Shandra Eisenga Human Cell and Tissue Product Safety Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/1082

Last Updated: September 1, 2026

Shandra Eisenga Human Cell and Tissue Product Safety Act

HR. 1082, 119th Congress — read as touching Medical Devices.

The sponsor

Rep. Moolenaar, John R. [R-MI-2]

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The money

$131,950 raised

30 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

The alignment

70% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Health and Human Services" section, p. 533-535 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

June 23, 2025

Introduced

Committee Review

Floor Action

Passed House

Senate Review

📍 Current Status

Next: Both chambers must agree on the same version of the bill.

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

Summary Style:

**Analysis of HR 1082: Shandra Eisenga Human Cell and Tissue Product Safety Act**

As a visionary entrepreneur and thought leader, I'll dissect this bill through the lens of its potential impact on my business interests and the broader landscape of innovation.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of HR 1082 is to enhance public awareness and education regarding human cell and tissue products (HCTPs) transplants. The bill aims to improve transparency, streamline regulatory oversight, and increase accountability within the HCTP industry.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:**

1. **Public Awareness Campaign**: The Secretary of Health and Human Services will develop and disseminate educational materials for healthcare professionals and the public about HCTPs. 2. **Civil Penalties**: The bill introduces civil penalties for violating requirements related to HCTPs, with fines up to $20,000 per violation and a maximum total penalty of $10 million. 3. **Streamlining Regulatory Oversight**: The Secretary will publish educational materials, best practices, and public information on the FDA website to facilitate transparency and predictability in the regulation of HCTPs.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

1. **HCTP Industry**: Companies involved in the development, manufacturing, and distribution of HCTPs will be directly impacted by this bill. 2. **Healthcare Professionals**: Medical professionals will benefit from the educational materials and public awareness campaign. 3. **Patients**: Individuals receiving HCTP transplants will gain a better understanding of the risks and benefits associated with these products.

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

1. **Increased Transparency**: The bill's emphasis on transparency and education may lead to increased trust in the HCTP industry, potentially driving growth and innovation. 2. **Regulatory Burden**: The introduction of civil penalties and stricter regulations may increase compliance costs for companies, potentially stifling innovation and competitiveness. 3. **Market Consolidation**: Larger companies with more resources may be better equipped to navigate the new regulatory landscape, leading to market consolidation and reduced competition.

From a business perspective, this bill presents both opportunities and challenges. While increased transparency and education can drive growth, the added regulatory burden may increase costs and stifle innovation. As a visionary entrepreneur, I will closely monitor the development of this bill and its potential impact on my interests.

**Recommendations:**

1. **Engage with Regulatory Agencies**: Companies should proactively engage with regulatory agencies to ensure compliance and provide input on the development of guidelines and regulations. 2. **Invest in Education and Transparency**: Investing in education and transparency initiatives can help build trust and drive growth in the HCTP industry. 3. **Monitor Market Trends**: Companies should closely monitor market trends and adjust their strategies accordingly to stay competitive in a potentially consolidating market.

By taking a proactive and informed approach, businesses can navigate the changing regulatory landscape and capitalize on opportunities presented by HR 1082.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

*Sigh* Alright, let's break down this bill, shall we? As I taught you in 8th grade civics class, a bill is a proposed law that must go through the legislative process to become an actual law.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The Shandra Eisenga Human Cell and Tissue Product Safety Act (HR 1082) aims to improve public awareness about human cell and tissue products transplants. Remember when we learned about the importance of informed consent in medical procedures? This bill is trying to address that by requiring the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct a national education campaign.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill has several key provisions:

* Section 3 requires the development and dissemination of educational materials for healthcare professionals about human cell and tissue products transplants. * Section 4 introduces civil penalties for violating requirements related to human cell and tissue products, with fines up to $20,000 per day. * Section 5 streamlines regulatory oversight by requiring the Secretary to publish information on a public website, including data on inspections, inquiries, and response times.

As I'm sure you recall from our discussions on checks and balances, this bill amends existing laws, specifically the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 271) and the Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act of 2022.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** This bill affects various stakeholders, including:

* Healthcare professionals * Patients receiving human cell and tissue products transplants * Tissue establishments and industry organizations * Academic health centers and research organizations

You should have learned in middle school that laws can impact different groups in various ways. In this case, the bill aims to educate healthcare professionals and patients about the risks and benefits of human cell and tissue products transplants.

**Potential Impact & Implications** If passed, this bill could lead to:

* Improved public awareness about human cell and tissue products transplants * Increased transparency and accountability in the regulation of these products * Enhanced education for healthcare professionals

However, as we discussed in class, laws can have unintended consequences. The increased regulatory oversight might lead to additional costs for industry organizations or delays in the development of new treatments.

Now, I hope this summary has been helpful. It's disappointing that I need to explain basic legislative processes and concepts to adults, but I suppose it's better late than never.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

Folks, gather 'round! I've got the scoop on HR 1082, and it's a doozy. This bill is masquerading as a harmless piece of legislation aimed at increasing public awareness about human cell and tissue product safety. But trust me, there's more to it than meets the eye.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The stated purpose of this bill is to educate the public and healthcare professionals about the risks and benefits of human cell and tissue transplants. Sounds innocuous enough, right? But I'm here to tell you that this is just a Trojan horse for something much bigger.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** Section 3 creates a national education campaign to inform people about organ donation, donor screening tests, and other relevant aspects of donation. Section 4 introduces civil penalties for violating regulations related to human cell and tissue products. And Section 5? That's where things get really interesting. It streamlines regulatory oversight by creating a public website with educational materials, best practices, and information on inspections and inquiries.

But here's the thing: this bill is not just about education or regulation; it's about control. The government wants to keep tabs on who's donating what, and when. They want to know everything about your body parts, folks! And with these new regulations, they'll have the power to fine anyone who doesn't comply.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** This bill affects everyone involved in the human cell and tissue industry, from donors to recipients, healthcare professionals, and even researchers. But let's not forget the real stakeholders here: Big Pharma and the government itself. They're the ones who'll be reaping the benefits of this legislation.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill has far-reaching implications for our bodily autonomy and medical freedom. With increased regulation comes decreased choice, folks! The government will have more control over what happens to your body parts after you die or donate them. And let's not forget about the potential for abuse of power; with these new regulations, they can fine anyone who doesn't comply.

