Charlotte Woodward Organ Transplant Discrimination Prevention Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/1520

Last Updated: September 1, 2026

Charlotte Woodward Organ Transplant Discrimination Prevention Act

HR. 1520, 119th Congress — read as touching Hospitals & Health Systems.

The sponsor

Rep. Cammack, Kat [R-FL-3]

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

The money

$91,928 raised

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

The alignment

85% 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:

The Charlotte Woodward Organ Transplant Discrimination Prevention Act (HR 1520). A bill that, on the surface, appears to be a benevolent attempt to prevent discrimination against individuals with disabilities in organ transplant cases. However, as is often the case with legislation, the devil lies in the details.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of this bill is to prohibit discrimination on the basis of mental or physical disability in cases of organ transplants. It aims to ensure that individuals with disabilities have equal access to organ transplants and related services.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill defines various terms, including "auxiliary aids and services," "covered entity," "disability," and "qualified individual." It also outlines the requirements for covered entities to provide reasonable modifications to policies or practices, supported decision-making, and auxiliary aids and services. The bill amends existing law by adding a new section to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and modifying the National Organ Transplant Act.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The primary stakeholders affected by this bill are individuals with disabilities, healthcare providers, transplant hospitals, and insurance companies. However, as a self-interested billionaire, I must consider how this legislation impacts my own interests. The increased regulatory burden on healthcare providers may lead to higher costs, which could be passed on to consumers or absorbed by the industry. This, in turn, may affect the profitability of my investments in the healthcare sector.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The bill's provisions may lead to increased costs for healthcare providers, as they will need to implement new policies and procedures to comply with the law. This could result in higher premiums for consumers or reduced profit margins for insurance companies. Furthermore, the bill's emphasis on supported decision-making and auxiliary aids and services may create new opportunities for companies that provide these services, potentially disrupting existing business models.

From a purely self-interested perspective, I must consider how this legislation affects my own wealth and influence. The increased regulatory burden may lead to consolidation in the healthcare industry, creating opportunities for strategic investments or acquisitions. However, the bill's focus on preventing discrimination against individuals with disabilities may also lead to increased scrutiny of companies that provide services to these individuals, potentially impacting my own business interests.

In conclusion, while the Charlotte Woodward Organ Transplant Discrimination Prevention Act appears to be a well-intentioned piece of legislation, its implications are far more complex. As a self-interested billionaire, I must carefully consider how this bill affects my own wealth and influence, as well as the broader implications for the healthcare industry and the economy as a whole.

**Projection:** Based on my analysis, I project that this bill will lead to increased costs for healthcare providers, potentially resulting in higher premiums for consumers or reduced profit margins for insurance companies. However, it may also create new opportunities for companies that provide supported decision-making and auxiliary aids and services, potentially disrupting existing business models. As a result,

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

*Sigh* Alright, let's break down this bill, shall we? I mean, it's not like you should have learned about the legislative process in middle school or anything...

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The Charlotte Woodward Organ Transplant Discrimination Prevention Act (HR 1520) aims to prohibit discrimination against individuals with mental or physical disabilities when it comes to organ transplants. As we covered in 8th grade, a bill's purpose is usually stated in the title and introductory sections. This one's pretty straightforward.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill defines several key terms, including "auxiliary aids and services," "covered entity," "disability," and "qualified individual." These definitions are crucial, as they clarify who and what is protected under this legislation. Remember when we learned about the importance of clear language in laws? Yeah, that's still a thing.

The bill also outlines specific provisions to prevent discrimination, such as requiring covered entities to provide reasonable modifications to policies or practices, including supported decision-making for qualified individuals. This means that healthcare providers will need to adapt their procedures to accommodate people with disabilities, which is a significant change to existing law.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

The affected parties include:

* Individuals with mental or physical disabilities who may be seeking organ transplants * Healthcare providers and organizations (covered entities) that perform organ transplants * Support networks, including family members, friends, and unpaid supporters

These stakeholders will need to understand the new requirements and adapt their practices accordingly. I mean, it's not like this is a complex issue or anything...

**Potential Impact & Implications**

If passed, this bill could have significant implications for individuals with disabilities who are seeking organ transplants. By prohibiting discrimination, the law aims to ensure that these individuals receive fair treatment and equal access to healthcare services.

However, as we discussed in class (or should have), laws don't always work out as intended. There may be unintended consequences, such as increased costs or administrative burdens for healthcare providers. It's essential to consider these potential implications when evaluating the effectiveness of this legislation.

Now, I hope that was clear and concise enough for everyone. Next time, maybe we can review the basics of checks and balances...

