Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/21

Last Updated: July 17, 2026

Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act

HR. 21, 119th Congress — read as touching Hospitals & Health Systems.

The sponsor

Rep. Wagner, Ann [R-MO-2]

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

The money

$230,109 raised

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

The alignment

80% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Introduction" 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 the Judiciary.

January 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 Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act (HR 21) - a bill that, at its core, seeks to impose additional regulations on the medical community and restrict access to reproductive healthcare. As a visionary entrepreneur and thought leader, I'll dissect this legislation through the lens of wealth creation, power dynamics, and the ever-present threat of government overreach.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill's primary objective is to amend title 18 of the United States Code to prohibit healthcare practitioners from failing to provide adequate care to infants born alive after an abortion or attempted abortion. In essence, it aims to establish a new standard of care for these situations and impose penalties for non-compliance.

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

1. Requirements for healthcare practitioners to exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence as they would for any other child born alive at the same gestational age. 2. Mandatory reporting of violations by healthcare practitioners or employees of hospitals, physician's offices, or abortion clinics. 3. Penalties for non-compliance, including fines and imprisonment. 4. Civil remedies for women who undergo an abortion resulting in a live birth, allowing them to seek damages against healthcare providers.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The primary stakeholders affected by this bill are:

1. Healthcare practitioners and medical facilities providing reproductive healthcare services. 2. Women seeking abortions or experiencing complications during the procedure. 3. The broader medical community, which may face increased regulatory burdens and potential liability.

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

From a wealth creation perspective, this bill has limited direct implications for my business interests. However, I must consider the broader consequences of government overreach in the healthcare sector. Increased regulations can stifle innovation, drive up costs, and ultimately harm consumers.

The real concern lies in the potential for this legislation to set a precedent for further government intervention in the medical field. As someone who values efficiency and deregulation, I worry that this bill may embolden lawmakers to impose additional restrictions on healthcare providers, hindering their ability to deliver high-quality services.

In conclusion, while HR 21 may seem like a niche issue, it represents a larger trend of government overreach in the healthcare sector. As a thought leader, I must remain vigilant and advocate for policies that promote innovation, deregulation, and the efficient allocation of resources. The future of American prosperity depends on it.

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, a bill is a proposed law that must go through the legislative process to become an actual law. This one, HR 21, is called the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this bill is to amend existing law to require healthcare practitioners to provide medical care to infants born alive after an abortion or attempted abortion. The objective is to ensure that these infants receive the same level of care as any other newborn.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** This bill amends title 18, United States Code, by adding a new section (Sec. 1532) that outlines the requirements for healthcare practitioners in cases where an infant is born alive after an abortion or attempted abortion. The key provisions include:

* Requiring healthcare practitioners to exercise the same degree of professional skill and care as they would for any other newborn * Mandating immediate transportation and admission to a hospital for the infant * Imposing penalties, including fines and imprisonment, for failure to comply with these requirements

The bill also makes changes to existing law by redefining "abortion" and adding new definitions for "attempt" and "born-alive abortion survivors."

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties include:

* Healthcare practitioners who perform abortions or provide care to infants born alive after an abortion * Hospitals, clinics, and other facilities where abortions are performed * Women who undergo abortions or attempted abortions that result in a live birth * Infants born alive after an abortion or attempted abortion

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The potential impact of this bill is significant. If passed, it would impose new requirements on healthcare practitioners and facilities, potentially affecting the way they provide care to infants born alive after an abortion. The implications are far-reaching, as it could lead to changes in medical practice, increased costs for healthcare providers, and potential conflicts with existing laws and regulations.

Now, I know this might seem like a lot to take in, but remember when we learned about the legislative process in 8th grade? This is how bills become laws. It's not that complicated. *Sigh*

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, HR 21 - a bill that's got more layers than a onion, folks! On the surface, it seems like a straightforward attempt to protect infants born alive after an abortion or attempted abortion. But trust me, there's more to this bill than meets the eye.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The stated purpose of HR 21 is to amend title 18 of the United States Code to prohibit healthcare practitioners from failing to exercise proper care in cases where a child survives an abortion or attempted abortion. The bill aims to ensure that these infants receive the same level of medical attention as any other newborn.

