Rhode Island

Legal analysis

The Reproductive Privacy Act (RPA), R.I. Gen. Laws § 23-4.13-2, enacted in 2019, codified a statutory right to abortion roughly tracking the now-overturned Roe v. Wade framework. The Act prohibits the state from restricting abortion prior to fetal viability and from restricting post-viability abortion when necessary to preserve the health or life of the individual. The RPA was upheld against a constitutional challenge in Benson v. McKee, 273 A.3d 121 (R.I. 2022), and the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in Doe v. McKee, No. 22-201 (2023). The state subsequently enacted a Healthcare Provider Shield Act (2024) and the Equality in Abortion Coverage Act (2023), making Rhode Island one of the strongest abortion-protective states post-Dobbs.

Legal analysis

The statutory definition appears in R.I. Gen. Laws § 23-4.7-1, within the Informed Consent for Abortion chapter. It defines 'abortion' as administering to a woman, known to be pregnant, any medicine or employing any instrument with intent to terminate a pregnancy, but expressly excludes completing an incomplete spontaneous miscarriage. The Reproductive Privacy Act does not provide its own separate definition. The definition does not address ectopic pregnancy, IVF, or embryos outside the womb; these fall outside the statutory definition's scope because the definition requires administration 'to a woman' and knowledge of pregnancy.

Legal analysis

The Reproductive Privacy Act (RPA), P.L. 2019, ch. 27, codified at R.I. Gen. Laws § 23-4.13-1 et seq., enshrines a statutory right to abortion. Section 23-4.13-2(a) prohibits the state from restricting abortion prior to fetal viability and from restricting post-viability abortion when necessary to preserve health or life. Section 23-4.13-2(b) defines fetal viability as that stage of gestation where the attending physician, taking into account the particular facts of the case, has determined that there is a reasonable likelihood of the fetus's sustained survival outside of the womb with or without artificial support. Section 23-4.13-2(d) expressly prohibits termination after fetal viability except when necessary, in the medical judgment of the physician, to preserve the life or health of that individual. The RPA expressly preserves the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (18 U.S.C. § 1531), the born-alive statute (§ 11-9-18), informed-consent requirements (§ 23-4.7-1 et seq.), and conscience protections (§ 23-17-11). The RPA also expressly repealed the state's own partial-birth abortion ban (Chapter 23-4.12) and the spousal-notice requirement (Chapter 23-4.8).

Legal analysis

The Reproductive Privacy Act is fully enforceable. In Benson v. McKee, 273 A.3d 121 (R.I. 2022), plaintiffs — anti-abortion advocates and a fetus they called 'Mary Doe' — challenged the RPA as violating the Rhode Island Constitution's due-process and equal-protection guarantees by allegedly depriving unborn persons of the right to life. The Rhode Island Supreme Court dismissed the claims for lack of standing, holding that the plaintiffs lacked a concrete and particularized injury. The U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in Doe v. McKee, No. 22-201 (cert. denied 2023). The state's former abortion-facility licensing regulation (216-RICR-20-10-6) was repealed effective July 13, 2023. The state's partial-birth abortion ban (Chapter 23-4.12) was repealed by the RPA; only the federal ban (18 U.S.C. § 1531) applies.

Legal analysis

R.I. Gen. Laws § 23-4.13-2(d) prohibits post-viability abortion except when necessary, in the medical judgment of the physician, to preserve the life or health of that individual. The life exception is not separately stated from the health exception; both are contained in the same clause. No additional certification, documentation, or reporting beyond the physician's medical judgment is required by the statute, though subsection (d)(2) requires the physician to record the basis for the medical judgment in the patient's record and comply with reporting requirements of § 23-3-17.

Legal analysis

Section 23-4.13-2(d) permits post-viability termination when necessary to preserve the life or health of that individual. The statute does not qualify 'health' — it does not limit it to 'physical health' or 'serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function,' as some other jurisdictions do. Under the interpretive framework of Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973), 'health' encompasses all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age — relevant to the wellbeing of the patient. The RPA codified Roe-era standards and this Bolton-compatible reading is consistent with legislative intent.