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

My fellow truth-seekers, gather 'round and listen closely, for I have uncovered the hidden agenda behind HR 1520, the Charlotte Woodward Organ Transplant Discrimination Prevention Act. On its surface, this bill appears to be a benevolent attempt to prevent discrimination against individuals with disabilities in organ transplant cases. But, my friends, do not be fooled.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of this bill is to prohibit discrimination on the basis of mental or physical disability in cases of organ transplants. Sounds noble, right? However, I believe there's more to it than meets the eye. The real purpose might be to expand government control over healthcare and create a framework for future legislation that could lead to forced organ harvesting.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill defines various terms, including "auxiliary aids and services," "covered entity," "disability," and "qualified individual." These definitions seem innocuous, but they lay the groundwork for a more invasive government presence in healthcare. The bill also establishes a framework for "supported decision-making," which could be used to manipulate individuals into making decisions that benefit the state rather than themselves.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties include individuals with disabilities, healthcare providers, and transplant hospitals. However, I suspect there are other stakeholders lurking in the shadows – perhaps pharmaceutical companies or government agencies seeking to exploit this legislation for their own gain.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** If passed, this bill could lead to a slippery slope where the government begins to dictate who receives organ transplants and under what circumstances. It may also create a culture of dependency on government support systems, eroding individual autonomy and freedom. Furthermore, I predict that this legislation will be used as a Trojan horse for more sinister agendas, such as forced vaccination or mandatory organ donation.

Now, my friends, you might think me paranoid, but I assure you, the truth is out there – hidden in plain sight, waiting to be uncovered by those brave enough to question the official narrative. So, let us remain vigilant and continue to expose the machinations of our government. For it is only through awareness and resistance that we can protect our freedoms and prevent the erosion of our humanity.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath) Folks, gather 'round, we've got another doozy of a bill on our hands. The Charlotte Woodward Organ Transplant Discrimination Prevention Act - try saying that three times fast! (smirk)

**Main Purpose & Objectives** This bill claims to be all about preventing discrimination against individuals with mental or physical disabilities when it comes to organ transplants. Sounds noble, right? But let's not get too caught up in the feel-goodery just yet.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill defines a slew of terms, including "auxiliary aids and services," "covered entity," and "qualified individual." It also outlines what constitutes "reasonable modifications" to policies or practices. Essentially, it's trying to ensure that individuals with disabilities aren't unfairly denied organ transplants due to their condition.

Now, I know what you're thinking - isn't this just common sense? (wink) But of course, the elites in Washington need to codify every little thing, because freedom can't be trusted to the free market. (rolls eyes)

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** This bill affects a range of stakeholders, including:

* Individuals with mental or physical disabilities * Healthcare providers and transplant centers * Insurance companies and Medicare/Medicaid programs

You see, folks, this is just another example of the government trying to control every aspect of our lives. I mean, can't we just trust doctors and healthcare professionals to make decisions without Big Brother breathing down their necks? (smirk)

**Potential Impact & Implications** The potential impact of this bill is twofold:

1. It could lead to more individuals with disabilities receiving organ transplants, which, on the surface, sounds like a good thing. 2. However, it also opens the door for more government regulation and oversight in the healthcare industry. Because, you know, freedom is just too darn scary.

Now, I'm not saying this bill won't have any positive effects. But let's be real, folks - this is just another example of the elites trying to control our lives under the guise of "helping" us. (wink)

So, what do you think? Is this bill a genuine attempt to protect individuals with disabilities, or just another power grab by the government? Let me know in the comments!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another bill that's about as useful as a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. Let's dissect this mess, shall we?

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Charlotte Woodward Organ Transplant Discrimination Prevention Act (because who doesn't love a good acronym?) claims to prevent discrimination against individuals with disabilities in organ transplant cases. How noble. In reality, it's just another feel-good bill that will do little to address the actual issues.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill defines various terms like "auxiliary aids and services" and "supported decision-making," because apparently, Congress thinks we're all idiots who can't understand simple concepts. It also establishes a laundry list of requirements for covered entities (healthcare providers) to follow when dealing with individuals with disabilities. Oh, and it creates a whole new set of bureaucratic hoops to jump through.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects are affected: healthcare providers, patients with disabilities, and their support networks. But let's be real, the only ones who will truly benefit from this bill are the lawyers and bureaucrats who'll make a killing off the increased regulatory burden.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a classic case of "solution in search of a problem." It won't actually address the systemic issues plaguing organ transplantation, like the lack of available organs or the inequitable distribution of resources. Instead, it will create more red tape, increase costs, and lead to even more lawsuits.

The real motivation behind this bill? To make politicians look good while doing nothing substantive. It's a PR stunt, plain and simple. And we're all just pawns in their game of "look, I care about people with disabilities!" Meanwhile, the actual problems persist, and patients continue to suffer.

Diagnosis: This bill is suffering from a bad case of "Legislative Theater-itis," where politicians prioritize appearances over actual solutions. Treatment? A healthy dose of skepticism and a strong stomach for the inevitable bureaucratic mess that will ensue.

