District from using federal or locally raised funds to pay for abortions for low-income residents through Medicaid beyond the Hyde exceptions (life, rape, incest). This restriction applies only to government spending, not to private entities. D.C. Code § 31-3834.03a requires private and group health plans to cover abortion without cost-sharing, reinforcing rather than restricting private funding. No SB8-style civil bounty law exists that could expose funders to liability. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · D.C. Code § 31-3834.03a(a)(1), subsection (a)(1), [D.C. Law Library](https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/31-3834.03a)* ### Mailing pills **Protected under current law** Mailing abortion medication into or within D.C. is not prohibited by D.C. law and is currently permitted under FDA rules preserved by the Supreme Court stay in Louisiana v. FDA. Under current law, abortion medication can be mailed to someone in D.C. D.C. law explicitly protects those who provide, dispense, or transfer self-managed abortion products. The FDA permits mifepristone to be dispensed by mail and through certified pharmacies. A federal appeals court ordered the FDA to reinstate in-person dispensing requirements in 2026, but the Supreme Court put that order on hold, so mail access continues for now. The ultimate legality of mailing abortion pills under the federal Comstock Act remains unresolved as the Louisiana v. FDA litigation proceeds. > "Any act of providing, dispensing, administering, or transferring possession of self-managed abortion product." > — D.C. Code § 7-2086.01(c)(3)(D) **Legal analysis** D.C. Code § 7-2086.01(c)(3)(D) protects 'any act of providing, dispensing, administering, or transferring possession of self-managed abortion product.' No D.C. statute bans mailing abortion medication. At the federal level, the FDA's 2023 REMS modification permits mifepristone to be dispensed by mail and through certified pharmacies. The Fifth Circuit in Louisiana v. FDA ordered reimposition of in-person dispensing requirements, but the Supreme Court stayed that order in May 2026. The federal Comstock Act (18 U.S.C. § 1461) argument — that mailing any article intended for abortion is prohibited — has been advanced by anti-abortion litigants; the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel opined in December 2022 that § 1461 does not apply where the sender lacks intent that the recipient use the drugs unlawfully, and since abortion is lawful in D.C., this construction shields mailers sending to D.C. recipients. *Sources — Verified at source · Medium confidence · D.C. Code § 7-2086.01(c)(3)(D), subsection (c)(3)(D), [D.C. Law Library](https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/7-2086.01)* **Editor's note.** Confidence medium because the Louisiana v. FDA litigation could change federal rules on mailing mifepristone nationwide. Monitor Supreme Court proceedings. ### Providing information **Protected; no information liability** Providing information, referrals, or websites about abortion is lawful in D.C.; no statute restricts speech about abortion and the First Amendment protects it. Giving someone information about how to obtain an abortion — including referrals to clinics, websites, or hotlines — is fully legal in D.C. No law restricts this. The U.S. Constitution's First Amendment protects speech about lawful activities, and D.C. law explicitly protects the provision of information about reproductive health decisions from government interference. > "The District shall not: (1) Deny, interfere with, or restrict, in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information, the right of an individual... to... have an abortion." > — D.C. Code § 7-2086.01(c)(1) **Legal analysis** D.C. Code § 7-2086.01(c)(1) prohibits the District from denying, interfering with, or restricting 'in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information' the right to abortion. D.C. has no statute restricting abortion-related speech or referral. The First Amendment provides strong protection for speech about lawful activities. No D.C. law imposes liability on websites, search engines, or social media platforms for hosting abortion-related information. Compare with states that have enacted 'aiding and abetting' statutes or restrictions on abortion-related speech; D.C. has none. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · D.C. Code § 7-2086.01(c)(1), subsection (c)(1), [D.C. Law Library](https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/7-2086.01)* ### Civil bounty **No civil bounty law** D.C. has no SB8-style private civil enforcement mechanism; no statute authorizes private individuals to sue abortion providers, patients, or helpers. D.C. does not have any law like the Texas SB8 that allows private citizens to sue anyone involved in an abortion for money damages. No one — not a neighbor, relative, or stranger — can sue you, your doctor, or anyone who helped you for having or facilitating an abortion in D.C. The only private right of action in D.C. abortion law operates in the opposite direction: it allows people sued in other states for abortion-related conduct lawful in D.C. to sue the out-of-state plaintiffs back for damages. > "A person who has had a judgment entered against him or her, in any jurisdiction, where liability is based in whole or in part on the person's alleged conduct of a type identified in § 2-1461.01(a)... shall have a cause of action and may recover damages from any party that brought the action leading to that judgment." > — D.C. Code § 2-1461.02(a) **Legal analysis** D.C. has not enacted any statute authorizing private civil enforcement against abortion providers, patients, or helpers — no SB8 analog exists. The private right of action in D.C. law runs the opposite way: D.C. Code § 2-1461.02 creates a 'clawback' cause of action enabling a person who had a judgment entered against them in another jurisdiction for abortion conduct lawful in D.C. to recover damages from the party that brought the action, including the amount of the judgment plus costs and fees. D.C. Code § 7-2086.01(d) also provides a cause of action for persons aggrieved by violations of the government-noninterference provision. No civil liability for abortion exists under D.C. law. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · D.C. Code § 2-1461.02(a), subsection (a), [D.C. Law Library](https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/2-1461.02)* ## Procedural requirements ### Waiting period **No waiting period** D.C. imposes no mandatory waiting period between counseling and abortion; a person can obtain an abortion as soon as an appointment is available. There is no mandatory waiting period in D.C. You do not have to wait any set number of hours or days after receiving information or counseling before you can have an abortion. Once you have an appointment, you can receive care immediately. This applies to both medication and procedural abortion. > "Does DC have mandatory waiting periods to access abortion care? No. You can access an abortion immediately once you have an appointment." > — D.C. Office of the Attorney General Consumer Alert **Legal analysis** No D.C. statute imposes a waiting period for abortion. No mandatory delay between counseling and the procedure exists. This is in contrast to many states that impose 24-, 48-, or 72-hour waiting periods. D.C. law reinforces this by prohibiting the government from interfering with reproductive health decisions. As confirmed by the D.C. Office of the Attorney General: 'No. You can access an abortion immediately once you have an appointment.' *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · D.C. Office of the Attorney General Consumer Alert, [D.C. Office of the Attorney General](https://oag.dc.gov/release/consumer-alert-questions-and-answers-abortion-care)* ### Mandatory counseling **No state-scripted counseling** D.C. does not require state-scripted counseling or the provision of state-prepared materials before an abortion. In D.C., there is no requirement that you receive state-scripted information or watch state-prepared materials before getting an abortion. The general medical standard of informed consent applies, meaning your provider will discuss the procedure, risks, and alternatives with you, but there is no government-mandated script or materials you must receive. There are no medically contested statements that the law requires a provider to deliver. **Legal analysis** No D.C. statute mandates state-scripted counseling, provision of state-prepared materials, or any specific informational content prior to abortion. The general informed-consent requirements of D.C. medical practice law apply (see D.C. Code § 3-1205.14(a)(26A)), but these are content-neutral and apply to all medical procedures. D.C. does not mandate that patients be told about fetal development, alternatives to abortion, or any other specific content. There is no 'Women's Right to Know' or similar law. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · D.C. Code § 3-1205.14(a)(26A), subsection (a)(26A), [D.C. Law Library](https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/3-1205.14)* ### Ultrasound requirement **No ultrasound requirement** D.C. law does not require an ultrasound before an abortion, nor any offer, performance, or display of ultrasound imaging. You are not required to have an ultrasound before an abortion in D.C. A provider may perform one as part of standard medical care (to determine gestational age, for example), but no law mandates it, and no law requires the provider to show or describe ultrasound images to you. **Legal analysis** No D.C. statute requires an ultrasound, the offer of an ultrasound, its performance, or the display or description of ultrasound images prior to abortion. This is in contrast to many states with mandatory-ultrasound laws. The provider may perform an ultrasound as a matter of clinical judgment, but there is no statutory mandate. *Sources — No law on this point · High confidence* ### In person visits **Zero required in-person visits** D.C. law requires zero in-person visits for abortion; medication abortion is available via telehealth without any in-person requirement. You are not required to make any in-person visits to obtain an abortion in D.C. You can receive medication abortion through a telehealth appointment and have the pills mailed to you. For procedural abortion, one visit to the clinic is needed for the procedure itself, but there is no legal requirement for a separate advance visit. The combined effect of D.C.'s laws is zero mandated trips beyond the procedure itself. **Legal analysis** D.C. law imposes no requirement for in-person visits prior to abortion. No mandatory counseling visit, no ultrasound visit, and no waiting-period visit. For medication abortion, Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington, DC offers telehealth appointments with medication mailed to the patient. For procedural abortion, one visit is required for the procedure itself, but this is a practical necessity rather than a legal mandate. The absence of any pre-abortion requirement (waiting period, counseling, ultrasound) means zero legally compelled in-person visits beyond the abortion service itself. *Sources — Semi-verified · High confidence · Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington, DC — Medication Abortion at Home (Telehealth), [Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington, DC](https://www.plannedparenthood.org/planned-parenthood-metropolitan-washington-dc/patient-resources/abortion-dc/medication-abortion-home-telehealth)* **Editor's note.** Status set by the research runner: the claim matched search-result snippets, but none of the cited pages were opened in full during research. Confirm the quoted text at the cited URL before publication. ## Minors ### Parental involvement **No parental involvement required** D.C. law imposes no parental consent or notification requirement for minors seeking abortion; minors of any age may consent to abortion on their own. If you are under 18 and live in or travel to D.C., you do not need your parents' permission or knowledge to get an abortion. D.C. law explicitly allows minors of any age to consent to abortion on their own, and your medical records about the abortion are confidential. Your parents are not notified. The D.C. Attorney General has confirmed this publicly. > "Minors of any age may consent for the health services that they request for the lawful termination of a pregnancy." > — D.C. Mun. Regs. tit. 22-B, § 600.7 **Legal analysis** D.C. Mun. Regs. tit. 22-B, § 600.7 provides that 'minors of any age may consent for the health services that they request for the lawful termination of a pregnancy.' D.C. Code § 7-2086.01 extends its protections to 'every individual' and 'an individual under District control or supervision,' which encompasses minors. No parental consent or notification statute exists in D.C. D.C. Mun. Regs. tit. 22-B, § 602.6 provides that information about abortion treatment given to a minor shall not be disclosed to parents without the minor's consent, subject only to narrow exceptions where failure to inform would seriously jeopardize the minor's safety and health. The D.C. Attorney General confirms: 'You do not need permission to have an abortion in DC — not from your parents, guardian, or the other person involved in the pregnancy. And your medical records about the abortion are confidential.' *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · D.C. Mun. Regs. tit. 22-B, § 600.7, [National Center for Youth Law / D.C. Municipal Regulations](https://youthlaw.org/sites/default/files/2024-10/NCYLMinorConsentCompendium2024-DistrictOfColumbia.pdf) · D.C. Office of the Attorney General Consumer Alert, [D.C. Office of the Attorney General](https://oag.dc.gov/release/consumer-alert-questions-and-answers-abortion-care)* ### Judicial bypass **Not applicable; no parental requirement** Because D.C. has no parental involvement requirement for abortion, there is no need for a judicial bypass procedure. Since D.C. does not require minors to involve their parents in an abortion decision, there is no judicial bypass process. A minor can consent to an abortion on their own without needing to go to court. **Legal analysis** Judicial bypass is a mechanism that allows a minor to obtain court authorization for an abortion in lieu of parental consent or notification. Because D.C. imposes no parental involvement requirement (D.C. Mun. Regs. tit. 22-B, § 600.7), no