Legal analysis

The RPA uses the unqualified term health in § 23-4.13-2(d). Under Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179, 192 (1973), the medical judgment about health may be exercised in the light of all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age — relevant to the wellbeing of the patient. The Rhode Island Supreme Court has not directly interpreted 'health' in the RPA, but the statute's text and its Roe-codifying purpose support a broad reading. No certification beyond the physician's medical judgment is required.

Legal analysis

The RPA imposes no gestational restrictions prior to viability and requires no justification for pre-viability abortion. Accordingly, a distinct rape exception is not applicable. The post-viability health exception is available regardless of how the pregnancy came about.

Legal analysis

Same reasoning as for rape: the RPA's broad pre-viability access renders a distinct incest exception unnecessary.

Legal analysis

The broad pre-viability access and the post-viability health exception together cover circumstances involving severe or fatal fetal diagnoses. No freestanding fatal-fetal-anomaly exception is needed or provided.

Legal analysis

R.I. Gen. Laws § 23-4.7-1 explicitly excludes from the definition of abortion the administering of any medicine or the employment of any instrument for the purpose of completing an incomplete, spontaneous miscarriage. Ectopic pregnancy treatment is not addressed in the statutory definition and, because it involves treatment of a condition that cannot result in a live birth and is performed to save the pregnant person's life, it falls outside any abortion restriction. The RPA's post-viability prohibition is inapplicable because an ectopic pregnancy cannot reach viability.

Legal analysis

The RPA, § 23-4.13-2(c)(2), expressly preserves 18 U.S.C. § 1531 (the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003). The RPA simultaneously repealed Rhode Island's own partial-birth abortion ban (formerly codified at Chapter 23-4.12) in P.L. 2019, ch. 27, § 2. Rhode Island has never enacted a D&E (dismemberment) ban. No surgical method is prohibited by state law. The former targeted regulation of abortion providers (216-RICR-20-10-6), which imposed facility requirements specific to abortion, was repealed effective July 13, 2023.

Legal analysis

No Rhode Island statute distinguishes medication abortion from procedural abortion or imposes restrictions unique to medication abortion. Telehealth prescribing and mailing of abortion medication are not prohibited. The Healthcare Provider Shield Act (R.I. Gen. Laws § 23-101-1 et seq., effective June 25, 2024) explicitly protects providers who are physically present in this state and provide reproductive healthcare services — including the termination of a pregnancy — regardless of whether the patient is located in this state or whether the person is licensed in the state where the patient is located at the time the services are rendered. Federal FDA preemption regarding mifepristone's REMS (Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy) applies nationwide and has been the subject of ongoing federal litigation (FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine), but Rhode Island has not imposed any supplemental state restrictions beyond the FDA framework.

Legal analysis

Rhode Island has no statute that criminalizes the pregnant person for self-managing an abortion. The state's pre-Roe criminal abortion statutes were effectively superseded by the RPA, which provides that the state shall not restrict an individual person from terminating that individual's pregnancy prior to fetal viability. R.I. Gen. Laws § 23-4.13-2(a)(1). The informed-consent statute (Chapter 23-4.7) imposes obligations on physicians, not patients. The born-alive statute (§ 11-9-18) applies only to physician, nurse, or other licensed medical person. The repealed fetal-homicide statute (§ 11-23-5, concerning the unborn quick child) was repealed, and the general homicide statutes (§ 11-23-1 et seq.) define murder and manslaughter in terms that are not applicable to a pregnant person's own conduct. There is no reported prosecution of a pregnant person for self-managed abortion in Rhode Island in the modern era.