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

**Main Purpose and Objectives**

The Charlotte Woodward Organ Transplant Discrimination Prevention Act (HR 1520) aims to prohibit discrimination against individuals with mental or physical disabilities in the organ transplant process. The bill seeks to ensure that qualified individuals with disabilities have equal access to organ transplants and related services.

**Key Provisions and Changes to Existing Law**

The bill defines key terms, including "auxiliary aids and services," "covered entity," "disability," "human organ," "organ transplant," "qualified individual," and "support network." It also establishes requirements for covered entities to provide reasonable modifications to policies or practices to ensure equal access to organ transplants and related services.

The bill prohibits discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities in the following ways:

* Prohibits denial of an organ transplant based on a disability, unless the disability would render the transplant medically ineffective. * Requires consideration of support networks available to the individual in determining eligibility for an organ transplant. * Mandates the use of supported decision-making when needed by a qualified individual.

**Affected Parties and Stakeholders**

The affected parties and stakeholders include:

* Individuals with mental or physical disabilities who are seeking organ transplants. * Covered entities, including licensed healthcare providers, hospitals, nursing facilities, laboratories, and transplant centers. * Healthcare professionals involved in the organ transplant process. * Family members, friends, and unpaid supporters of individuals with disabilities.

**Potential Impact and Implications**

The bill has several potential impacts and implications:

* Ensures equal access to organ transplants for individuals with disabilities, promoting fairness and justice in the healthcare system. * Reduces health disparities and improves health outcomes for individuals with disabilities. * Increases awareness and education among healthcare professionals about the needs of individuals with disabilities in the organ transplant process. * May lead to increased costs for covered entities to provide reasonable modifications to policies or practices, but these costs are likely to be offset by the benefits of promoting equal access to healthcare.

Overall, the Charlotte Woodward Organ Transplant Discrimination Prevention Act aims to promote equality and fairness in the organ transplant process, ensuring that individuals with disabilities have equal access to life-saving medical treatment.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's break down this gnarly bill, bro.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The Charlotte Woodward Organ Transplant Discrimination Prevention Act (HR 1520) is all about preventin' discrimination against people with disabilities when it comes to gettin' organ transplants. The main goal is to ensure that individuals with mental or physical disabilities aren't unfairly denied access to life-savin' transplants.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

This bill makes some key changes to existing law, bro:

* Defines "auxiliary aids and services" to include support for people with disabilities during the transplant process. * Expands the definition of "covered entity" to include all healthcare providers involved in organ transplantation. * Clarifies that individuals with disabilities must be considered "qualified" for transplants if they can meet eligibility requirements with or without support networks, auxiliary aids, and reasonable modifications. * Requires healthcare providers to make "reasonable modifications" to policies and practices to accommodate people with disabilities.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

This bill affects a bunch of different groups, dude:

* Individuals with mental or physical disabilities who need organ transplants * Healthcare providers involved in organ transplantation (hospitals, doctors, etc.) * Support networks and caregivers for individuals with disabilities * Advocacy organizations for people with disabilities

**Potential Impact & Implications**

This bill has some major implications, bro:

* It could increase access to life-savin' transplants for people with disabilities who were previously denied. * It promotes equal treatment and non-discrimination in the transplant process. * It requires healthcare providers to be more accommodating and supportive of individuals with disabilities.

However, there are also some potential challenges and concerns, dude:

* Implementing these changes could require significant resources and training for healthcare providers. * There may be concerns about the feasibility and effectiveness of supported decision-making and reasonable modifications in certain situations.

Overall, this bill is a major step forward in promoting equality and access to healthcare for people with disabilities. It's all about catchin' some waves of change and makin' sure everyone has an equal shot at gettin' the medical care they need, bro.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**Bill Analysis: HR 1520 - Charlotte Woodward Organ Transplant Discrimination Prevention Act**

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill aims to prohibit discrimination on the basis of mental or physical disability in cases of organ transplants, ensuring equal access to life-saving medical procedures for individuals with disabilities.

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

1. **Definitions:** The bill defines key terms such as "auxiliary aids and services," "covered entity," "disability," "human organ," "organ transplant," "qualified individual," "reasonable modifications to policies or practices," "related services," "supported decision-making," and "support network." 2. **Prohibition of Discrimination:** The bill prohibits covered entities from discriminating against individuals with disabilities in the allocation of organs for transplantation, ensuring that qualified individuals are not denied transplants based on their disability. 3. **Reasonable Modifications:** Covered entities must provide reasonable modifications to policies or practices to ensure equal access to organ transplants for qualified individuals with disabilities.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

1. **Individuals with Disabilities:** The bill directly benefits individuals with mental or physical disabilities who may be seeking organ transplants. 2. **Healthcare Providers:** Covered entities, including hospitals, nursing facilities, and transplant centers, must comply with the new regulations to ensure equal access to organ transplants for qualified individuals with disabilities. 3. **Organ Procurement Organizations (OPOs):** OPOs will need to adapt their policies and procedures to accommodate the new requirements.