bypass mechanism is needed or provided by law. *Sources — No law on this point · High confidence* ## Paternal spousal rights ### Consent or notice laws **No spousal or paternal consent law** D.C. has no statute requiring spousal or paternal consent or notice for abortion; the D.C. Attorney General confirms no permission is needed from 'the other person involved in the pregnancy.' D.C. law does not require a married person to get their spouse's consent or to notify their spouse before having an abortion. It also does not require the person who caused the pregnancy to consent or be notified. You do not need permission from anyone other than yourself to have an abortion in D.C. > "You do not need permission to have an abortion in DC—not from your parents, guardian, or the other person involved in the pregnancy." > — D.C. Office of the Attorney General Consumer Alert **Legal analysis** No D.C. statute requires spousal consent, spousal notification, or paternal consent/notification. The D.C. Attorney General has confirmed this. Under the federal constitutional framework, even pre-Dobbs, spousal consent requirements were held unconstitutional in Planned Parenthood v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52 (1976), and spousal notification in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992). D.C. never enacted such laws. Dobbs does not resurrect them because they were never on D.C.'s books. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · D.C. Office of the Attorney General Consumer Alert, [D.C. Office of the Attorney General](https://oag.dc.gov/release/consumer-alert-questions-and-answers-abortion-care)* ### Enforceability **Not applicable; no law to enforce** Because D.C. has no spousal or paternal consent or notification statute, the constitutionality of such laws under Danforth and Casey is immaterial. D.C. never enacted a spousal or paternal consent or notice law, so there is no statute to challenge or enforce. The U.S. Supreme Court cases that struck down such laws in other states — Planned Parenthood v. Danforth (1976) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) — are not directly relevant to D.C. because there is no D.C. law on the books to test. **Legal analysis** D.C. has no spousal or paternal consent/notification statute. In Planned Parenthood v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52 (1976), the Supreme Court struck down a Missouri spousal consent requirement. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), the Court struck down the spousal notification provision of the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act. Dobbs overruled Roe and Casey, but D.C. never enacted any such law and currently protects abortion by statute, so the question is academic in this jurisdiction. If D.C. were to enact a spousal consent law, the question would be one of first impression post-Dobbs, but no such legislation has been introduced. *Sources — No law on this point · High confidence* ### Other paternal rights **Fetal wrongful death action; no veto right** A father has no right to veto an abortion, but under Greater Southeast Community Hospital v. Williams, the estate of a viable stillborn fetus may bring wrongful death and survival actions, which could theoretically be used by a father as personal representative. A biological father or spouse cannot prevent someone from having an abortion in D.C. There is no legal mechanism for a father to block or delay an abortion. However, if a viable fetus is injured and stillborn due to someone else's negligence — such as a car accident — a wrongful death lawsuit can be brought. The D.C. Court of Appeals has held that a viable fetus is a 'person' under the wrongful death and survival statutes. The dissenting judge in that case warned this could theoretically be used by a father against a doctor who performs an abortion, but no such case has succeeded in D.C. The mother's statutory right to abortion and the absence of any criminal abortion statute would make such a claim extremely unlikely to succeed. > "[A] viable fetus is a 'person' within the meaning of our wrongful death and survival statutes." > — Greater Southeast Community Hospital v. Williams, 482 A.2d 394 (D.C. 1984) **Legal analysis** In Greater Southeast Community Hospital v. Williams, 482 A.2d 394 (D.C. 1984), the D.C. Court of Appeals held that a viable fetus is a 'person' under the wrongful death statute (D.C. Code § 16-2701) and the survival statute (D.C. Code § 12-101), allowing a cause of action where a viable fetus is stillborn due to tortious injury. The dissenting opinion by Judge Terry warned: 'One can readily foresee, for example, the case of a father who, disagreeing with his wife's decision to have an abortion, files suit in the name of his aborted child against the doctor who performed it.' However, D.C. Code § 7-2086.01 now affirmatively protects the right to abortion and prohibits penalization, and no criminal abortion statute exists. A wrongful-death claim predicated on a lawful abortion would likely fail because the death would not be caused by a 'wrongful act.' No D.C. case has applied Williams to an abortion context. *Sources — Verified at source · Medium confidence · Greater Southeast Community Hospital v. Williams, 482 A.2d 394 (D.C. 1984), 482 A.2d at 395, [Justia](https://law.justia.com/cases/district-of-columbia/court-of-appeals/1984/82-1655-3.html)* **Editor's note.** The Williams majority did not address abortion, and the holding applies to tortious injuries to a viable fetus, not to lawful medical procedures. Whether Williams could be extended to an abortion context post-D.C. Code § 7-2086.01 is untested. ## Fetal personhood ### Fetal homicide law **No fetal homicide statute** D.C. has no standalone fetal homicide or feticide statute; killing a fetus is not separately criminalized under D.C. criminal law. D.C. does not have a law making it a separate crime to kill a fetus. If a pregnant person is assaulted and loses the pregnancy, the attacker can be charged with assault against the pregnant person, but there is no separate homicide charge for the fetus. This is consistent with D.C.'s approach of treating abortion as a protected right rather than a crime. The federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act applies to certain federal crimes committed in D.C., but not to ordinary state-law crimes. **Legal analysis** D.C. has no fetal homicide or feticide statute. A 2016 survey of feticide statutes published in the Denver University Criminal Law Review confirmed that the District of Columbia is among the jurisdictions without a feticide statute. The federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act (18 U.S.C. § 1841) applies to certain enumerated federal crimes of violence and defines 'unborn child' as 'a child in utero' at any stage of development, but this is a federal statute of limited application. No D.C. criminal statute treats a fetus as a homicide victim. This absence is consistent with D.C. Code § 7-2086.01's protective framework. *Sources — Semi-verified · High confidence · A Crisis for Women's Rights: Surveying Feticide Statutes, Denver University Criminal Law Review (2016), [Denver University](https://digitalcommons.du.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1036&context=crimlawrev)* **Editor's note.