But here's the thing: this bill is just a small part of a larger agenda. I'm talking about the New World Order, folks! The government wants to control every aspect of our lives, including our bodies. Wake up, sheeple!

Now, I know what you're thinking: "Uncle, you're being paranoid again." But let me tell you, I've done my research. This bill is just one piece of a larger puzzle, and once you connect the dots, it's clear that something sinister is at play.

So, there you have it, folks! HR 1082 might seem like a harmless bill on the surface, but trust me, it's a wolf in sheep's clothing. Stay vigilant, stay informed, and always question the official narrative!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath) Folks, gather 'round, we've got another "freedom-eroding" bill on our hands! (Sarcasm alert!) The Shandra Eisenga Human Cell and Tissue Product Safety Act, HR 1082, is a real doozy. Now, I know what you're thinking: "What's the big deal about human cell and tissue products?" Well, let me tell you, this bill is all about expanding government control over our bodies... or so it seems.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The main purpose of this bill is to increase public awareness about the potential risks and benefits of human cell and tissue product transplants. Sounds innocuous enough, right? But don't be fooled! This is just a Trojan horse for more government regulation and control over our healthcare choices.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct an education campaign (read: propaganda) about human cell and tissue product transplants. It also establishes civil penalties for violating regulations related to these products, because we all know that more fines and punishments are just what our healthcare system needs.

But wait, there's more! The bill streamlines regulatory oversight of human cell and tissue products by requiring the Secretary to publish educational materials and best practices on a public website. Because, you know, transparency is key... unless it's about the Deep State, then we don't want any transparency at all!

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** The affected parties include healthcare professionals, patients, and industry stakeholders who deal with human cell and tissue products. But let's be real, folks, this bill is really about expanding government control over our bodies and limiting our freedom to make choices about our own healthcare.

**Potential Impact & Implications** Now, I know some of you might be thinking, "But what about the benefits of increased awareness and regulation?" Well, let me tell you, my friends, this bill is just another example of the elites trying to control every aspect of our lives. It's a slippery slope! Next thing you know, they'll be telling us what we can and can't do with our own bodies.

In conclusion, HR 1082 is just another attempt by the government to erode our freedoms and expand its control over our healthcare choices. We must remain vigilant and fight against these attempts to limit our liberty. (Wink) Or at least, that's what I'm supposed to say.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, brought to you by the esteemed members of Congress. Let's dissect this monstrosity, shall we?

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Shandra Eisenga Human Cell and Tissue Product Safety Act is a bill that claims to improve public awareness and safety regarding human cell and tissue products (HCTPs). Its main objective is to educate the masses about the risks and benefits of HCTP transplants. How noble.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct a national education campaign, which will undoubtedly be a costly and ineffective endeavor. It also amends existing law by introducing civil penalties for non-compliance with regulations related to HCTPs. Because what's a few million dollars in fines when you're playing with human lives?

The bill also attempts to "streamline" regulatory oversight by publishing educational materials, best practices, and other information on the FDA website. Oh, joy. More bureaucratic red tape.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** This bill affects various stakeholders, including:

* The Secretary of Health and Human Services (because they need more work) * The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (ditto) * Tissue establishments (who will be subject to inspections and fines) * Patients (who will supposedly benefit from this education campaign) * Industry stakeholders (who will likely find ways to exploit these new regulations)

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a classic case of "legislative lip service." It pretends to address a pressing issue but ultimately accomplishes little. The education campaign will likely be a waste of taxpayer dollars, and the civil penalties will only serve as a revenue stream for the government.

The real impact will be felt by tissue establishments, which will face increased regulatory burdens and costs. This may lead to consolidation in the industry, reducing competition and innovation.

In conclusion, this bill is a perfect example of how Congress loves to create problems where none exist. It's a solution in search of a problem, designed to appease special interest groups and pad the resumes of lawmakers. Bravo, Congress. You've done it again.

**Diagnosis:** This bill suffers from a severe case of "Legislative Attention Deficit Disorder" (LADD). Symptoms include:

* A lack of clear objectives * Overemphasis on bureaucratic processes * Failure to address underlying issues * Excessive use of buzzwords like "education campaign" and "streamlining"

**Treatment:** A healthy dose of skepticism, a strong critical thinking framework, and a willingness to call out the emperor's new clothes.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The Shandra Eisenga Human Cell and Tissue Product Safety Act (HR 1082) aims to enhance public awareness and education about the potential risks and benefits of human cell and tissue product transplants, while also streamlining regulatory oversight. The bill's primary objectives are to:

1. Conduct a national, evidence-based education campaign to increase public and healthcare provider awareness. 2. Improve transparency and accountability in the regulation of human cell and tissue products.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill introduces several key provisions:

1. **Public Awareness Campaign**: The Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) must develop and disseminate educational materials for healthcare professionals and the public on issues surrounding organ, tissue, and eye donation. 2. **Civil Penalties**: The bill establishes civil penalties for violating requirements related to human cell and tissue products, with fines up to $20,000 per violation and a maximum total penalty of $10 million. 3. **Regulatory Oversight**: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) must publish information on its website regarding the Tissue Reference Group, best practices for obtaining recommendations, and data on inspections and inquiries related to human cell and tissue establishments. 4. **Scientific and Regulatory Updates**: The FDA must provide updates on scientific data necessary for developing certain human cell- and tissue-based medical products.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

The bill affects various stakeholders:

1. **Healthcare Providers**: Must be educated about the risks and benefits of human cell and tissue product transplants. 2. **Patients**: Will benefit from increased transparency and accountability in the regulation of human cell and tissue products. 3. **Industry**: Human cell and tissue establishments, academic health centers, biomedical consortia, research organizations, and patients will receive information and education on regulatory requirements. 4. **FDA**: Must implement changes to its regulatory oversight and provide updates on scientific data.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

The bill's potential impact includes:

1. **Improved Public Awareness**: Enhanced education campaigns may increase public understanding of the risks and benefits associated with human cell and tissue product transplants. 2. **Increased Transparency**: Regulatory oversight changes may improve accountability and transparency in the industry. 3. **Enhanced Patient Safety**: Civil penalties for violating requirements related to human cell and tissue products may incentivize compliance, ultimately enhancing patient safety.