Legal analysis

The informed-consent statute (Chapter 23-4.7) consistently refers to the physician who is to perform the abortion (§§ 23-4.7-3, 23-4.7-5, 23-4.7-7). The post-viability prohibition also references the physician (§ 23-4.13-2(d)(1)-(2)). However, the RPA contains no express physician-only provision. The former licensing regulation (216-RICR-20-10-6) mandated that all termination procedures shall be performed only by a physician, but that regulation was repealed effective July 13, 2023. Rhode Island's scope-of-practice laws for advanced practice registered nurses and physician assistants are relatively broad, and medication abortion in particular may be provided by non-physician clinicians. The Healthcare Provider Shield Act defines healthcare provider broadly to include physician assistants, advanced practice registered nurses, and certified nurse midwives. No admitting-privileges requirement or hospital-only requirement exists.

Legal analysis

No provision of Rhode Island law imposes criminal or civil liability on the pregnant person for obtaining or performing an abortion on herself. The informed-consent statute imposes obligations on the physician, not the patient (§ 23-4.7-7). The post-viability prohibition is directed at physicians (§ 23-4.13-2(d)). The born-alive statute targets physician, nurse, or other licensed medical person (§ 11-9-18). The repealed fetal-homicide statute (§ 11-23-5) was repealed in its entirety. No general criminal statute has been applied to a pregnant person for conduct related to pregnancy termination. This positions Rhode Island among the states where the pregnant person is de facto exempt from prosecution.

Legal analysis

The sole enforcement mechanism for violations of abortion restrictions is professional discipline. Under § 23-4.13-2(d)(1), any physician who knowingly violates the post-viability prohibition shall be deemed to have engaged in unprofessional conduct for the purpose of § 5-37-5.1. Under § 23-4.13-2(d)(3), the director of the department of health may deny, revoke, or otherwise discipline a license upon a finding of unprofessional conduct. For informed-consent violations, § 23-4.7-7 provides that knowing violation shall be deemed to have engaged in unprofessional conduct, and willful failure to provide required information shall be prima facie evidence of failure to obtain informed consent in an action at law or in equity. There is no criminal penalty, no fine, and no imprisonment for abortion-related violations. The federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (18 U.S.C. § 1531) carries its own federal criminal penalties, but those are federal, not state.

Legal analysis

The informed-consent and post-viability statutes speak in terms of physician, but the informed-consent statute allows the physician's authorized agent to provide disclosures. The born-alive statute (§ 11-9-18) applies to any physician, nurse, or other licensed medical person. Pharmacists are not directly regulated by abortion-specific statutes. The Healthcare Provider Shield Act (§ 23-101-1 et seq.) broadly protects healthcare providers — including pharmacists and advanced-practice clinicians — from out-of-state actions. No Rhode Island statute specifically addresses filling out-of-state prescriptions for abortion medication; the general pharmacy laws would apply.

Legal analysis

No statute imposes criminal liability on nurses or clinic staff for assisting in lawful abortion care. The born-alive statute (§ 11-9-18) applies to any physician, nurse, or other licensed medical person who knowingly and intentionally fails to provide reasonable medical care to an infant born alive in the course of an abortion — a felony punishable by up to five years' imprisonment and a $5,000 fine — and if the infant dies as a result, the crime is manslaughter. This is a post-birth duty of care, not an abortion restriction per se.

Legal analysis

Rhode Island has no statute that criminalizes or creates civil liability for aiding, abetting, funding, or facilitating another person's abortion. The state has no SB8-style private civil enforcement mechanism. The Healthcare Provider Shield Act (§ 23-101-1 et seq.) affirmatively protects those who aid and assist legally protected healthcare activity, defined broadly to include any act of aiding or effectuating legally protected healthcare. Employers who provide abortion benefits or travel reimbursement are not exposed under state law.

