Staff Reports
Representative Andy Ogles is pushing a clear, no-nonsense message to Washington: stop forced abortions in surrogacy contracts. The measure his office calls the Preventing Forced Abortions Act would stop federal courts from enforcing any contract clause that requires a surrogate to have an abortion and would force courts to make sure surrogates still get paid if they refuse. Whether you call it defending women or defending unborn children, it’s a straightforward promise to strip power away from coercive clauses and give real protection to the most vulnerable in these dealings.
The proposal in plain English
The bill — filed previously in Congress as H.R. 8985 — would tell federal courts: you cannot force a woman under a surrogacy agreement to terminate a pregnancy. If an intended parent tries to use a contract clause to demand an abortion, federal judges would be barred from enforcing it. The text also says courts must enforce the surrogate’s right to the agreed compensation even if she refuses the abortion. In short: no financial blackmail, no legal shortcuts to force a termination, and no treating babies like returnable merchandise.
How the bill changes the legal playing field
Federal jurisdiction and tricky definitions
One big change in the bill is that it would drag many surrogacy fights into federal court by creating a new federal jurisdiction for contracts that touch interstate or foreign commerce. That’s smart politics for national rules, but it’s also a hammer on state law. Surrogacy has been handled very differently from state to state; federal intervention would cut across those differences and invite fights over states’ rights. The bill also includes definitions — of “female” and “abortion” — that will stir fresh legal arguments about how broadly the law should apply. Expect lawyers to have a field day if this becomes law.
Who’s backing it — and who will bristle
Conservative and pro‑life groups are lining up behind Representative Ogles, and several House Republicans cosponsored the first filing. Supporters call this a commonsense fix to stop abuse, trafficking and economic coercion that can hide behind agency paperwork. On the other side, legal experts and reproductive-rights advocates worry about federalizing family law, unintended consequences for contract enforcement, and how the new definitions could be used in other fights over sex and reproductive policy. Those are fair questions to argue in public — but they shouldn’t be an excuse to ignore women who say they were pressured into losing their child.
Why conservatives should pay attention
This is a rare issue that blends two conservative priorities: protecting life and defending individual autonomy from coercion. If the aim is to protect women from pressure and protect children from being treated as products, then this bill speaks to basic decency and the rule of law. Yes, the details matter — and yes, federal overreach is a legitimate concern — but the starting point here is simple and moral: a contract should never force a woman to end a pregnancy. Lawmakers who care about life, liberty, and fairness should debate the measure seriously and fix any drafting problems — not dismiss the core problem it addresses.