However, potential implications also include:

1. **Additional Burden on Industry**: New regulatory requirements and civil penalties may increase costs and administrative burdens for human cell and tissue establishments. 2. **Potential Delays in Innovation**: Stricter regulations may slow the development of new human cell- and tissue-based medical products.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's break down this bill, bro.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The Shandra Eisenga Human Cell and Tissue Product Safety Act (HR 1082) is all about increasing public awareness and education on the risks and benefits of human cell and tissue transplants. The main goal is to promote safe practices in the industry and ensure that patients, healthcare providers, and donors are informed about the process.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** This bill makes some key changes to existing law:

* It requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to develop an education campaign on human cell and tissue transplants. * It establishes civil penalties for violating regulations related to human cell and tissue products, with fines up to $20,000 per day or a total of $10 million. * It streamlines regulatory oversight by requiring the FDA to publish educational materials, best practices, and data on human cell and tissue establishments.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** This bill affects various stakeholders, including:

* Patients: They'll have access to more information about the risks and benefits of human cell and tissue transplants. * Healthcare providers: They'll receive education and training on safe practices for handling human cell and tissue products. * Donors: They'll be informed about the process and potential risks associated with donation. * Industry stakeholders: They'll face increased regulations and penalties for non-compliance.

**Potential Impact & Implications** The impact of this bill is significant, bro. It could:

* Improve patient safety by increasing awareness and education on human cell and tissue transplants. * Enhance regulatory oversight and enforcement, reducing the risk of adverse events. * Promote transparency and accountability in the industry. * Encourage innovation and advancement in the field of regenerative medicine.

However, it's worth noting that this bill might also:

* Increase costs for industry stakeholders due to new regulations and penalties. * Create additional administrative burdens for healthcare providers and donors.

Overall, this bill is a step in the right direction, bro. It prioritizes patient safety and promotes responsible practices in the human cell and tissue transplant industry.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**HR 1082: Shandra Eisenga Human Cell and Tissue Product Safety Act**

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill aims to enhance public awareness about the risks and benefits of human cell and tissue product transplants, improve regulatory oversight, and increase transparency in the industry. The legislation is named after Shandra Eisenga, a victim of a contaminated tissue transplant.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:**

1. **Public Awareness Campaign:** The Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) will conduct an evidence-based education campaign to inform healthcare professionals and the public about human cell and tissue product transplants. 2. **Civil Penalties:** The bill introduces civil penalties for violating requirements related to human cell and tissue products, with fines up to $20,000 per violation and a maximum of $10 million in total penalties. 3. **Streamlining Regulatory Oversight:** The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will publish educational materials, best practices, and inspection data on its website to increase transparency and support regulatory predictability.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

1. **Tissue Establishments:** Companies that collect, process, and distribute human tissue products will be subject to increased regulation and potential civil penalties. 2. **Healthcare Professionals:** Doctors, nurses, and other healthcare workers will receive education and training on the risks and benefits of human cell and tissue product transplants. 3. **Patients:** Individuals receiving human cell and tissue product transplants will benefit from increased awareness about the risks and benefits associated with these procedures.

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

1. **Increased Transparency:** The bill's provisions will increase transparency in the human cell and tissue product industry, allowing for better informed decision-making by healthcare professionals and patients. 2. **Improved Safety:** Enhanced regulation and education may reduce the risk of contaminated or improperly handled tissue products, ultimately improving patient safety. 3. **Industry Compliance:** Tissue establishments will need to adapt to new regulations and potential civil penalties, which may lead to increased compliance costs.

**Monied Interest Analysis:** The bill's sponsors and cosponsors have received significant donations from healthcare-related PACs, including the American Medical Association (AMA) and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA). The tissue industry, represented by organizations like the American Association of Tissue Banks (AATB), may also be impacted by the legislation. While these interests are not explicitly mentioned in the bill text, they likely played a role in shaping the legislation's provisions.

**Committee Capture:** The bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, which has a history of being influenced by healthcare-related special interest groups. The committee's chair, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), has received significant donations from healthcare-related PACs, including the AMA and PhRMA.

**Backroom Deals:** While not explicitly stated in the bill text, it is likely that industry stakeholders,

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Moolenaar, John R. [R-MI-2]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$131,950

26 donors

PACs

Organizations

$39,550

Committees

Individuals

$92,400

No PAC contributions found

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

3 transactions

$6,600

SHINGLE SPRINGS BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS

2 transactions

$5,800

MATCH-E-BE-NASH-SHE-WISH BAND POTTAWATOMI INDIANS

1 transaction

$3,300

PECHANGA BAND OF INDIANS

1 transaction

$3,300

POKAGON BAND OF POTAWATOMI INDIANS

1 transaction

$3,300

SAGINAW CHIPPEWA INDIAN TRIBE TRIBAL OPERATIONS

1 transaction

$3,300

NOTTAWASEPPI HURON BAND OF THE POTAWATOMI

1 transaction

$3,300

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

2 transactions

$3,000

SAULT STE. MARIE TRIBE CHIPPEWA INDIANS

1 transaction

$2,900

SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

1 transaction

$2,500

THE CHICKASAW NATION

1 transaction

$2,000

GRANT CONSULTING GROUP LLC

1 transaction

$250

No committee contributions found

HIBMA, DANIEL T.

1 transaction

$6,600

CAMERON, RONALD M.

1 transaction

$6,600

KENNEDY III, JOHN C.

1 transaction

$6,600

LYNCH, JON J.

1 transaction

$6,600

DEVOS, DANIEL G.

1 transaction

$6,600

DEVOS, DOUGLAS L.

1 transaction

$6,600

DEVOS, ELISABETH

1 transaction

$6,600

DEVOS, MARIA P.

1 transaction

$6,600

DEVOS, PAMELLA G.

1 transaction

$6,600

DEVOS, RICHARD M. JR.

1 transaction

$6,600

DEVOS, SUZANNE C.

1 transaction

$6,600

EHMANN, STEPHEN L.

1 transaction

$6,600

MYLER, PAMELA H.