Legal analysis

No Rhode Island statute criminalizes or restricts travel assistance for abortion. Rhode Island has no abortion trafficking statute. The Healthcare Provider Shield Act (§ 23-101-1 et seq., effective June 25, 2024) prohibits public agencies and law enforcement from providing information or resources in furtherance of out-of-state investigations seeking to impose liability for legally protected healthcare activity. Section 23-101-3 generally prohibits compliance with out-of-state subpoenas or requests related to such activity. Section 23-101-4 provides a cause of action for tortious interference with legally protected healthcare activity. Executive Order 22-28 (July 5, 2022) had already ordered non-cooperation and declined interstate extradition for reproductive healthcare cases, but the Shield Act codifies and expands these protections.

Legal analysis

Rhode Island has no statute restricting private funding of abortion, abortion funds, employer travel benefits, or charitable assistance for abortion care. The Equality in Abortion Coverage Act (2023) expanded public funding, not restricted private funding. No law prohibits or limits abortion funds from operating in the state.

Legal analysis

No Rhode Island statute prohibits the mailing, shipping, or receiving of abortion medication. The Healthcare Provider Shield Act § 23-101-2(8)(ii) protects providers physically present in this state who provide reproductive healthcare services regardless of patient location, which includes mailing pills to patients in other jurisdictions. The federal Comstock Act and FDA REMS framework are federal law beyond this survey's scope, but Rhode Island imposes no state-level mailing prohibition.

Legal analysis

Rhode Island has no statute restricting the provision of information, counseling, or referrals related to abortion. The Reproductive Privacy Act affirmatively protects reproductive decision-making. The Healthcare Provider Shield Act protects those who aid and assist legally protected healthcare activity. Any restriction on abortion-related speech would be subject to First Amendment scrutiny under the line of cases following Bigelow v. Virginia, 421 U.S. 809 (1975), which struck down restrictions on abortion advertising.

Legal analysis

No Rhode Island statute creates a private right of action for civil damages against abortion providers, patients, or helpers. Instead, the Healthcare Provider Shield Act § 23-101-4 creates a cause of action for tortious interference with legally protected healthcare activity, allowing persons sued in other states for abortion-related conduct to bring affirmative litigation seeking damages, costs, and attorneys' fees against those who initiated the out-of-state action.

Legal analysis

The informed-consent statute (Chapter 23-4.7) requires written consent but does not mandate a waiting period. Section 23-4.7-2 requires written consent before the abortion is performed, but nothing in the statute requires a delay between consent and procedure. Rhode Island is among the minority of states with no waiting-period requirement.

Legal analysis

R.I. Gen. Laws § 23-4.7-3 requires the physician or authorized agent to inform the patient of her pregnancy, the estimated gestational age, the medical nature of the abortion, the procedure to be employed, and all known material medical risks. Unlike many states' counseling mandates, Rhode Island's statute does not require disclosure of fetal-development information, does not mandate statements about fetal pain, does not require offering to show ultrasound images, and does not require information about alternatives to abortion. The consent form must include a statement about foster-care and adoption possibilities per § 23-4.7-5(b)(1), but the person providing disclosures shall not be required to state anything with respect to the contents of that statement per § 23-4.7-5(b)(2). The disclosures may be made by the physician's authorized agent.

Legal analysis

No Rhode Island statute or regulation mandates the performance, offering, or display of an ultrasound before abortion. The informed-consent statute requires that the patient be informed of the estimated gestational age, but nothing requires that this determination be made via ultrasound as opposed to last menstrual period dating or physical examination.

Legal analysis

The informed-consent statute does not mandate that counseling be provided in person or on a separate day from the procedure. Consent may be obtained, counseling provided, and the abortion performed in one visit. For medication abortion via telehealth, no in-person visit is statutorily required, though the FDA REMS framework may impose certain in-person requirements under federal law.

Legal analysis

R.I. Gen. Laws § 23-4.7-6 requires that for a pregnant person under 18 who has not married and is not emancipated, an abortion shall not be performed upon her unless both the consent of the pregnant woman and that of at least one of her parents is obtained. If a parent or guardian is unavailable, consent of the legal guardian or one guardian is sufficient. If neither parent or guardian agrees, or if the minor elects not to seek parental consent, a family court judge may authorize the abortion upon determining either that the minor is mature and capable of giving informed consent or that the performance of an abortion upon her would be in her best interests. No exception is stated for medical emergency, but the judicial bypass mechanism is designed to be expeditious. The RPA preserved this provision (§ 23-4.13-2(c)(1)).