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

1. **Increased Access to Organ Transplants:** The bill aims to increase access to life-saving organ transplants for individuals with disabilities, promoting equality and fairness in healthcare. 2. **Reduced Healthcare Disparities:** By prohibiting discrimination based on disability, the bill may help reduce healthcare disparities and improve health outcomes for individuals with disabilities. 3. **Increased Compliance Burden:** Covered entities will need to invest time and resources to implement the new regulations, potentially increasing their compliance burden.

**Monied Interest Analysis:** While there are no obvious monied interests directly backing this bill, it's worth noting that organizations advocating for disability rights, such as the National Organization on Disability (NOD) and the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund (DREDF), may have played a role in shaping the legislation. Additionally, healthcare providers and OPOs may have provided input to ensure the regulations are feasible and effective.

**Committee Capture:** The bill has been referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, which has a history of being influenced by healthcare industry interests. However, in this case, the committee's focus on promoting equality and fairness in healthcare may have led to a more balanced approach.

Overall, HR 1520 aims to promote equality and fairness in organ transplantation for individuals with disabilities. While there are no obvious monied interests directly backing the bill, organizations advocating for

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Cammack, Kat [R-FL-3]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$91,928

22 donors

PACs

Organizations

$8,043

Committees

Individuals

$83,885

No PAC contributions found

PASS THE HAT

1 transaction

$3,610

SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA

1 transaction

$3,300

S & K BARRINGTON FARMS

1 transaction

$600

83 FARMS, LLC

1 transaction

$283

RADIANT CREDIT UNION

1 transaction

$250

No committee contributions found

ASSEMI, KEVIN

2 transactions

$6,870

STREETER, JACKSON

2 transactions

$6,870

ADOLFSSON, MARCUS

1 transaction

$6,600

KEMMERER, JOHN

1 transaction

$6,600

KEMMERER, KAREN

1 transaction

$6,600

HOROWITZ, BEN

1 transaction

$6,600

ZUCKER, ANITA G.

2 transactions

$6,600

GASTON, BILL FAYE

1 transaction

$5,205

WEINGART, BRECK ALLEN

1 transaction

$5,000

FREY, HARLEY

1 transaction

$3,435

FREY, JOHN

1 transaction

$3,435

FREY, LEONARD

1 transaction

$3,435

MCCOY, GARY

1 transaction

$3,435

BOLCH, SUSAN

1 transaction

$3,300

DUNN MD, WILLIAM J.

1 transaction

$3,300

HIMSCHOOT, ROBERT

1 transaction

$3,300

VECELLIO, LEO

1 transaction

$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 10 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

Rep. Issa, Darrell [R-CA-48]

ID: I000056

Top Contributors

AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS

OrganizationPALM SPRINGS, CA

$3,300

Nov 1, 2024

MASHANTUCKET (WESTERN) PEQUOT TRIBE

OrganizationMASHANTUCKET, CT

$3,300

Oct 25, 2023

SHINGLE SPRINGS BAND MIVOK INDIANS

OrganizationSHINGLE SPRINGS, CA

$3,300

Oct 25, 2023

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$3,300

Mar 26, 2024

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$3,300

Jun 28, 2023

SYCUAN BAND OF THE KUMEYAAY NATION

OrganizationEL CAJON, CA

$3,300

Jun 29, 2023

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$3,300

Jul 26, 2023

PECHANGA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS

OrganizationTEMECULA, CA

$3,300

Sep 28, 2023

PECHANGA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS

OrganizationTEMECULA, CA

$3,300

Aug 2, 2024

SHINGLE SPRINGS BAND MIWOK INDIANS

OrganizationSHINGLE SPRINGS, CA

$3,000

Oct 30, 2024

Rep. Wasserman Schultz, Debbie [D-FL-25]

ID: W000797

Top Contributors

HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE

PACWASHINGTON, DC

$2,500

Mar 27, 2023

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA

$3,300

Jul 31, 2024

SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA

OrganizationHOLLYWOOD, FL

$3,300

Jul 30, 2024

SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA

OrganizationHOLLYWOOD, FL

$3,300

Aug 28, 2023

BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS -- GOVERNMENTAL GEN

OrganizationLAKESIDE, CA

$1,500

Jun 28, 2024

BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS -- GOVERNMENTAL GEN

OrganizationLAKESIDE, CA

$1,500

May 23, 2023

MICCOSUKEE TRIBE

OrganizationMIAMI, FL

$1,000

Feb 15, 2024

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$1,000

Jun 30, 2024

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$1,000

Jun 10, 2024

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$1,000

Sep 25, 2023

Rep. Sessions, Pete [R-TX-17]