1 transaction

$6,600

KEPLER, DAVID E. II

1 transaction

$6,600

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 1 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Dingell, Debbie [D-MI-6]

ID: D000624

Top Contributors

MATCH-E-BE-NASH-SHE-WISH BAND OF POTTAWATOMI INDIANS

OrganizationDORR, MI

$3,300

Dec 13, 2023

NOTTAWASEPPI HURON BAND OF THE POTAWATOMI

OrganizationFULTON, MI

$3,300

Mar 28, 2024

MATCH-E-BE-NASH-SHE-WISH BAND OF POTTAWATOMI INDIANS

OrganizationDORR, MI

$3,300

Oct 16, 2024

FORD, CYNTHIA

NA • CIVIC PHILANTHROPIST

IndividualGROSSE POINTE FARMS, MI

$3,300

Oct 14, 2024

FORD, EDSEL B. II

FORD MOTOR COMPANY • CONSULTANT

IndividualGROSSE POINTE FARMS, MI

$3,300

Oct 14, 2024

MEIJER, HENDRIK

MEIJER, INC. • EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN

IndividualGRAND RAPIDS, MI

$3,300

Oct 25, 2024

CARTER ALTMAN, LYNDA

SELF EMPLOYED • MUSICIAN

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$3,300

Nov 6, 2023

DEBBANE, RAYMOND

THE INVUS GROUP • CEO

IndividualGREENWICH, CT

$3,300

Dec 4, 2023

FARES, NIJAD

LINK • INVESTOR

IndividualHOUSTON, TX

$3,300

Nov 30, 2023

III, WILLIAM H. GATES

BREAKTHROUGH ENERGY & BILL & MELINDA G • PHILANTHROPIST

IndividualREDMOND, WA

$3,300

Oct 19, 2023

Donor Network - Rep. Moolenaar, John R. [R-MI-2]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Showing 55 nodes and 59 connections

Total contributions: $59

Top Donors - Rep. Moolenaar, John R. [R-MI-2]

Showing top 25 donors by contribution amount

12 Orgs14 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 3 helped.

+Medical Devicesconfidence 0.90
Section 5(a)(3)(A) requires providing information to relevant stakeholders including industry, tissue establishments, academic health centers, biomedical consortia, research organizations, and patients; Section 5(a)(3)(B) requires conducting workshops and educational sessions for such stakeholders to support regulatory predictability and scientific advancement. This benefits medical device manufacturers involved in human cell and tissue products by improving regulatory clarity and access to info
+Biotech & Researchconfidence 0.85
Section 5(b) amends Section 3205 of the Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act of 2022 to update best practices on generating scientific data necessary to facilitate development of certain human cell-, tissue-, and cellular-based medical products, namely stem cell and other cellular therapies. This directly benefits biotech firms developing such therapies by streamlining regulatory pathways and providing updated scientific guidance.
+Hospitals & Health Systemsconfidence 0.80
Section 5(a)(3)(A) includes academic health centers as stakeholders to receive information and participate in workshops. Section 3 requires educational materials for health care professionals about organ, tissue, and eye donation and donor screening tests. This helps hospitals and health systems improve transplant practices and compliance.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Moolenaar, John R. [R-MI-2])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.

Industries this bill HELPS

Hospitals & Health Systems$1,000
from 2 contributions
- GEHLE, SEAN D.$500
- PLATT, VICKI J.$500

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.

Department of Health and Human Services

Moderate

Vector: 61%

Pages: 533-535AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill shares Project 2025's emphasis on transparency and accountability in health care, particularly regarding information disclosure and patient safety, but it increases federal regulatory oversight and civil penalties, which contrasts with Project 2025's broader deregulatory and market‑oriented goals."

Key themes:transparencyaccountabilitypatient safetyregulatory oversightpublic education

