H. Res. 1382 is a nonbinding House resolution that marks the fourth anniversary of the Supreme Court’s June 24, 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. It praises Dobbs for overturning Roe v. Wade, says abortion policy should be left to the people and their elected representatives, and calls for protection of unborn life and support for families. Because it is a simple resolution, it does not change federal law, create a program, or provide funding; it is a statement of the House’s position.
What This Bill Does
- Commemorates 4 years since Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.
- States that Roe v. Wade was a “grave error” and that Dobbs returned abortion regulation to elected representatives.
- Commits the House to protecting “the unalienable right to life” and unborn lives.
- Recognizes more than 2,700 pregnancy centers supporting women and families after Dobbs.
- Criticizes the Biden Administration’s “mail-order abortion drug policy” as undermining state enforcement.
Who This Bill Affects
For most Americans, this resolution has no direct legal or financial effect because it does not change any statute, eligibility rule, or federal spending level. Its concrete effect is symbolic and political: it would signal House support for post-Dobbs abortion restrictions, opposition to the Biden Administration’s mail-order abortion drug policy, and support for pregnancy centers and families. If you live in a state with abortion restrictions or work in reproductive-health advocacy, the resolution could matter as a congressional statement that may influence future legislation or enforcement debates.
See how this bill affects you — sign in for a personalized analysisWho Supports & Opposes This
- Anti-abortion advocates They are likely to see the resolution as a clear congressional endorsement of unborn life and a reaffirmation that abortion policy should be set by states and elected representatives rather than by courts.
- Pregnancy center operators and pro-family service providers They may support the resolution’s recognition of more than 2,700 pregnancy centers and its emphasis on helping women, families, and new mothers with physical, emotional, and spiritual needs.
- State officials favoring abortion restrictions They may argue that the resolution reinforces state authority after Dobbs and pushes back against federal policies they believe interfere with the enforcement of state laws protecting unborn life.
- Abortion-rights advocates They are likely to object that the resolution celebrates the overturning of Roe v. Wade and rejects a constitutional right to abortion, which they view as a setback for reproductive freedom and patient autonomy.
- Reproductive health providers They may see the resolution’s criticism of abortion medication policy as an effort to weaken access to legal care and to legitimize restrictions that complicate treatment decisions.
- Civil-liberties and women’s health groups They may argue that a congressional resolution should not celebrate the loss of federal abortion protections or make moral claims that they believe ignore the needs and views of pregnant people.
Key Implications
-
““commemorates 4 years since the ruling””
The House would be formally marking the Dobbs anniversary, which is a symbolic act rather than a legal change. That kind of recognition can shape future debate by signaling what policy goals the chamber wants to elevate.
-
““the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion””
This language reflects the resolution’s core legal and political premise. It aligns the House sponsors with the view that abortion regulation belongs to elected lawmakers, not constitutional doctrine.
-
““the authority to regulate abortion must be returned to the people””
This frames abortion as a state and democratic decision, which supports state-level bans or limits if legislatures choose them. It also implies less national constitutional protection for abortion access.
-
““dangerous mail-order abortion drug policy””
The resolution is criticizing federal abortion-medication policy and suggesting it weakens state enforcement. In practice, that points to future conflict over how easily abortion pills can be prescribed, dispensed, or mailed across state lines.
-
““more than 2,700 pregnancy centers across the United States””
The measure spotlights pregnancy centers as a preferred support system for pregnant women and families. That can be read as an endorsement of alternatives to abortion, rather than direct government spending or regulation.
Outlook
As a simple House resolution, this measure is not a law and would not go to the President; it would only become the House’s formal statement if agreed to by the chamber. Given that it has a single committee referral, no hearings or markups, and only one sponsor with 12 cosponsors, it is possible but not assured that it will advance; resolutions of this kind often move only if leadership chooses to bring them up, sometimes by voice vote or unanimous consent.
Official Source & Bill Facts
BillBoard checks this page against public Congress.gov metadata, then adds plain-English analysis where available.
- Bill
- HRES 1382
- Congress
- 119th Congress
- Official title
- Celebrating the historic anniversary of the June 24, 2022, decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.
- Policy area
- Healthcare
- Latest action
- Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. (June 24, 2026)
- Last updated
- June 25, 2026
Latest Status
June 24, 2026
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Related Bills
Take Action
Get more from BillBoard
Free tools to understand, respond to, and track this bill.
Ask AI about this billData sourced from api.congress.gov.