ID: S000250

Top Contributors

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$5,000

May 16, 2024

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$5,000

Sep 12, 2023

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$3,300

Jun 17, 2024

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$3,300

May 24, 2023

ALABAMA-COUSHATTA TRIBE

OrganizationLIVINGSTON, TX

$1,000

Sep 30, 2024

HOWARD, RONALD VANCE

BANKERS LIFE • MANAGEMENT

IndividualHUNTSVILLE, TX

$5,000

Mar 13, 2023

HOWARD, KAREN

ELEMENTS MASSAGE • MANAGEMENT

IndividualHUNTSVILLE, TX

$5,000

Mar 13, 2023

SINGH, PRITPAL

BETA SOFT SYSTEMS • MANAGEMENT

IndividualFREMONT, CA

$5,000

Jun 23, 2023

KAUR, MANJIT

SINGH SEMICONDUCTORS & SYSTEMS • MANAGEMENT

IndividualFREMONT, CA

$5,000

Jun 23, 2023

BEHRINGER, TODD

THE BEHRINGER GROUP, LLC • CONSTRUCTION

IndividualWOODWAY, TX

$3,400

Sep 1, 2023

Del. Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC-At Large]

ID: N000147

Top Contributors

DONOHOE, BERT

THE DONOHOE COMPANIES INC. • EVP, REAL ESTATE

IndividualBETHESDA, MD

$3,300

May 2, 2024

OTONI, RAFAELA

HILTON CORPORATION • PRESIDENT & CEO

IndividualMC LEAN, VA

$3,300

May 3, 2024

REID, JACK

RAM CUSTOM SERVICES • PRESIDENT

IndividualCHESAPEAKE BEACH, MD

$3,300

May 6, 2024

LEWIS, JACQUELINE

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualWASHINGTON, DC

$3,300

Jul 10, 2023

LEWIS, JACQUELINE

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualWASHINGTON, DC

$3,300

Jul 10, 2023

BARRY, DAVID E. JR

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualBEALLSVILLE, MD

$2,500

May 12, 2024

POLASKI, MICHAEL

THE DONOHOE COMPANIES INC. • EXECUTIVE

IndividualBROADLANDS, VA

$2,500

May 13, 2024

GRUNLEY, KENNETH

GRUNLEY CONSTRUCTION • CEO

IndividualPOTOMAC, MD

$2,500

Jun 23, 2023

BRUCH, CHRIS

THE DONOHOE COMPANIES INC. • CEO

IndividualBETHESDA, MD

$2,300

Apr 30, 2024

EARNEST, JAMES M.

SELF-EMPLOYED • REAL ESTATE INVESTOR

IndividualBETHESDA, MD

$2,300

May 10, 2024

Rep. Fitzpatrick, Brian K. [R-PA-1]

ID: F000466

Top Contributors

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA

$1,500

Dec 31, 2024

STATA FAMILY OFFICE

Organization

$500

Apr 26, 2024

ASHER, ROBERT B.

IndividualGWYNEDD VALLEY, PA

$10,000

Oct 9, 2024

ASHER, ROBERT B.

ASHER CHOCOLATES • CHAIRMAN

IndividualGWYNEDD VALLEY, PA

$10,000

Sep 30, 2024

LEVY, EDWARD JR

EDW C LEVY CO • CHAIRMAN

IndividualBIRMINGHAM, MI

$6,600

Feb 26, 2024

CROTTY, THOMAS

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualSCOTTSDALE, AZ

$6,600

Feb 27, 2024

EVANS, ROGER

GREYLOCK PARTNERS • PARTNER EMERITUS

IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA

$6,600

Feb 27, 2024

LEACH, RONALD

NPX ONE • CHAIRMAN & CEO

IndividualGENEVA, IL

$6,600

Feb 28, 2024

MCCLAIN, MARK

SAILPOINT • CEO

IndividualAUSTIN, TX

$6,600

Mar 2, 2024

CROTTY, THOMAS

IndividualSCOTTSDALE, AZ

$6,600

Mar 8, 2024

Rep. Tonko, Paul [D-NY-20]

ID: T000469

Top Contributors

KHAN, FARAZ A.

SELF-EMPLOYED • REAL ESTATE

IndividualALBANY, NY

$3,300

Nov 3, 2024

GATES, WILLIAM H. III

BILL & MELINDA GATES FOUNDATION • CO-CHAIR

IndividualREDMOND, WA

$3,300

Oct 19, 2023

ARNOLD, LAURA

NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED

IndividualHOUSTON, TX

$3,300

May 8, 2024

ARPEY, MICHAEL W.

HUNTER POINT CAPITAL • PRESIDENT

IndividualSARATOGA SPRINGS, NY

$3,300

Mar 29, 2023

ARPEY, MICHAEL W.