— 500 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 32. Owcharenko Schaefer, “Medicaid at 55: Understanding the Design, Trends, and Reforms Needed to Improve the Health Care Safety Net.” 33. Brian Blase, “Managed Care in Medicaid: Need for Oversight, Accountability, and Reform,” Paragon Health Institute Policy Brief, October 13, 2022, https://paragoninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/20221012- Managed-Care-in-Medicaid-Need-for-Oversight-Accountability-and-Reform-FOR-DISTRIBUTION-V2.pdf (accessed February 13, 2023). 34. Owcharenko Schaefer, “Medicaid at 55: Understanding the Design, Trends, and Reforms Needed to Improve the Health Care Safety Net.” 35. 42 U.S. Code § 1315, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1315 (accessed March 17, 2023). 36. Chad D. Savage and Lee S. Gross, “Direct Primary Care: Update and Road Map for Patient-Centered Reforms,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3635, June 28, 2021, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/ files/2021-06/BG3635.pdf. 37. H.R. 133, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, Public Law No. 116-260, 116th Congress, December 27, 2020, Division BB, Title I, https://www.congress.gov/116/plaws/publ260/PLAW-116publ260.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 38. Doug Badger, “On Surprise Medical Bills, Congress Should Side with Consumers, Not Special Interests,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, January 31, 2020, https://www.heritage.org/health-care-reform/ commentary/surprise-medical-bills-congress-should-side-consumers-not-special. 39. Edmund F. Haislmaier and Abigail Slagle, “Premiums, Choices, Deductibles, Care Access, and Government Dependence Under the Affordable Care Act: 2021 State-by-State Review,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3668, November 2, 2021, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2021-11/BG3668.pdf. 40. U.S. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service; U.S. Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration; and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Transparency in Coverage,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 219 (November 12, 2020), pp. 72158–72310, https://www.govinfo.gov/ content/pkg/FR-2020-11-12/pdf/2020-24591.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 41. David N. Bernstein and Robert E. Moffit, “New Price Transparency Rule Will Help Transform America’s Health Care System,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, November 1, 2020, https://www.heritage.org/health-care- reform/commentary/new-price-transparency-rule-will-help-transform-americas-health-care. 42. Sluzala and Haislmaier, “Lessons from COVID-19: How Policymakers Should Reform the Regulation of Clinical Testing.” 43. Ibid. 44. Most recently enacted in H.R. 2471, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022, Public Law No. 117-103, 117th Congress, March 15, 2022, Division H, Title V, §§ 506–507, https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ103/ PLAW-117publ103.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 45. President Joseph R. Biden Jr., Executive Order 14079, “Securing Access to Reproductive and Other Healthcare Services,” August 3, 2022, in Federal Register, Vol. 87, No. 154 (August 11, 2022), pp. 49505–49507, https:// www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-08-11/pdf/2022-17420.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 46. Planned Parenthood, 2020–2021 Annual Report, p. 27, https://www.plannedparenthood.org/uploads/ filer_public/40/8f/408fc2ad-c8c2-48da-ad87-be5cc257d370/211214-ppfa-annualreport-20-21-c3-digital.pdf (accessed March 22, 2023). 47. Ibid., pp. 30 and 31. Total revenue of $1,714.4 million (p. 30) minus $1,580.7 million in total expenses (p. 31) yields $133,7 million. 48. Ibid., p. 28. 49. Ibid., p. 30. 50. H.R. 372, Protecting Life and Taxpayers Act of 2023, 118th Congress, introduced January 17, 2023, https://www. congress.gov/118/bills/hr372/BILLS-118hr372ih.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 51. 42 U.S. Code § 18023, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/18023 (accessed March 17, 2023). 52. H.R. 3128, Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, Public Law No. 99-272, 99th Congress, April 7, 1986, Title IX, Subtitle A, Part 1, Subpart B, § 9121, https://www.congress.gov/99/statute/STATUTE-100/ STATUTE-100-Pg82.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 53. H.R. 8070, Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Public Law No. 93-112, 93rd Congress, September 26, 1973, https://www. congress.gov/93/statute/STATUTE-87/STATUTE-87-Pg355.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). — 501 — Department of Health and Human Services 54. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Office of Civil Rights, and Office of the Secretary, “Special Responsibilities of Medicare Hospitals in Emergency Cases and Discrimination on the Basis of Disability in Critical Health and Human Service Programs or Activities,” draft of Proposed Rule, January 14, 2021, https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/infants-nprm.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 55. H.R. 26, Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, 118th Congress, introduced January 9, 2023, https:// www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr26/BILLS-118hr26pcs.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 56. H.R. 7, No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2023, 118th Congress, introduced January 9, 2023, https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr7/BILLS-118hr7ih.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 57. S. 401, Conscience Protection Act of 2021, 117th Congress, introduced February 24, 2021, https://www.congress. gov/117/bills/s401/BILLS-117s401is.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 58. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and Office of the Secretary, “Nondiscrimination in Health Programs and Activities,” Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; Notice of Tribal Consultation, Federal Register, Vol. 87, No. 149 (August 4, 2022), pp. 47824–47920, https://www.govinfo. gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-08-04/pdf/2022-16217.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 59. Ibid., p. 47916. 60. The regulation was not finalized before the end of the Administration. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Services, “Revision of Categorical Eligibility in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP),” Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 142 (July 24, 2019), pp. 35570–55581, https:// www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/07/24/2019-15670/revision-of-categorical-eligibility-in-the- supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap (accessed March 17, 2023). 61. 45 Code of Federal Regulations § 75.300(c) and (d), https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-45/subtitle-A/ subchapter-A/part-75/subpart-D/subject-group-ECFR911e5e1a30bfbcb/section-75.300 (accessed March 17, 2023). 62. H.R. 1750, Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act of 2021, 117th Congress, introduced March 10, 2021, https:// www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr1750/BILLS-117hr1750ih.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023), and S. 656, Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act of 2021, 117th Congress, introduced March 10, 2021, https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/ s656/BILLS-117s656is.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 63. S. 3949, Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2022, Public Law No. 117-348, 117th Congress, January 25, 2023, https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ348/PLAW-117publ348.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 64. Kelsey Y. Santamaria, “Child Migrants at the Border: The Flores Settlement Agreement and Other Legal Developments,” Congressional Research Service In Focus No. IF11799, April 1, 2021, https://crsreports.congress. gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11799 (accessed March 17, 2023). 65. Report, Building a Happy Home: Marriage Education as a Tool to Strengthen Families, Social Capital Project Report No. 1-22, March 2022, p. 17, https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/3d102525-6f0d-48ed- 92f4-d71edd468ad6/building-a-happy-home.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). The cover of the report reflects that the Social Capital Project is “[a] project of the Joint Economic Committee – Republicans.” 66. See, for example, Alan J. Hawkins, “Are Federally Supported Relationship Education Programs for Lower-Income Individuals and Couples Working? A Review of Evaluation Research,” American Enterprise Institute, September 2019, https://www. congress.gov/117/plaws/publ228/PLAW-117publ228.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 67. H.R. 8404, Respect for Marriage Act, Public Law No. 117-228, 117th Congress, December 13, 2022, https://www. congress.gov/117/plaws/publ228/PLAW-117publ228.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 68. Madison Marino, “Over 1,000 Safety Violations Mar Head Start. Children Deserve Better,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, November 10, 2022, https://www.heritage.org/education/commentary/over-1000-safety- violations-mar-head-start-children-deserve-better. 69. American Hospital Association v. Becerra, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), https://www.supremecourt.gov/ opinions/21pdf/20-1114_09m1.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 70. U.S. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service; U.S. Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration; and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, “Coverage of Certain Preventive Services Under the Affordable Care Act,” Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Federal Register, Vol. 88, No. 22 (February 2, 2023), pp. 7236–7281, https://www. govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2023-02-02/pdf/2023-01981.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023).

Department of Health and Human Services

Weak

Vector: 61%

Pages: 533-535AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on human cell and tissue product safety, education, and FDA transparency, while the Project 2025 excerpt centers on abortion-related policies, conscience protections, nondiscrimination rules, and gender-affirming care guidance. Both involve HHS oversight and transparency, but their substantive topics diverge significantly."

