Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Abortion Pill Liability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Health committee approves bill allowing families to sue out‑of‑state abortion‑pill suppliers
Summary
The House Health Full Committee approved House Bill 5 as amended, creating a civil cause of action for family members to sue out‑of‑state suppliers who unlawfully send abortion‑inducing drugs into Tennessee; the measure passed committee 17‑6 after contentious testimony and amendment votes.
The House Health Full Committee voted to approve House Bill 5 as amended, a measure that would let family members bring civil suits against out‑of‑state suppliers who knowingly send abortion‑inducing drugs into Tennessee.
Sponsor testimony framed the bill as a deterrent to out‑of‑state “abortion pill” suppliers and said the proposal seeks both non‑economic and economic awards to discourage unlawful distribution. The sponsor told the committee, "We're losing 9000 unborn children in Tennessee every year to these out of state abortion pill suppliers," and said the bill exempts Tennessee‑licensed physicians from liability.
Supporters included witnesses from pro‑life pregnancy centers. Zoe Hall of Life Choices in Memphis described a client’s delivery that she said lacked prescription packaging and standard safety information, and urged the committee to act.
Opponents included the Tennessee Medical Association. John Carr, assistant director of government affairs for the TMA, told the committee: "This bill would create a new statutory exception to Tennessee's long standing civil damages framework by allowing a recovery up to 1,000,000 in non economic damages and 2,000,000 in economic damages tied to alleged violations of Tennessee's chemical abortion laws." He warned that the change could destabilize civil liability predictability and may have limited deterrent effect against actors operating outside the state.
Members pressed both sides on proof, enforcement and unintended incentives. Sponsors argued cases could be proven with documentary evidence and testimony and that federal diversity jurisdiction or registering judgments in other states could help enforce awards despite so‑called shield laws.
The committee considered multiple amendments on proof, scope and statutory placement. After votes on amendments — including a recorded vote that placed an amendment on the bill (16 ayes, 7 nays) — the full bill passed the Health committee as amended by a vote of 17 ayes to 6 nays. The measure will now go to calendar and rules for further consideration.