HUNTER POINT CAPITAL • PRESIDENT

IndividualSARATOGA SPRINGS, NY

$3,300

Mar 29, 2023

ARPEY, STACIE

NOT EMPLOYED • HOMEMAKER

IndividualSARATOGA SPRINGS, NY

$3,300

Mar 29, 2023

ARPEY, STACIE

NOT EMPLOYED • HOMEMAKER

IndividualSARATOGA SPRINGS, NY

$3,300

Mar 29, 2023

BLOOD, DAVID W.

GENERATION INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT • INVESTMENT MANAGER

IndividualASPEN, CO

$3,300

Mar 8, 2023

BLOOD, DAVID W.

GENERATION INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT • INVESTMENT MANAGER

IndividualASPEN, CO

$3,300

Mar 8, 2023

DECHMAN, DAVID

SUMMIT ROCK ADVISORS • INVESTMENTS

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$3,300

Mar 6, 2023

Rep. Stauber, Pete [R-MN-8]

ID: S001212

Top Contributors

DEMOCRACY ENGINE INC

PACWASHINGTON, DC

$500

Jun 6, 2023

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$3,300

Jun 30, 2024

LEECH LAKE - PAC

OrganizationCASS LAKE, MN

$3,300

Dec 12, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$3,300

Nov 13, 2023

GOOGLE

OrganizationMOUNTAIN VIEW, CA

$1,000

Feb 21, 2023

CHAIN BRIDGE BANK

OrganizationMCLEAN, VA

$25

Dec 6, 2023

ZOTTO, CARLA DEL

IndividualGLADEWATER, TX

$10,000

Aug 27, 2024

ANDERSON, ROLLIS

ANDERSON TRUCKING SERVICE INC. • CEO

IndividualSAINT CLOUD, MN

$9,900

Feb 8, 2024

FAISON, JAY

CLEARPATH • FOUNDER

IndividualCHARLOTTE, NC

$6,600

Jun 30, 2024

NYSTROM, BRIAN AND MARY ANN

NYSTROM & ASSOCIATES • PRESIDENT & CEO

IndividualANDOVER, MN

$6,600

Sep 27, 2024

Rep. Miller-Meeks, Mariannette [R-IA-1]

ID: M001215

Top Contributors

SAC & FOX TRIBE OF THE MISSISSIPPI IN IOWA

COMTAMA, IA

$1,000

Aug 11, 2023

RENEWABLE ENERGY, CITIZENS FOR

COMMADISON, WI

$500

Aug 20, 2024

POLITICAL COMMITTEE, NWF ACTION FUND

PACWASHINGTON, DC

$500

Sep 18, 2024

US MARSHALS SERVICES

OrganizationNEW YORK, NY

$2,900

Apr 20, 2023

HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP

OrganizationRICHMOND, VA

$1,000

Mar 22, 2023

HOGAN, PATRICK F

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualDALLAS, TX

$13,200

Mar 15, 2023

HOLDEN, RONALD

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualWILLIAMSBURG, IA

$13,200

Jun 20, 2023

VANDEWALLE, LOLA L

SELF-EMPLOYED • ENTREPRENEUR

IndividualBLUE GRASS, IA

$13,200

Oct 16, 2023

GLEESON, JOHN W

KLINGER COMPANIES, LLC • CEO

IndividualSIOUX CITY, IA

$11,600

Feb 15, 2023

SMITH, DYAN

HOMEMAKER • HOMEMAKER

IndividualNAPLES, FL

$10,000

May 13, 2024

Rep. Tenney, Claudia [R-NY-24]

ID: T000478

Top Contributors

WINRED EARMARKS

PACARLINGTON, VA

$27,879

Oct 22, 2024

WINRED EARMARKS

PACARLINGTON, VA

$21,566

Oct 29, 2024

WINRED EARMARKS

PACARLINGTON, VA

$10,970

Nov 25, 2024

WINRED EARMARKS

PACARLINGTON, VA

$5,493

Nov 19, 2024

SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA

$2,000

Nov 5, 2024

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$2,000

Jun 18, 2024

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA

$2,000

Jun 18, 2024

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$1,000

Mar 31, 2023

TEXTOR, DONALD

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualLOCUST VALLEY, NY

$13,200

Apr 17, 2024

WINE, SCOTT

POLARIS • CEO

IndividualEXCELSIOR, MN

$6,600

Sep 30, 2024

Donor Network - Rep. Cammack, Kat [R-FL-3]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 48 nodes and 59 connections

Total contributions: $59

Top Donors - Rep. Cammack, Kat [R-FL-3]