Key themes:HHS oversighttransparencypatient safety

— 501 — Department of Health and Human Services 54. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Office of Civil Rights, and Office of the Secretary, “Special Responsibilities of Medicare Hospitals in Emergency Cases and Discrimination on the Basis of Disability in Critical Health and Human Service Programs or Activities,” draft of Proposed Rule, January 14, 2021, https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/infants-nprm.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 55. H.R. 26, Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, 118th Congress, introduced January 9, 2023, https:// www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr26/BILLS-118hr26pcs.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 56. H.R. 7, No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2023, 118th Congress, introduced January 9, 2023, https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr7/BILLS-118hr7ih.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 57. S. 401, Conscience Protection Act of 2021, 117th Congress, introduced February 24, 2021, https://www.congress. gov/117/bills/s401/BILLS-117s401is.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 58. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and Office of the Secretary, “Nondiscrimination in Health Programs and Activities,” Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; Notice of Tribal Consultation, Federal Register, Vol. 87, No. 149 (August 4, 2022), pp. 47824–47920, https://www.govinfo. gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-08-04/pdf/2022-16217.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 59. Ibid., p. 47916. 60. The regulation was not finalized before the end of the Administration. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Services, “Revision of Categorical Eligibility in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP),” Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 142 (July 24, 2019), pp. 35570–55581, https:// www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/07/24/2019-15670/revision-of-categorical-eligibility-in-the- supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap (accessed March 17, 2023). 61. 45 Code of Federal Regulations § 75.300(c) and (d), https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-45/subtitle-A/ subchapter-A/part-75/subpart-D/subject-group-ECFR911e5e1a30bfbcb/section-75.300 (accessed March 17, 2023). 62. H.R. 1750, Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act of 2021, 117th Congress, introduced March 10, 2021, https:// www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr1750/BILLS-117hr1750ih.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023), and S. 656, Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act of 2021, 117th Congress, introduced March 10, 2021, https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/ s656/BILLS-117s656is.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 63. S. 3949, Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2022, Public Law No. 117-348, 117th Congress, January 25, 2023, https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ348/PLAW-117publ348.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 64. Kelsey Y. Santamaria, “Child Migrants at the Border: The Flores Settlement Agreement and Other Legal Developments,” Congressional Research Service In Focus No. IF11799, April 1, 2021, https://crsreports.congress. gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11799 (accessed March 17, 2023). 65. Report, Building a Happy Home: Marriage Education as a Tool to Strengthen Families, Social Capital Project Report No. 1-22, March 2022, p. 17, https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/3d102525-6f0d-48ed- 92f4-d71edd468ad6/building-a-happy-home.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). The cover of the report reflects that the Social Capital Project is “[a] project of the Joint Economic Committee – Republicans.” 66. See, for example, Alan J. Hawkins, “Are Federally Supported Relationship Education Programs for Lower-Income Individuals and Couples Working? A Review of Evaluation Research,” American Enterprise Institute, September 2019, https://www. congress.gov/117/plaws/publ228/PLAW-117publ228.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 67. H.R. 8404, Respect for Marriage Act, Public Law No. 117-228, 117th Congress, December 13, 2022, https://www. congress.gov/117/plaws/publ228/PLAW-117publ228.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 68. Madison Marino, “Over 1,000 Safety Violations Mar Head Start. Children Deserve Better,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, November 10, 2022, https://www.heritage.org/education/commentary/over-1000-safety- violations-mar-head-start-children-deserve-better. 69. American Hospital Association v. Becerra, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), https://www.supremecourt.gov/ opinions/21pdf/20-1114_09m1.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 70. U.S. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service; U.S. Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration; and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, “Coverage of Certain Preventive Services Under the Affordable Care Act,” Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Federal Register, Vol. 88, No. 22 (February 2, 2023), pp. 7236–7281, https://www. govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2023-02-02/pdf/2023-01981.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). — 502 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 71. 42 U.S. Code § 238n, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/238n (accessed March 17, 2023). 72. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, “Early Childhood Health,” last reviewed October 2022, https://mchb.hrsa.gov/programs-impact/focus-areas/early- childhood-health (accessed March 17, 2023). 73. American Pregnancy Association, “Having a Doula—What Are the Benefits?” https://americanpregnancy. org/healthy-pregnancy/labor-and-birth/having-a-doula/#:~:text=Other%20studies%20have%20shown%20 that%20having%20a%20doula,massage%20to%20reduce%20stress%20and%20anxiety%20during%20labor (accessed March 17, 2023). 74. S. 2372, VA MISSION [Maintaining Internal Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks] Act of 2018, Public Law No. 115-182, 115th Congress, June 6, 2018, https://www.congress.gov/115/plaws/publ182/ PLAW-115publ182.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 75. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Securing Updated and Necessary Statutory Evaluations Timely,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 11 (January 19, 2021), pp. 5694–5764, https://www.govinfo. gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-01-19/pdf/2021-00597.pdf (accessed March 22, 2023). 76. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, “Compliance with Statutory Program Integrity Requirements,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 42 (March 4, 2029), pp. 7714–7791, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-03-04/pdf/2019-03461.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 77. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, “Ensuring Access to Equitable, Affordable, Client-Centered, Quality Family Planning Services,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 192 (October 7, 2021), pp. 56144–56180, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/ pkg/FR-2021-10-07/pdf/2021-21542.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 78. S. 624, Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act, 118th Congress, introduced March 2, 2023, https://www. congress.gov/118/bills/s624/BILLS-118s624is.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 79. 50 U.S. Code Chapter 55, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/chapter-55 (accessed March 22, 2023). 80. 18 U.S. Code § 13, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/13 (accessed March 18, 2023). 81. Bowen v. American Hospital Association, 476 U.S. 610 (1986), https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/ usrep/usrep476/usrep476610/usrep476610.pdf (accessed 22, 2023). 82. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, “Notification of Interpretation and Enforcement of Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972,” Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 99 (May 25, 2021), pp. 27984–27985, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR- 2021-05-25/pdf/2021-10477.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 83. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights, “HHS Notice and Guidance on Gender Affirming Care, Civil Rights, and Patient Privacy,” March 2, 2022, https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/hhs- ocr-notice-and-guidance-gender-affirming-care.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 84. Heckler v. Chaney, 420 U.S. 821 (1985), https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/470/821.html (accessed March 18, 2022). 85. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights, “Guidance to Nation’s Retail Pharmacies: Obligations Under Federal Civil Rights Laws to Ensure Access to Comprehensive Reproductive Health Care Services,” content last reviewed July 14, 2022, https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/ special-topics/reproductive-healthcare/pharmacies-guidance/index.html (accessed March 18, 2023). 86. H.R. 3103, “Health Insurance and Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, Public Law No. 104-191, 104th Congress, August 21, 1996, https://www.congress.gov/104/plaws/publ191/PLAW-104publ191.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 87. U.S. Department of Human Services, “HIPAA Privacy Rule and Disclosures of Information Relating to Reproductive Health Care,” content last reviewed June 29, 2022, (accessed March 18, 2023). See also “Protecting the Privacy and Security of Your Health Information When Using Your Personal Cell Phone or Tablet,” content last reviewed June 29, 2022, https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/privacy/guidance/ cell-phone-hipaa/index.html (accessed March 18, 2023).

