Use quotes to search for exact phrases. Use AND/OR/NOT between keywords or phrases for more precise search results.

Kentucky Ultrasound Informed Consent Act (HB 2)

This law was last updated on Feb 24, 2020

This law is Anti–Choice




HB 2




Jan 3, 2017


Co-sponsors: 31
Primary Sponsors: 1
Total Sponsors: 32


Forced Ultrasound, Informed Consent

Full Bill Text

HB 2 would require a physician to perform an obstetric ultrasound on a pregnant patient prior to the patient giving informed consent, except in the case of a medical emergency.

The bill would require the physician to perform the ultrasound while providing a simultaneous explanation of what the ultrasound is depicting, including the presence and location of the “unborn child” within the uterus and the number of “unborn children” depicted and also, if the ultrasound image indicates that fetal demise has occurred.

The physician would be required to display the ultrasound images so that the patient may view the images. The physician would also be required to utilize an ultrasound transducer or a fetal heart rate monitor in order for the patient to hear the heartbeat, if audible.

Additionally, the physician would need to provide a medical description of the ultrasound images, which would include the dimensions of the embryo or fetus and the presence of external members and internal organs, if present and viewable.

The bill would not prohibit the pregnant patient from refusing to view the ultrasound images or listen to the heartbeat, if audible.

Any physician who violates this provision would be fined up to $100,000 for the first offense and up to $250,000 for each subsequent offense. In addition to the fine, the court would report the violation of any physician, in writing, to the Kentucky Board of Medical Licensure for such action and discipline as the board deems appropriate.


Signed into law by Gov. Matt Bevin on January 9, 2017.

The law will take effect immediately.

Update #1

District Court Judge David Hale struck down HB 2 on September 27, 2017, stating that the law violated the First Amendment rights of physicians.

Update #2

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the law as constitutional.


Legal Cases