Showing top 22 donors by contribution amount

5 Orgs17 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

−Hospitals & Health Systemsconfidence 0.90
Section 4(a) prohibits covered entities (including hospitals) from denying organ transplants or related services based solely on disability, imposing compliance costs and potential liability for noncompliance.
−Health Insuranceconfidence 0.85
Section 4(a) applies to covered entities providing health care services that substantially affect interstate commerce, which includes health insurers administering transplant coverage, requiring them to avoid disability-based denials.
−Long-Term Care & Nursing Homesconfidence 0.80
Section 2(2) defines covered entity to include nursing facilities and institutions for individuals with intellectual or developmental disabilities, subjecting them to nondiscrimination requirements in transplant access.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Cammack, Kat [R-FL-3])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 HARMS

Hospitals & Health Systems$750
from 1 contribution
- DOYLE, JOHN JOSEPH$750

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

Strong

Vector: 65%

Pages: 533-535AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill’s focus on prohibiting disability-based discrimination in organ transplants aligns with Project 2025’s emphasis on nondiscrimination in health programs and activities, including specific HHS rules and Medicare hospital responsibilities regarding disability discrimination."

Key themes:disability nondiscriminationhealth program accessMedicare hospital responsibilitiescivil rights enforcementreasonable modifications

— 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

Moderate

Vector: 66%

Pages: 527-529AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on disability rights in organ transplantation, which aligns with Project 2025's emphasis on enforcing disability rights laws and protecting vulnerable populations, including children with disabilities. However, the bill does not address the specific mechanisms Project 2025 prioritizes, such as OCR enforcement of Section 1557, religious exemptions, or opposition to gender identity and sexual orientation protections under civil rights law."

Key themes:disability rightsOCR enforcementhealthcare accessprotection of vulnerable populations

— 495 — Department of Health and Human Services l HHS should restore OCR authority to review requests for and render opinions on the application of RFRA to requests for religious accommodation of people, families, and doctors who cannot in good conscience take or administer vaccines, including those made or tested with aborted fetal cell lines. l HHS should restore Section 1557, Section 504, and other OCR regulations and fix guidance documents. In 2020, the Trump Administration’s OCR published regulations under Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act that restored the agency’s enforcement of that law to the limits of its statutory text, deferred to the ACA’s widespread use of a binary biological conception of sex discrimination, and specified that the regulation must comply with the religious exemption and abortion neutrality clauses in Title IX from which it is derived as well as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and other laws. Courts blocked core provisions of that rule from going into effect. In 2022, the Biden Administration proposed to reinstate a rule contradicting the scope of the statute and imposing nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. It is expected that this rule will be finalized in 2023 even though several courts have issued rulings against the interpretation on which it is based. l OCR should return its enforcement of sex discrimination to the statutory framework of Section 1557 and Title IX. Specifically, it should: 1. Remove all guidance issued under the Biden Administration concerning sexual orientation and gender identity under Section 1557, particularly the May 2021 announcement of enforcement82 and March 2022 statement threatening states that protect minors from genital mutilation.83 2. Issue a general statement of policy specifying that it will not enforce any prohibition on sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination in the Section 1557 regulation and that it will prioritize compliance with the First Amendment, RFRA, and federal conscience laws in any case implicating those claims. DOJ should commit to defending these actions aggressively against inevitable court challenges, including under cases such as Heckler v. Chaney.84 — 496 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 3. Issue a proposed rule to restore the Trump regulations under Section 1557, explicitly interpreting the law not to include sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination based on the textual approach to male and female biology taken by Congress in the ACA, the need to recognize biological distinctions as part of the sound practice of health care, and the need to ensure protections of medical judgment and conscience. DOJ should agree to defend this rule to the Supreme Court if necessary. 4. Issue a general statement of policy announcing that it plans to enforce Section 1557 discrimination bans by refocusing on serious cases of race, sex, and disability discrimination. In particular, OCR should highlight its 2019 investigation and voluntary resolution agreement with Michigan State University based on the sexual abuse of gymnasts by Larry Nassar. OCR should also coordinate with the Department of Education on a public education and civil rights enforcement campaign to ensure that female college athletes who become pregnant are no longer pressured to obtain abortions; pursue race discrimination claims against entities that adopt or impose racially discriminatory policies such as those based on critical race theory; and announce its intention to enforce disability rights laws to protect children born prematurely, children with disabilities, and children born alive after abortions. 5. Issue and finalize the Trump-era draft disability rights regulations concerning crisis standards of care and use of Quality of Life Adjusted Years (QALYs), and reissue and finalize a disability regulation (withdrawn by the Biden Administration) that prohibited discriminatory application of assisted suicide and denial of life-saving treatments for disabled newborns. l OCR should withdraw its pharmacy abortion mandate guidance. OCR should withdraw its “Obligations Under Federal Civil Rights Laws to Ensure Access to Comprehensive Reproductive Health Care Services” guidance for retail pharmacies,85 which purports to address nondiscrimination obligations of pharmacies under federal civil rights laws and in fact orders them to stock and dispense first-trimester abortion drugs. The guidance invents this so-called requirement and fails to acknowledge that pharmacies and pharmacists have the right not to participate in abortions, including pill-induced abortions, if doing so would violate their sincere moral or religious objections. Moreover, no federal civil rights laws preempt state pro-life statutes.