Legal analysis

Section 23-4.7-6 provides the bypass mechanism: a family court judge shall, upon petition, or motion, and after an appropriate hearing, authorize a physician to perform the abortion, if the judge determines that the pregnant woman is mature and capable of giving informed consent to the proposed abortion or if the judge determines that she is not mature, but that the performance of an abortion upon her would be in her best interests. The minor may participate in proceedings on her own behalf and is entitled to a guardian ad litem. Proceedings are confidential and shall be given such precedence over other pending matters that the court may reach a decision promptly and without delay. The judge must make written findings of fact and legal conclusions and maintain a record of evidence. The bypass mechanism satisfies constitutional requirements as articulated in Bellotti v. Baird, 443 U.S. 622 (1979).

Legal analysis

Former Chapter 23-4.8 (Spousal Notice for Abortion) was repealed in its entirety by the Reproductive Privacy Act, P.L. 2019, ch. 27, § 2. The repeal is expressly catalogued in the act's text. No spousal or paternal consent or notice requirement remains on the books. Under Planned Parenthood v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52 (1976), and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), spousal consent requirements were held unconstitutional; Rhode Island's repeal is consistent with that precedent.

Legal analysis

The spousal-notice statute (Chapter 23-4.8) was repealed by the 2019 RPA. Had it not been repealed, it would have been unenforceable under Planned Parenthood v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52 (1976) (spousal consent unconstitutional) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 887-98 (1992) (spousal notice unconstitutional as an undue burden). Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, 142 S. Ct. 2228 (2022), overruled Roe and Casey, creating the possibility that spousal-involvement laws could be reenacted and defended. The Rhode Island General Assembly has not introduced any such legislation as of the 2025 session.

Legal analysis

No Rhode Island statute grants a biological father or spouse any right to consent, notice, veto, or delay of an abortion. Under Miccolis v. Amica Mutual Insurance Co., 587 A.2d 67 (R.I. 1991), a nonviable fetus is not a person for purposes of the wrongful-death statute. However, under Presley v. Newport Hospital, 117 R.I. 177, 365 A.2d 748 (1976), a viable fetus IS a person for wrongful-death purposes, and a parent (or the estate) may bring a wrongful-death action for a viable fetus killed by a third party. There is no known Rhode Island case in which a father successfully enjoined an abortion.

Legal analysis

Former R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-23-5, which criminalized the willful killing of an unborn quick child, was repealed. The current homicide chapter (§ 11-23-1 et seq.) contains no fetal-homicide provision. Chapter 11-23-1 (murder) and § 11-23-3 (manslaughter) apply to the death of a person, which under Rhode Island common law requires live birth. No fetal-homicide bill has been enacted. In the 2025 session, bills H5295, H5296, and H5661 (which would have amended born-alive and wrongful-death provisions related to fetuses) were introduced but not passed.

Legal analysis

In Presley v. Newport Hospital, 117 R.I. 177, 365 A.2d 748 (1976), the Rhode Island Supreme Court held that a viable fetus is a person under the wrongful-death statute (R.I. Gen. Laws § 10-7-1). In Miccolis v. Amica Mutual Insurance Co., 587 A.2d 67 (R.I. 1991), the court held that a nonviable five-week-old fetus is not a person. The court wrote: 'We do not believe that the Legislature intended a nonviable fetus to be defined as a person within the meaning of the wrongful-death statute.'