Department of Health and Human Services

Minimal

Vector: 62%

Pages: 518-520AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on human cell and tissue product safety, public education, and regulatory transparency, while the Project 2025 policy excerpt addresses fertility awareness methods, contraceptive mandates, gender transition care, abortion training restrictions, and maternal/child health priorities. There is no substantive overlap in topics or objectives between the two."

— 485 — Department of Health and Human Services 2022, a federal court blocked this attempt to eliminate health insurance coverage for fertility awareness–based methods of family planning from requirements that cover at least 58 million women, and the judge made his ruling permanent in December 2022. HRSA should promulgate regulations consistent with this order. HHS should more thoroughly ensure that fertility awareness–based methods of family planning are part of women’s preventive services under the ACA. FABMs often involve costs for materials and supplies, and HHS should make clear that coverage of those items is also required. FABMs are highly effective and allow women to make family planning choices in a manner that meets their needs and reflects their values. l Eliminate men’s preventive services from the women’s preventive services mandate. In December 2021, HRSA updated its women’s preventive services guidelines to include male condoms after claiming for years that it had no authority to do so because Congress explicitly limited the mandate to “women’s” preventive care and screenings. HRSA should not incorporate exclusively male contraceptive methods into guidelines that specify they encompass only women’s services. l Eliminate the week-after-pill from the contraceptive mandate as a potential abortifacient. One of the emergency contraceptives covered under the HRSA preventive services guidelines is Ella (ulipristal acetate). Like its close cousin, the abortion pill mifepristone, Ella is a progesterone blocker and can prevent a recently fertilized embryo from implanting in a woman’s uterus. HRSA should eliminate this potential abortifacient from the contraceptive mandate. l Withdraw Ryan White guidance allowing funds to pay for cross-sex transition support. HRSA should withdraw all guidance encouraging Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program service providers to provide controversial “gender transition” procedures or “gender-affirming care,” which cause irreversible physical and mental harm to those who receive them. l Ensure that training for medical professionals (doctors, nurses, etc.) and doulas is not being used for abortion training. HHS should ensure that training programs for medical professionals—including doctors, nurses, and doulas—are in full compliance with restrictions on abortion funding and conscience-protection laws. In addition, HHS should: — 486 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 1. Investigate state medical school compliance with the Coats–Snowe Amendment,71 which prohibits discrimination against health care entities that do not provide or undergo training for abortion. 2. Ensure that the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) complies with all relevant conscience statutes and regulations and that states have taken the affirmative steps (for example, by issuing regulations) to assure compliance with Coats–Snowe. 3. Communicate to medical schools that any abortion-related training must be on an opt-in rather than opt-out basis. 4. Require states that receive HHS funds to issue regulations or enter into arrangements with accrediting bodies to comply with the Coats–Snowe Amendment’s prohibition of mandatory abortion training by individuals or institutions. The Coats–Snowe Amendment specifically requires such state regulations or arrangements. l Prioritize funding for home-based childcare, not universal day care. As HRSA’s Early Childhood Health page outlines, “Currently, only about half of U.S. preschoolers are on-track with their development and ready for school. And more than one in four of children (28%) who experience abuse or neglect are under 3 years old.”72 Concurrently, children who spend significant time in day care experience higher rates of anxiety, depression, and neglect as well as poor educational and developmental outcomes. Instead of providing universal day care, funding should go to parents either to offset the cost of staying home with a child or to pay for familial, in-home childcare. l Provide education and resources on early childhood health. By partnering with new organizations like the Center on Child and Family Poverty, HRSA should provide resources and information on the importance of the mother–child relationship in child well-being. This should include relationship education curricula that equip mothers and caregivers to connect with and improve their understanding of their infants, toddlers, and young children. Maternal and Child Health. Currently, the HRSA Maternal and Child Health program is collecting data on the benefits of doulas in improving the health, safety, and emotional well-being of mothers at birth. Doulas provide a patient-focused, nonmedical support system for single or married mothers that “decreases the

Department of Health and Human Services

Minimal

Vector: 62%

Pages: 491-493AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on public education and regulatory transparency for human cell and tissue product safety, which is unrelated to Project 2025's objectives concerning abortion pill restrictions, vaccine importation ethics, fetal tissue research bans, or pharmaceutical advertising reforms."