** Status set by the research runner: the claim matched search-result snippets, but none of the cited pages were opened in full during research. Confirm the quoted text at the cited URL before publication. ### Wrongful death **Viable fetus is a 'person' for wrongful death** Under Greater Southeast Community Hospital v. Williams (1984), a viable fetus is a 'person' under D.C.'s wrongful death and survival statutes, allowing a cause of action for tortious prenatal death of a viable fetus. If a viable fetus (one that could survive outside the womb) is killed due to someone's negligent or wrongful act — such as a car accident or medical malpractice — the personal representative of the fetus's estate can bring a wrongful death lawsuit. The D.C. Court of Appeals made this ruling in 1984. The decision applies only to viable fetuses and only to deaths caused by tortious (wrongful) conduct. It does not apply to lawful abortions. A dissenting judge warned the ruling could theoretically be used to sue abortion providers, but no such case has succeeded. > "We conclude: (1) a viable fetus has a right to be free of tortious injury; (2) a child born alive has a cause of action for such an injury; (3) a viable fetus negligently injured en ventre sa mere is a 'person' within the meaning of our wrongful death and survival statutes." > — Greater Southeast Community Hospital v. Williams, 482 A.2d 394, 395 (D.C. 1984) **Legal analysis** Greater Southeast Community Hospital v. Williams, 482 A.2d 394 (D.C. 1984), held that a viable fetus is a 'person' within the meaning of D.C. Code § 16-2701 (wrongful death) and § 12-101 (survival), so that the estate of a stillborn viable fetus may bring an action for tortious prenatal death. The court limited its holding to viable fetuses, stating: 'We state no opinion as to the existence of a cause of action for injuries to a fetus prior to viability.' The decision predates D.C. Code § 7-2086.01 and all other D.C. abortion-protective statutes. Because a civil wrongful-death action requires a 'wrongful act, neglect, or default,' and because abortion is a lawful medical procedure in D.C., the Williams holding is highly unlikely to support a wrongful-death claim arising from a lawful abortion. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Greater Southeast Community Hospital v. Williams, 482 A.2d 394, 395 (D.C. 1984), 482 A.2d at 395, [Justia](https://law.justia.com/cases/district-of-columbia/court-of-appeals/1984/82-1655-3.html)* **Editor's note.** The court did not decide whether a pre-viability fetus could be a 'person' for wrongful death purposes. The application of Williams to abortion contexts is untested and faces the substantial barrier that a lawful abortion is not a 'wrongful act.' ### Personhood definition **No statutory fetal personhood** D.C. has no statute or constitutional provision defining an unborn child as a 'person,' 'human being,' or 'child' for purposes of criminal or civil law beyond the Williams wrongful-death holding. D.C. law does not contain any provision declaring that a fetus is a person or that life begins at conception. There is no fetal personhood language in D.C. statutes or in any D.C. constitutional provision. The only legal recognition of fetal interests is the 1984 court ruling that allows wrongful-death lawsuits for viable fetuses killed by tortious acts, which is a civil remedy, not a personhood declaration. **Legal analysis** No D.C. statute or constitutional provision defines the unborn as a 'person,' 'human being,' or 'child.' The Williams holding treats a viable fetus as a 'person' for the limited purpose of civil wrongful-death and survival actions; it does not extend to criminal law or any general personhood framework. D.C. Code § 7-2086.01 recognizes the right of 'every individual who becomes pregnant' to decide whether to have an abortion, which is fundamentally inconsistent with fetal personhood. D.C. has no 'trigger' law or statutory declaration that would recognize fetal rights in a post-Roe or post-Dobbs context. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · D.C. Code § 7-2086.01(b), subsection (b), [D.C. Law Library](https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/7-2086.01)* ### Contradictions analysis D.C. law presents a notable internal tension between civil and criminal/regulatory treatment of the fetus. On the civil side, the D.C. Court of Appeals held in Greater Southeast Community Hospital v. Williams (1984) that a viable fetus is a 'person' under the wrongful death and survival statutes — meaning that a tortfeasor who negligently kills a viable fetus in utero is civilly liable as if they had killed a born person. This is a personhood-adjacent holding: the court reasoned that once D.C. recognized a viable fetus's right to be free of tortious injury (following Bonbrest v. Kotz), the fetus must also be a 'person' for purposes of statutory remedies when that injury causes death. The dissent explicitly warned this logic could be used by a father to sue an abortion provider. On the criminal and regulatory side, D.C. has no fetal homicide statute — the killing of a fetus is not separately criminalized — and D.C. Code § 7-2086.01 expressly recognizes the pregnant individual's right to abortion and prohibits the government from penalizing any person for seeking, inducing, or assisting an abortion. The contradiction is not fully resolved: Williams remains good law for tortious (non-abortion) prenatal death, while the statutory framework makes clear that a lawful abortion is not a 'wrongful act' and thus cannot support a Williams claim. But the dissent's scenario — a father suing a doctor on behalf of an aborted viable fetus — has never been tested in D.C. courts, and the tension between Williams's 'person' language and the abortion-protective statute could surface in future litigation. ## Telehealth & interstate questions ### Telehealth prescribing **Telehealth permitted; no in-state restriction** Telehealth prescribing of abortion medication is permitted in D.C. without restriction; providers may prescribe from in-state or out-of-state, and medication may be mailed. You can get a prescription for abortion medication through a telehealth appointment in D.C. Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington, DC offers this service. The medication can be mailed to your home or picked up at a pharmacy. D.C. law does not require an in-person visit, and there is no restriction on a provider from another state prescribing medication abortion to a patient in D.C., though the out-of-state provider must comply with any professional obligations in their own state. **Legal analysis** D.C. imposes no statutory barrier to telehealth prescribing of abortion medication. No in-person examination requirement exists. Under current FDA REMS (as preserved by the Supreme Court stay in Louisiana v. FDA), mifepristone may be prescribed via telehealth and dispensed by mail or at certified pharmacies. D.C. Code § 7-2086.01 protects health care professionals' decisions to participate in abortion. Out-of-state providers prescribing to D.C. patients: D.C. law does not prohibit this, but providers should be aware of their own state's laws. The D.C. shield law (D.C. Code § 2-1461.01) prohibits District cooperation with out-of-state investigations targeting such prescribing. The D.C. Board of Medicine's jurisdiction over out-of-state prescribers is governed by general telehealth and licensure rules, not abortion-specific restrictions. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · D.C. Code § 7-2086.01, subsection (c)(1), [D.C. Law Library](https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/7-2086.01)* **Editor's note.** The permissibility of out-of-state telehealth prescribing into D.C. depends partly on the prescriber's home-state law, which is beyond D.C.'s control. The D.C. shield law protects the prescriber and patient from D.C. cooperation with hostile-state investigations. ### Out of state travel **Travel out fully lawful; no restriction** D.C. residents may lawfully travel to any other jurisdiction for abortion; D.C. imposes no restriction on out-of-state travel and affirmatively protects the right to travel. If you live in D.C., you can travel to another state for an abortion. D.C. law does not restrict or penalize travel for abortion. The D.C. Attorney General has affirmed that people from other states are welcome to travel to D.C. for abortion care. D.C.'s shield law also protects people who assist with travel from out-of-state investigations. **Legal analysis** D.C. has no statute restricting residents' travel to other states for abortion. The constitutional right to travel between states is well-established under the Privileges and Immunities Clause and the Dormant Commerce Clause. D.C.'s statutory framework is protective, not restrictive. Travel-assistance criminalization statutes enacted in other states (e.g., Idaho's 'abortion trafficking' law) do not apply in D.C. and D.C. would not cooperate with enforcement of such laws under its shield statute. *Sources — No law on this point · High confidence* ### Shield or hostile laws **Strong shield state** D.C. is a robust shield jurisdiction: its laws prohibit government cooperation with out-of-state investigations, block subpoenas, protect provider licenses, and create a clawback right of action against out-of-state plaintiffs. D.C. is a 'shield' state — it has strong laws protecting people who provide, receive, or help with abortion in D.C. from legal attacks by other states. These laws prevent D.C. government agencies from helping other states investigate or prosecute abortion-related conduct that is legal in D.C. They block out-of-state subpoenas unless accompanied by a sworn statement that they are not targeting protected conduct. They protect health care providers' licenses from being disciplined based on out-of-state actions. And they let people sued in other states for abortion-related conduct sue the out-of-state plaintiffs back in D.C. court for damages. Congress has introduced a bill to repeal D.C.'s shield law (the D.C. Shield Law Repeal Act), but it has not been enacted. > "The District and its officers and employees acting in their official capacities shall not provide any information or expend or use time, money, facilities, property, equipment, personnel, or other resources in furtherance of any interstate investigation or proceeding seeking to impose civil or criminal liability upon any person for the following conduct." > — D.C. Code § 2-1461.01(a) **Legal analysis** D.C. Law 24-257 (Human Rights Sanctuary Amendment Act of 2022, effective February 23, 2023) created comprehensive shield protections. D.C. Code § 2-1461.01 prohibits the District and its officers from providing information or expending resources in furtherance of any interstate investigation or proceeding seeking civil or criminal liability for receiving, seeking, performing, or inducing abortion, or for aiding, abetting, advising, facilitating, or conspiring to do so. D.C. Code §§ 13-443, 13-449 require that out-of-state subpoenas be accompanied by a sworn statement that they are not intended to further investigations targeting protected conduct; without it, the clerk issues a notice of violation rather than the subpoena. D.C. Code § 2-1461.02 creates a 'clawback' right of action permitting a person with an out-of-state judgment based on protected conduct to recover damages from the party that brought the action. D.C. Code § 3-1205.14(e-1) prohibits licensing boards from taking adverse action based on another state's discipline for providing reproductive health care lawful in D.C. A bill to repeal D.C.'s shield law was introduced in Congress in December 2025 but has not passed. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · D.C. Code § 2-1461.01(a), subsection (a), [D.C. Law Library](https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/2-1461.01) · D.C. Code § 13-449, Title II, Sec. 201(c) (enacting new D.C. Code § 13-449), [D.C. Law Library (via D.C. Law 24-257)](https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/laws/24-257) · D.C. Code § 2-1461.02(a), subsection (a), [D.C. Law Library](https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/2-1461.02) · D.C. Code § 3-1205.14(e-1), subsection (e-1)(1)(A), [D.C. Law Library](https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/3-1205.14)* **Editor's note.** The D.C. Shield Law Repeal Act introduced by Rep. Andrew Clyde in December 2025, if enacted, would nullify D.C. Law 24-257. Monitor this bill. ## Funding and insurance ### Medicaid **Hyde Amendment only; Dornan rider** D.C. Medicaid covers abortion only in cases of rape, incest, or life endangerment due to the federal Hyde Amendment and the Dornan Amendment, which blocks D.C. from using its own locally raised funds for broader coverage. If you are on Medicaid in D.C., your insurance will only cover abortion if the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest, or if your life is in danger. This is because of two federal restrictions: the Hyde Amendment, which blocks federal funds from being used for most abortions, and the Dornan Amendment, a congressional rider that goes further and blocks D.C. from using its own locally raised tax dollars — not just federal money — to cover abortion through Medicaid. This means that even though D.C. wants to use its own money to help low-income residents afford abortion, Congress prevents it from doing so. No other jurisdiction faces this dual restriction. > "This section shall not apply to health insurance coverage through Medicaid, the DC Healthcare Alliance program, or the Immigrant Children's program." > — D.C. Code § 31-3834.03a(d) **Legal analysis** The Hyde Amendment, a rider to the annual federal appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services, prohibits the use of federal funds for abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or life endangerment. The Dornan Amendment — a rider to the D.C. appropriations bill first imposed in 1988 and reinstated in 1995 after a brief hiatus — goes further by prohibiting D.C. from using even its own locally raised revenues to fund abortion through Medicaid. From 1993-1994 and briefly in 2009, Congress lifted the local-funds restriction, but it has otherwise been continuously in effect. D.C. Code § 31-3834.03a(d) expressly excludes Medicaid and the DC Healthcare Alliance program from the private-insurance coverage mandate. The DC Abortion Fund and other private organizations fill the gap for low-income residents. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · D.C. Code § 31-3834.03a(d), subsection (d), [D.C. Law Library](https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/31-3834.03a) · Pub. L. No. 118-47, § 613 (2024) (Dornan Amendment for FY 2024), [U.S. Congress](https://reproductiverights.org/maps/abortion-laws-by-state/washington-dc)* **Editor's note.** The Dornan Amendment must be renewed in each annual appropriations bill; absent its inclusion, D.C. could use locally raised funds for broader Medicaid abortion coverage. Editor should verify the current fiscal year's appropriations language. ### Private insurance **Mandatory coverage without cost-sharing** D.C. law requires all individual and group health plans to cover abortion and abortion-care services without deductibles, coinsurance, or copayments, except for high-deductible health plans where federal law requires cost-sharing. Private health insurance plans in D.C. must cover abortion and related follow-up services. They cannot charge you a deductible, copay, or coinsurance for this coverage. The only exception is if you have a high-deductible health plan — in that case, federal tax law may require some cost-sharing. All D.C. Health Link marketplace plans cover abortion as of 2025 and 2026. > "An individual health plan or group health plan shall provide coverage for abortion and abortion-care services, including follow-up services, to an enrollee. No individual health plan or group health plan shall impose any deductible, coinsurance, copayment, or other cost-sharing requirement, on an enrollee for the coverage required by this section." > — D.C. Code § 31-3834.03a(a) **Legal analysis** D.C. Code § 31-3834.03a, enacted as part of the Reproductive Health Insurance Coverage Expansion Amendment Act, requires individual and group health plans to 'provide coverage for abortion and abortion-care services, including follow-up services.' It prohibits deductibles, coinsurance, copayments, or other cost-sharing, with a narrow exception for high-deductible health plans when required by federal law (26 U.S.C. § 223(c)(2)). The statute prohibits medically unnecessary restrictions or delays on coverage and requires coverage without discrimination. This is one of the most protective private-insurance mandates in the country. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · D.C. Code § 31-3834.03a(a), subsection (a)(1)-(2), [D.C. Law Library](https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/31-3834.03a)* ### Exchange plans **All exchange plans cover abortion** All individual and family marketplace plans on DC Health Link cover abortion as of 2025 and 2026; the coverage mandate applies to all plans on the exchange. Every health insurance plan sold through DC Health Link — D.C.'s Affordable Care Act marketplace — covers abortion as of 2025 and 2026. Because D.C. law requires all individual and group plans to cover abortion without cost-sharing, this applies to exchange plans as well. You can choose any plan on the marketplace and have abortion coverage included. > "For 2025 and 2026, all plans available through the Individual & Family marketplace provide abortion coverage." > — DC Health Link FAQ **Legal analysis** D.C. Code § 31-3834.03a applies to '[a]n individual health plan or group health plan,' which includes plans offered through the DC Health Link marketplace. DC Health Link's FAQ confirms: 'For 2025 and 2026, all plans available through the Individual & Family marketplace provide abortion coverage.' D.C. does not have a separate restriction that bars exchange plans from covering abortion (as some states do). The federal ACA does not require abortion coverage and permits states to prohibit it in exchange plans, but D.C. has chosen the opposite approach — mandating it. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · DC Health Link FAQ, [DC Health Link](https://www.dchealthlink.com/faqs/which-health-plans-offered-through-dc-health-link-include-abortion-coverage-and-which-plans-do) · D.C. Code § 31-3834.03a, subsection (a)(1), [D.C. Law Library](https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/31-3834.03a)* ### State funding of providers **No defunding; no affirmative state funding** D.C. does not defund abortion providers, but the Dornan Amendment prevents D.C. from using its own tax dollars to fund abortion services through Medicaid; no separate state appropriation funds abortion care. D.C. does not have a law that defunds Planned Parenthood or other abortion providers — they can receive public funds for non-abortion services. At the same time, D.C. does not have a specific state-funded program that pays for abortion care, in part because the Dornan Amendment would block it if it tried. The DC Abortion Fund and other nonprofits fill the gap. **Legal analysis** D.C. has no statute that singles out abortion providers for defunding (compare with states that have enacted such provisions). The Dornan Amendment restricts D.C. from using congressionally appropriated or locally raised funds to pay for abortion. D.C. does not have an affirmative state-funded abortion program; Medicaid coverage is limited to federal Hyde categories. Title X federal family-planning funds flow to some D.C. providers for non-abortion services. *Sources — No law on this point · High confidence* ## Congressional oversight **Congress can override D.C. abortion law** Under the Home Rule Act, Congress reviews all D.C. legislation and may override it; the Dornan Amendment already restricts D.C. Medicaid abortion funding, and Congress could ban abortion in D.C. entirely. Washington, D.C. is not a state, so Congress has the final say over its laws. Under the Home Rule Act of 1973, every law the D.C. Council passes goes through a congressional review period — usually 30 or 60 legislative days — before it takes effect. Congress can block any D.C. law by passing a joint resolution of disapproval. It can also pass its own laws that directly govern D.C. And it can attach riders to appropriations bills that restrict what D.C. can do. Congress has already used this power to restrict abortion in D.C.: the Dornan Amendment, a rider to the annual D.C. appropriations bill, blocks D.C. from using its own locally raised tax dollars to cover abortion through Medicaid. In 1989, President George H.W. Bush vetoed the D.C. appropriations bill twice over abortion funding, forcing Congress to add the restriction. With a hostile Congress and President, D.C.'s entire abortion-protection framework could be overridden by federal legislation. > "Under the District of Columbia Home Rule Act of 1973, all laws passed by the D.C. Council and signed by the mayor, are subject to a mandatory 'congressional review' by the U.S. Congress, anywhere between 30 and 60 days depending on the type of legislation." > — D.C. Code § 1-206.02(c)(1) **Legal analysis** Under Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution, Congress exercises 'exclusive legislation' over the District of Columbia. The District of Columbia Home Rule Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-198; D.C. Code § 1-201.01 et seq.) delegates limited legislative authority to the D.C. Council but preserves congressional oversight. D.C. Code § 1-206.02(c)(1) requires a congressional review period of 30 legislative days for most acts and 60 days for certain criminal legislation, during which Congress may enact a joint resolution of disapproval. Congress may also legislate directly for the District. The Dornan Amendment — an annual rider to the D.C. appropriations bill — has been in effect since 1988 (with brief lapses in 1993-1994 and 2009) and prohibits D.C. from using any funds (federal or locally raised) to provide abortion services through Medicaid except in cases of rape, incest, or life endangerment. In President George H.W. Bush's administration, the federal D.C. appropriations bill was vetoed twice in 1989 over abortion-funding provisions. The D.C. Circuit upheld congressional power to override D.C. laws in Marijuana Policy Project v. United States, 304 F.3d 82 (D.C. Cir. 2002), and Banner v. United States, 303 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2004). The D.C. Shield Law Repeal Act introduced in December 2025 illustrates the continuing congressional threat to D.C.'s abortion-protective regime. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · D.C. Code § 1-206.02(c)(1), Sec. 402 (Effective date provision of D.C. Law 24-257, illustrating the review process), [D.C. Law Library](https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/laws/24-257) · U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 17, [U.S. Constitution](https://reproductiverights.org/maps/abortion-laws-by-state/washington-dc) · Marijuana Policy Project v. United States, 304 F.3d 82 (D.C. Cir. 2002), [D.C. Circuit](https://reproductiverights.org/maps/abortion-laws-by-state/washington-dc)* **Editor's note.** The scope of congressional power over D.C. is plenary under the Constitution; the only practical constraint is political. A hostile Congress and President could ban abortion in D.C. outright. ## Penalties | Actor | Offense | Penalty | Verification | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Pregnant person | No offense; expressly exempt from penalty | None. D.C. Code § 7-2086.01(c)(3)(A) prohibits any penalty. | Verified at source | | Physician / health care professional | No criminal abortion offense exists | None for abortion provision. General medical professional discipline available under D.C. Code § 3-1205.14 for substandard care (civil fine up to $5,000 per violation, license revocation/suspension, reprimand), but not for abortion as such. | Verified at source | | Pharmacist / prescriber | No criminal abortion offense exists | None for dispensing or prescribing abortion medication within scope of practice. General professional discipline may apply for standard-of-care violations. | Semi-verified | | Helper / assistant / funder | No offense; expressly protected | None. D.C. Code § 7-2086.01(c)(3)(C)-(D) protects those who assist or provide self-managed abortion products. | Verified at source | | Clinic protester / obstructer | Willfully or recklessly interfering with access to a medical facility or disrupting its normal functioning (D.C. Code § 22-1314.02) | Misdemeanor: fine up to amount set in D.C. Code § 22-3571.01, imprisonment up to 180 days, or both. | Verified at source | ## Recent changes - **May 6, 2020** — D.C. Law 23-90 (Strengthening Reproductive Health Protections Amendment Act of 2020) took effect, codifying in D.C. Code § 7-2086.01 the right of every individual to choose or refuse contraception or sterilization, to carry a pregnancy to term, give birth, or have an abortion. The law prohibits the District government from interfering with reproductive health decisions, prohibits penalties for self-managed abortion, and prohibits employment discrimination against health care professionals who participate in abortion care. *Sources — D.C. Law 23-90, [D.C. Law Library](https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/laws/23-90)* - **February 23, 2023** — D.C. Law 24-254 (Enhancing Reproductive Health Protections Amendment Act of 2022) took effect, expanding protections in D.C. Code § 7-2086.01 to explicitly protect individuals who self-manage abortion, those who assist them, and those who provide or transfer self-managed abortion products. Clarified that acts or omissions during pregnancy based on impact on health or pregnancy are not penalized. *Sources — D.C. Law 24-254, [D.C. Law Library](https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/laws/24-254)* - **February 23, 2023** — D.C. Law 24-257 (Human Rights Sanctuary Amendment Act of 2022) took effect, creating comprehensive shield protections: prohibiting District cooperation with out-of-state investigations targeting abortion and other protected conduct, blocking out-of-state subpoenas without certification, and creating a clawback right of action against out-of-state plaintiffs. *Sources — D.C. Law 24-257, [D.C. Law Library](https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/laws/24-257)* - **December 3, 2025** — Rep. Andrew Clyde (GA-09) introduced the D.C. Shield Law Repeal Act in Congress, seeking to nullify D.C.'s Human Rights Sanctuary Amendment Act of 2022. If enacted, this would eliminate D.C.'s shield law protections. *Sources — D.C. Shield Law Repeal Act (introduced Dec. 3, 2025), [Office of Rep. Andrew Clyde](https://clyde.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=3366)* ## Pending changes ### Louisiana v. FDA (mifepristone litigation) (Litigation) **Status.** Fifth Circuit ordered reinstatement of in-person dispensing requirements for mifepristone; Supreme Court stayed that order on May 14, 2026, preserving status quo (telehealth prescribing and mail dispensing) while litigation continues. Supreme Court review likely. If the Fifth Circuit order ultimately takes effect, in-person dispensing would be required for mifepristone nationwide, including in D.C., eliminating mail-order and telehealth prescribing of medication abortion. This would be the most significant restriction on abortion access in D.C. since the repeal of its criminal ban. *Sources — SCOTUSblog, May 2026, [SCOTUSblog](https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/05/court-allows-for-access-to-abortion-pill-by-mail-for-now)* ### Florida and Texas v. FDA (mifepristone approval challenge) (Litigation) **Status.** Filed December 2025 in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Challenges FDA's original 2000 approval of mifepristone, 2016/2021/2023 REMS modifications, and generic approvals. If successful, could remove mifepristone from the U.S. market entirely, ending medication abortion nationwide — including in D.C. *Sources — EMAA Project Mifepristone Litigation Tracker (Jan. 5, 2026), [EMAA Project](https://emaaproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/EMAA-__-Mifepristone-Court-Cases-Updated-1.5.26.docx1_.pdf)* ### D.C. Shield Law Repeal Act (federal) (Legislation) **Status.** Introduced Dec. 3, 2025, by Rep. Andrew Clyde (GA-09); referred to committee. Has not been enacted. Would nullify D.C. Law 24-257 (Human Rights Sanctuary Amendment Act of 2022), eliminating D.C.'s shield protections and exposing D.C.-based providers, patients, and helpers to out-of-state investigations and subpoenas. *Sources — D.C. Shield Law Repeal Act (Rep. Clyde, Dec. 2025), [Office of Rep. Andrew Clyde](https://clyde.