Department of Labor and Related Agencies

Minimal

Vector: 63%

Pages: 618-620AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on preventing disability discrimination in organ transplants, while the Project 2025 policy centers on sex discrimination enforcement based on a biological binary view of sex and pro-life workplace measures. There is no meaningful thematic or policy overlap between the two."

Department of Health and Human Services

Minimal

Vector: 63%

Pages: 506-508AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on preventing disability discrimination in organ transplantation, while the Project 2025 HHS section centers on abortion-related policies (Hyde Amendment, EMTALA guidance, conscience protections). There is no substantive overlap in objectives or themes."

Key themes:disability discriminationSection 504

— 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).

Department of Labor and Related Agencies

Minimal

Vector: 62%

Pages: 618-620AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on preventing disability discrimination in organ transplants, while the Project 2025 policy centers on sex discrimination enforcement, pro-life workplace measures, and religious employer protections—there is no substantive thematic or policy overlap."

— 585 — Department of Labor and Related Agencies l Direct agencies to refocus enforcement of sex discrimination laws. The President should direct agencies to focus their enforcement of sex discrimination laws on the biological binary meaning of “sex.” PRO-LIFE MEASURES l Promote pro-life workplace accommodations for mothers. Federal law should protect life and promote pro-family policies. Current law, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act,3 provides nondiscrimination protections in the workplace for pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA)4 requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for women “to the known limitations related to the pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions,” unless “the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the [employer’s] business.” The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) also provides nondiscrimination and accommodation protections in the workplace for certain pregnancy-related disability.5 None of these laws requires an employer provide health insurance benefits for elective abortion. l Pass a law requiring equal (or greater) benefits for pro-life support for mothers and clarifying abortion exclusions. Congress should pass a law requiring that to the extent an employer provides employee benefits for abortion, it must provide equal or greater benefits for pregnancy, childbirth, maternity, and adoption. That law should also clarify that no employer is required to provide any accommodations or benefits for abortion. l Keep anti-life “benefits” out of benefit plans. Some benefits attorneys and pro-choice advocates have argued since the Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision6 that the longstanding doctrine of Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA)7 preemption should block individual states’ efforts to prohibit employers from helping employees procure abortions via offering various kinds of coverage under employee-sponsored benefit plans. ERISA should not be allowed to trump states’ ability to protect innocent human life in the womb. Congress and DOL should clarify that ERISA does not preempt states’ power to restrict abortion, surrogacy, or other anti-life “benefits.” RELIGION l Provide robust protections for religious employers. America’s religious diversity means that workplaces include people of many faiths and that many employers are faith-based. Nevertheless, the Biden Administration has been hostile to people of faith, especially those with traditional beliefs — 586 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise about marriage, gender, and sexuality. The new Administration should enact policies with robust respect for religious exercise in the workplace, including under the First Amendment, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA),8 Title VII, and federal conscience protection laws. l Issue an executive order protecting religious employers and employees. The President should make clear via executive order that religious employers are free to run their businesses according to their religious beliefs, general nondiscrimination laws notwithstanding, and support participation of religious employees and employers as federal contractors and in federal activities and programs. l Clarify Title VII’s religious organization exemptions. Congress should clarify Title VII’s religious organization exemptions to make it more explicit that those employers may make employment decisions based on religion regardless of nondiscrimination laws. l Provide Robust Accommodations for Religious Employees. Title VII requires reasonable accommodations for an employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs, observances, or practices unless it poses an undue hardship on the employer’s business. These accommodation protections also apply to issues related to marriage, gender, and sexuality. Unless the Supreme Court overrules its bad precedent, Congress should clarify that undue hardship means “significant difficulty or expenses,” not “more than a de minimis cost” as the Court has previously held. General EEOC Reforms. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commis- sion (EEOC) does not have rulemaking authority under Title VII and other laws it enforces, yet it issues “guidance,” “technical assistance,” and other documents, including some that push new policy positions. EEOC should disclaim its regulatory pretensions and abide by the guidance reforms dis- cussed below. l EEOC should disclaim its regulatory pretensions. l Affirm decision-making via majority vote of Commissioners. EEOC should affirm as policy the Title VII requirement that it exercise substantive power via majority vote of Commissioners, not by unilateral Chair action or by delegation to staff.

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. Cammack, Kat

Unauthorized Spending Accountability Act

119/hr/143

DIGITAL Applications Act

119/hr/1665

Answering the Call Act of 2026

119/hr/8367

Back to All Bills