Legal analysis

Rhode Island has no fetal-personhood statute. The 1986 constitutional convention referred Question 14 to voters, which would have established an inalienable and paramount right to life for all human beings, including their unborn offspring at every stage of their biological development beginning with fertilization. Voters rejected it with 65.81% voting No. Separately, Article I, Section 2 of the Rhode Island Constitution — adopted through a separate 1986 ballot measure — includes the clause: 'Nothing in this section shall be construed to grant or secure any right relating to abortion or the funding thereof.' This operates as a double-edged sword: it prevents both the recognition of a constitutional abortion right and a constitutional fetal-personhood right under Rhode Island's equal-protection and due-process clause. The born-alive statute (§ 11-9-18) treats an infant born alive during an abortion as a legal person, but this is a post-birth, not prenatal, concept.

Legal analysis

No Rhode Island statute prohibits telehealth prescribing of abortion medication. The informed-consent statute does not mandate in-person counseling. The RPA does not address the mode of service delivery. The Healthcare Provider Shield Act protects providers physically located in Rhode Island who provide services to patients regardless of location, including by telehealth. Providers outside Rhode Island who prescribe to Rhode Island patients must be licensed in Rhode Island or otherwise comply with interstate telehealth provisions.

Legal analysis

No Rhode Island statute restricts interstate travel for abortion. No abortion trafficking or similar statute exists. Under the constitutional right to travel (Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999)), and consistent with the RPA's protective framework, Rhode Island residents face no legal obstacle to traveling to other states for abortion care.

Legal analysis

The Healthcare Provider Shield Act (R.I. Gen. Laws § 23-101-1 et seq., P.L. 2024, chs. 260, 261, effective June 25, 2024) provides comprehensive protections. Key provisions include: (1) prohibition on public agencies providing information or using resources to assist out-of-state investigations or proceedings seeking to impose liability for legally protected healthcare activity; (2) prohibition on courts giving effect to foreign judgments related to legally protected healthcare activity absent personal and subject-matter jurisdiction and due process; (3) a cause of action for tortious interference with legally protected healthcare activity, allowing aggrieved persons to recover damages, costs, and attorneys' fees against those who initiate hostile litigation; (4) protection of healthcare providers who provide services while physically in Rhode Island regardless of the patient's location; and (5) Governor McKee's Executive Order 22-28 (July 5, 2022) already declined interstate extradition for reproductive healthcare cases. The Act also covers gender-affirming care.

Legal analysis

The Equality in Abortion Coverage Act (EACA), enacted as 2023-H 5006 and signed by Governor McKee on May 18, 2023, repealed the statutory ban on using state funds for abortion services through Medicaid (§ 40-8-2) and repealed the abortion-coverage exclusion for state employee insurance plans (§ 36-12-2.1). The EACA amended R.I. Gen. Laws § 40-8.2-3 to add abortion coverage to the Medicaid program. Federal matching funds remain unavailable for abortions not falling within Hyde categories; Rhode Island uses state-only funds to cover the broader scope.

Legal analysis

No Rhode Island statute prohibits private insurance coverage of abortion. The EACA repealed R.I. Gen. Laws § 36-12-2.1, which had barred state employee health plans from covering abortion except in Hyde categories. There is no state mandate requiring private plans to cover abortion. Coverage is a matter of plan design and contract.

Legal analysis

R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-157-3(c) requires that any exchange plan covering abortion services (as defined in 45 C.F.R. § 156.280(d)(1)) must comply with federal segregation-of-funding requirements. Section 42-157-3(d) requires that at least one plan variation at each level of coverage exclude abortion coverage for religious exemption purposes. These provisions track the ACA framework and do not impose restrictions beyond federal law. The RPA expressly preserves § 42-157-3(d) (§ 23-4.13-2(c)(1)).

Legal analysis

Rhode Island has no statute barring state funds from going to abortion providers or organizations that also provide abortion. The EACA's passage in 2023 was a landmark shift from the prior regime that restricted public funding. The state's constitutional provision (Art. I, § 2) merely says nothing shall be construed to grant or secure any right relating to abortion or the funding thereof — it does not prohibit funding. The focus has been on expanding, not restricting, public funding for abortion access.