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=3366)* ## Key authorities - **Government Noninterference in Reproductive Health Decisions** — D.C. Code § 7-2086.01 _(Statute)_ · [code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/7-2086.01](https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/7-2086.01) The foundational D.C. statute codifying the right to abortion and prohibiting government interference, including protections for self-managed abortion. - **Human Rights Sanctuary — Government Nonparticipation** — D.C. Code § 2-1461.01 _(Statute)_ · [code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/2-1461.01](https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/2-1461.01) Core shield law prohibiting D.C. government cooperation with out-of-state investigations targeting abortion providers, patients, and helpers. - **Human Rights Sanctuary — Private Right of Action (Clawback)** — D.C. Code § 2-1461.02 _(Statute)_ · [code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/2-1461.02](https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/2-1461.02) Allows D.C. defendants to recover damages from out-of-state plaintiffs who obtain judgments against them for abortion care lawful in D.C. - **Private Insurance Abortion Coverage Mandate** — D.C. Code § 31-3834.03a _(Statute)_ · [code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/31-3834.03a](https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/31-3834.03a) Requires all individual and group health plans in D.C. to cover abortion without cost-sharing, one of the strongest insurance mandates nationally. - **Clinic Access Protection** — D.C. Code § 22-1314.02 _(Statute)_ · [code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/22-1314.02](https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/22-1314.02) Criminalizes obstruction, trespassing, and interference with medical facilities, protecting abortion clinic access. - **Licensing Board Shield for Reproductive Health Care** — D.C. Code § 3-1205.14(e-1) _(Statute)_ · [code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/3-1205.14](https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/3-1205.14) Prohibits D.C. licensing boards from disciplining providers based on out-of-state actions targeting reproductive health care lawful in D.C. - **Greater Southeast Community Hospital v. Williams** — 482 A.2d 394 (D.C. 1984) _(Case)_ · [law.justia.com/cases/district-of-c…](https://law.justia.com/cases/district-of-columbia/court-of-appeals/1984/82-1655-3.html) Holds that a viable fetus is a 'person' under D.C. wrongful death and survival statutes, creating potential tension with abortion-protective statutes. - **D.C. Law 23-90 (Strengthening Reproductive Health Protections)** — D.C. Law 23-90 (2020) _(Statute)_ · [code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/laws/23-90](https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/laws/23-90) Enacted the original statutory right to abortion in D.C. and prohibited penalties for self-managed abortion and discrimination against abortion providers. - **D.C. Law 24-254 (Enhancing Reproductive Health Protections)** — D.C. Law 24-254 (2023) _(Statute)_ · [code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/laws/24-254](https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/laws/24-254) Expanded protections for self-managed abortion, helpers, and providers of self-managed abortion products. - **D.C. Law 24-257 (Human Rights Sanctuary Amendment Act)** — D.C. Law 24-257 (2023) _(Statute)_ · [code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/laws/24-257](https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/laws/24-257) Created D.C.'s comprehensive shield law including subpoena blocking, noncooperation mandate, and clawback cause of action. - **Minor Consent for Abortion** — D.C. Mun. Regs. tit. 22-B, § 600.7 _(Regulation)_ · [youthlaw.org/sites/default/files…](https://youthlaw.org/sites/default/files/2024-10/NCYLMinorConsentCompendium2024-DistrictOfColumbia.pdf) Permits minors of any age to consent to abortion without parental involvement. - **Home Rule Act — Congressional Review** — D.C. Code § 1-206.02(c)(1) _(Statute)_ · [code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/laws/24-257](https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/laws/24-257) Subjects all D.C. legislation to congressional review, creating ongoing federal vulnerability for all D.C. abortion protections. - **Congressional Power over the District of Columbia** — U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 17 _(Constitution)_ · [reproductiverights.org/maps/abortion-laws-…](https://reproductiverights.org/maps/abortion-laws-by-state/washington-dc) Grants Congress plenary legislative authority over D.C., enabling it to override or preempt any D.C. abortion law. - **D.C. OAG Consumer Alert on Abortion Care** — D.C. Office of the Attorney General, Consumer Alert (undated, current) _(Agency guidance)_ · [oag.dc.gov/release/consumer-al…](https://oag.dc.gov/release/consumer-alert-questions-and-answers-abortion-care) Authoritative public guidance confirming that D.C. law was unchanged by Dobbs, abortion is legal at all stages, no parental permission is required, and out-of-state patients are welcome. ## Research notes > Overall confidence: High. Analysis current as of July 12, 2026; research completed July 12, 2026. Re-verify the current status of the Dornan Amendment in the most recent D.C. appropriations act. Monitor Louisiana v. FDA at the Supreme Court — a decision could materially alter medication abortion access in D.C. The D.C. Shield Law Repeal Act (federal bill) is a live threat; track its progress through Congress. Confirm the full text of D.C. Mun. Regs. tit. 17, § 5808.5 regarding nurse-midwife scope of practice. The D.C. Council may introduce additional abortion-protective legislation in the current council period; check the LIMS system for pending bills. Confirm whether any religious-employer exemption exists to the private-insurance abortion coverage mandate. Unresolved points: Whether the Dornan Amendment has been renewed in the current (FY 2025 or FY 2026) D.C. appropriations bill at the time of research. It has been included annually since 1995 (with brief exceptions), but its current status should be confirmed against the latest enacted appropriations law. — The exact language of D.C. Mun. Regs. tit. 17, § 5808.5 restricting certified nurse-midwives from performing surgical abortion was not directly retrieved from the DCMR; it was cited by the Center for Reproductive Rights. The primary text should be verified from the D.C. Municipal Regulations. — The effective date of D.C. Code § 31-3834.03a (private insurance abortion coverage mandate) could not be definitively confirmed from the retrieved sources; it was likely enacted as part of the Reproductive Health Insurance Coverage Expansion Amendment Act of 2022 or 2023. — The viability line for wrongful-death claims under Williams v. Greater Southeast Community Hospital has not been tested post-Dobbs or against D.C. Code § 7-2086.01. Whether a wrongful-death claim predicated on a lawful abortion would survive a motion to dismiss is uncertain. — The precise scope of certified nurse-midwife authority to provide medication abortion in D.C. was not confirmed by primary regulatory text..