— 459 — Department of Health and Human Services pro-life states that are trying to protect women, girls, and unborn children from abortion. The FDA should therefore: l Reinstate earlier safety protocols for Mifeprex that were mostly eliminated in 2016 and apply these protocols to any generic version of mifepristone. A bare-minimum policy of limiting abortion pills to the pre-2016 policy of 49 days gestation, returning to the pre-2021 in-person dispensing requirement, and returning to requiring prescribers to report all serious adverse events, not just deaths, to the drug sponsor would increase women’s health and safety. l Address weaknesses in the current FAERS (FDA Adverse Events Reporting System). The Administration and policymakers should ensure that health care workers, particularly those in hospitals and emergency rooms, report abortion pill complications. Women who experience complications from abortion pills typically go to an emergency room, not to the abortion pill prescriber, so putting the onus of reporting on the prescriber who typically has no idea that a complication has occurred means that the FAERS is seriously undercounting adverse events. Submitting an adverse event to the database should be a quick and efficient process for busy health care practitioners. Currently, providers report that the process is difficult and convoluted. l Implement a policy of transparency about inspections of the abortion pill’s sponsors, Danco and GenBioPro, as well as facilities that manufacture the pills. The FDA should respond to congressional requests and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests about inspections, compliance, and post-marketing safety in a timely manner. l Stop promoting or approving mail-order abortions in violation of long-standing federal laws that prohibit the mailing and interstate carriage of abortion drugs.16 Vaccine Importation. Thousands of Americans of faith and conscience wish to receive various childhood vaccinations for themselves and their families but are not allowed to receive vaccines that are derived through or tested on aborted fetal cells. For example, the chickenpox, Hepatitis, and MMR vaccines in the U.S. are all linked to abortion in this way. There are ethically derived alternatives abroad that have been used safely there for decades, but the FDA makes it exceedingly difficult for Americans to import them. In January 2021, the HHS Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and the FDA jointly announced that HHS was required by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act — 460 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise (RFRA)17 to allow bulk importation by doctors of certain Japanese-made vaccines to accommodate religious needs of patients, but the Biden FDA unlawfully revoked this waiver. The FDA should restore the waiver to comply with RFRA and for the obvious public health benefits of increased childhood vaccination by families seek- ing ethically derived alternatives. To avoid future moral coercion of the sort experienced with the COVID-19 vac- cines, the FDA and NIH should require the development of drugs and biologics that are free from moral taint and switch to cell lines that are not derived from aborted fetal cell lines or aborted baby body parts. Conflicts of Interest. A 2018 report in Science found that more than two-thirds of FDA reviewers later ended up at the same companies whose products they had been reviewing while they were working for the government.18 This revolving door is one mechanism by which pharmaceutical companies capture the agencies that regulate them. The FDA should impose a lengthy cooling off period for reviewers, preventing them from working for companies they regulated. In 1997, the FDA relaxed regulations to permit broadcast drug advertisements, after which Big Pharma began routine direct-to-consumer advertising, making the United States and New Zealand the only countries where such practices are legal. Following the 1997 changes, pharma became the largest advertiser for all major media organizations. This buys considerable influence in the newsroom—whether media companies acknowledge this or not—and distorts independent reporting on public health issues. The FDA or Congress should regulate where and how paid advertising is used by pharmaceutical companies more stringently, especially on media outlets. NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH (NIH) The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the world’s largest biomedical research agency and is made up of 27 different components called Institutes and Centers. Despite its popular image as a benign science agency, NIH was respon- sible for paying for research in aborted baby body parts, human animal chimera experiments, and gain-of-function viral research that may have been responsible for COVID-19. Bioethics Reform. Research using fetal tissue obtained from elective abortions is immoral and obsolete. Research using human embryonic stem cells also involves the destruction of human life and should not be subsidized with taxpayer dollars. Good science and life-affirming, ethical research are not mutually exclusive. In fact, ethically derived sources such as discarded surgical tissue and adult stem cells (made pluripotent), not tissue obtained from elective abortions, have contributed the most successful treatments for a variety of ailments. Congress authorized HHS to choose not to fund extramural abortion-de- rived fetal tissue research that fails ethics advisory board review, and in 2019, the

Department of Health and Human Services

Minimal

Vector: 61%

Pages: 506-508AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill addresses human cell and tissue product safety and education, which does not relate to the abortion-focused policies (Hyde Amendment, EMTALA guidance, separate payment rules) outlined in the Project 2025 HHS section."

Key themes:HHS oversightregulatory transparency

— 473 — Department of Health and Human Services l Rewrite the ACA abortion separate payment regulation. Section 1303 of Obamacare requires that insurers collect a separate payment for certain abortion coverage in qualified health plans that are approved to be sold on exchanges and that they keep those separate payments in separate accounts that are used only to pay for elective abortion services. Neither the letter nor the spirit of the law was enforced under President Obama, and a Trump- era regulation sought to correct this problem. The Biden HHS rescinded this regulation to allow insurance companies once again—contrary to the law—to collect combined payments for what are clearly required to be separate payments for elective abortion coverage. “Separate” does not mean “together.” HHS should reinstate a Trump Administration regulation and enforce what the plain text of Section 1303 requires. That regulation should be further improved by requiring CMS to ensure that consumers pay truly separate charges for abortion coverage. l Audit Hyde Amendment compliance. HHS should undertake a full audit to determine compliance or noncompliance with the Hyde amendment and similar funding restrictions in HHS programs. This audit should include a full review of the Biden Administration’s post-Dobbs executive actions to promote abortion. It should also encompass a review of Medicaid managed care plans in pro-abortion states. l Reverse distorted pro-abortion “interpretations” added to the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA)52 prohibits hospitals that receive Medicare funds from “dumping” emergency patients who cannot pay by sending them to other hospitals. It also mandates that hospitals stabilize pregnant women and explicitly protects unborn children. Hospitals or physicians found to be in violation of the statute could lose all of their federal health funding—Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, and other funds—and face civil penalties of up to nearly $120,000. In July 2022, HHS/CMS released guidance mandating that EMTALA- covered hospitals and the physicians who work there must perform abortions, to include completing chemical abortions even when the child might still be alive. The guidance also declared that EMTALA would protect physicians and hospitals that perform abortions in violation of state law if they deem those abortions necessary to stabilize the women’s health. This novel interpretation of EMTALA is baseless. EMTALA requires — 474 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise no abortions, preempts no pro-life state laws, and explicitly requires stabilization of the unborn child. HHS should rescind the guidance and end CMS and state agency investigations into cases of alleged refusals to perform abortions. DOJ should agree to eliminate existing injunctions against pro-life states, withdraw its enforcement lawsuits, and in lawsuits against CMS on the guidance agree to injunctions against CMS and withdraw appeals of injunctions. l Reissue a stronger transgender national coverage determination. CMS should repromulgate its 2016 decision that CMS could not issue a National Coverage Determination (NCD) regarding “gender reassignment surgery” for Medicare beneficiaries. In doing so, CMS should acknowledge the growing body of evidence that such interventions are dangerous and acknowledge that there is insufficient scientific evidence to support such coverage in state plans. l Enforce EMTALA. The undeniable reality of abortion is that it does do not always result in a dead baby, and these born-alive babies are left to die. HHS should use EMTALA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act,53 which prohibits disability discrimination, to investigate instances of infants born alive and left untreated in covered hospitals. CMS, OCR, and OIG should be required to follow through on these investigations with specific enforcement actions. HHS should revive a Trump Administration proposed regulation, “Special Responsibilities of Medicare Hospitals in Emergency Cases and Discrimination on the Basis of Disability in Critical Health and Human Service Programs or Activities,”54 to achieve this end. In addition, Congress should pass the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act55 to require that proper medical care be given to infants who survive an abortion and to establish criminal consequences for practitioners who fail to provide such care. l Permanently codify both the Hyde family of amendments and the protections provided by the Weldon Amendment. Congress can accomplish this through legislation such as the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act56 (Hyde) and the Conscience Protection Act57 (Weldon).

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.

Related Bills

Other Bills by Rep. Moolenaar, John R.

LOCOMOTIVES Act

119/hr/3194

Medicare Access to Rural Anesthesiology Act

119/hr/9642

GUARD Act of 2026

119/hr/9129

Back to All Bills