US Senators seek unanimous consent to pass five pro-life bills

On Wednesday, the fourth anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision overturning Roe v. Wade in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, pro-life legislators in the U.S. Senate will ask for unanimous consent to pass five pro-life bills.

If even one senator votes against a bill, that bill will not pass. Ultimately, requesting unanimous consent could expose which senators are willing to vote against seemingly commonsense, life-affirming bills.

Key Takeaways:

• On Wednesday, pro-life Senators will request unanimous consent for five pro-life bills.

• If the bills fail to get unanimous consent, they will not move forward.

• Ultimately, the request of unanimous consent could expose which senators are willing to vote against seemingly commonsense, life-affirming bills.

The Details:

Five senators plan to introduce five pro-life life bills for unanimous consent on Wednesday, meaning they will request immediate passage of the bills. If even one senator objects to a bill, that bill will not pass. Ultimately, this effort could show who in the Senate is willing to vote against seemingly commonsense, life-affirming bills.

The bills that will be put up for unanimous consent are:

1. The Conscience Protection Act (S. 1756). This bill, introduced by Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.), would amend the Public Health Service Act to prohibit discrimination against health care entities that do not take part in abortion. It would also "strengthen implementation and enforcement of Federal conscience laws." The bill states that "the Federal Government, and any individual or entity that receives Federal financial assistance, including any State or local government, may not penalize, retaliate against, or otherwise discriminate against a health care entity on the basis that such health care entity does not or declines to— ... provide, perform, refer for, pay for, or otherwise participate in abortion;... provide or sponsor abortion coverage; or... facilitate or make arrangements for any of the activities specified in this subsection.

2. Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act (S. 4329). This bill, introduced by Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), would prevent Title X family planning funds from going to facilities that commit abortions. The law would not apply to hospitals and would allow exceptions for abortions committed due to a "physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed" or if the child was conceived in rape or incest.

3. The “More Opportunities for Moms to Succeed Act” MOMS ACT (S. 1630). Introduced by Sen. Katie Boyd Britt (R-Ala.), this bill would provide more opportunities for mothers to succeed by offering wider access to resources and support for pregnancy, childbirth, and early childhood development.

4. The Support And Value Expectant (SAVE) Moms and Babies Act of 2026 (S. 3697). Introduced by Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.), the bill would direct resources toward mothers and children rather than abortion businesses. It would "amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to prohibit the approval of new abortion drugs, to prohibit investigational use exemptions for abortion drugs, and to impose additional regulatory requirements with respect to previously approved abortion drugs..." This would include no allowing label changes on mifepristone "to approve the dispensing of such abortion drug after 70 days gestation; or to approve the dispensing of such abortion drug by any means other than in-person administration by the prescribing health care practitioner." It would also ensure mifepristone would again "be subject to a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy ... that at a minimum ... require health care practitioners who prescribe such abortion drug to be certified in accordance with the strategy..." among other safety rules.

5. The Forced Abortion Prevention and Accountability Act (S. 2955). Introduced by Sen. Jim Banks (R-Ind.), this bill would "establish Federal penalties for the knowing and intentional administration of any abortion-inducing drug to a woman without her informed consent, if the abortion-inducing drug has been shipped or transported in interstate commerce..." Under the bill, a woman who is "administered an abortion-inducing drug in violation of subsection (a) may, in a civil action against any person who administered the abortion-inducing drug, attempted to administer the abortion-inducing drug, or conspired to commit an offense described in subsection (a) or (b), obtain appropriate relief" including "verifiable money damages for all injuries, psychological and physical, occasioned by the violation...statutory damages equal to 3 times the cost of all injuries occasioned by the violation; and... punitive damages."

The Bottom Line:

These bills could lead to culture changes, making abortion a less enticing option for women facing pressure to have abortions, and could help protect women from the health risks associated with abortion.