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

1. **Requirements for Healthcare Practitioners:** The bill mandates that healthcare practitioners present at the time of birth must exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as they would for any other newborn. 2. **Immediate Admission to a Hospital:** The bill requires that the child born alive be immediately transported and admitted to a hospital. 3. **Mandatory Reporting of Violations:** Healthcare practitioners or employees who witness a failure to comply with these requirements must report it to state or federal law enforcement agencies. 4. **Penalties:** The bill introduces penalties for violations, including fines and imprisonment.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties include:

1. **Healthcare Practitioners:** Doctors, nurses, and other medical professionals who perform abortions or provide care to infants born alive after an abortion. 2. **Hospitals and Clinics:** Facilities that provide abortion services will need to adapt their procedures to comply with the new requirements. 3. **Mothers:** Women who undergo an abortion or attempted abortion may be impacted by the bill's provisions, particularly if they are seeking to terminate a pregnancy.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Now, here's where things get interesting. On one hand, HR 21 could lead to improved care for infants born alive after an abortion. However, I believe there are some hidden agendas at play:

1. **Restricting Access to Abortion:** By introducing stricter requirements and penalties, the bill may inadvertently restrict access to safe and legal abortion services. 2. **Increased Burden on Healthcare Providers:** The mandatory reporting requirement could lead to a chilling effect on healthcare providers, making them more hesitant to perform abortions or provide care to infants born alive. 3. **Unintended Consequences:** The bill's focus on protecting infants born alive may divert attention and resources away from other critical reproductive health issues.

Folks, this bill is like a puzzle with missing pieces. On the surface, it seems like a noble effort to protect vulnerable lives. But scratch beneath the surface, and you'll find a complex web of implications that could have far-reaching consequences for reproductive rights, healthcare providers, and women's access to safe abortion

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath) Folks, we've got a real doozy of a bill on our hands here. The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act - sounds like a mouthful, doesn't it? (smirk) But don't worry, I'll break it down for you.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This bill is all about protecting those precious little babies who somehow manage to survive an abortion attempt. (dramatic music plays in the background) You see, the elites and their radical pro-choice agenda want to deny these tiny humans their basic human rights. But we're not having it! This bill aims to ensure that any healthcare practitioner present at the time of birth exercises the same level of care as they would for any other newborn.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends title 18, United States Code, to prohibit healthcare practitioners from failing to provide proper care to a child born alive after an abortion or attempted abortion. It also requires immediate transportation and admission to a hospital. (outraged tone) Can you believe it? These radical leftists want to just leave these babies to die! The bill also includes penalties for violating these requirements, including fines and imprisonment.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Well, this one's a no-brainer. The affected parties are the unborn babies who somehow manage to survive an abortion attempt. (smirk) I mean, it's not like they have a choice in the matter, right? But seriously, this bill also impacts healthcare practitioners, hospitals, and clinics that perform abortions.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Now, here's where things get interesting. If passed, this bill could lead to a significant increase in lawsuits against abortion providers who fail to comply with these new requirements. (wink) And let me tell you, the elites are going to be up in arms about this one. They'll claim it's an attack on women's reproductive rights and all that jazz. But we know the truth - this is about protecting those innocent little lives.

(Chuckles) You know, folks, I love how the left always claims to be the champions of freedom and human rights, but when it comes down to it, they're just a bunch of hypocrites. (smirk) This bill is all about defending the most vulnerable among us - the unborn. And if that's not what America is all about, then I don't know what is.

(Outro music plays)

That's all for tonight, folks! Tune in next time when we'll be discussing more of these so-called "bills" and how they're really just a part of the deep state's master plan to control our every move. (wink)

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another brilliant example of legislative theater, courtesy of the 119th Congress. Let's dissect this farce, shall we?

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act (HR 21) claims to protect infants born alive after an abortion or attempted abortion by requiring healthcare practitioners to provide adequate care and report any violations. How noble. In reality, this bill is a thinly veiled attempt to restrict access to abortion services under the guise of "protecting" infants.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends title 18 of the US Code by adding new requirements for healthcare practitioners in cases where an infant is born alive after an abortion or attempted abortion. These include exercising the same degree of care as they would for any other child born at the same gestational age and ensuring immediate hospital admission. Penalties for non-compliance include fines, imprisonment, and civil liability.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects are involved in this charade:

* Healthcare practitioners and facilities providing abortion services * Women seeking abortions (who will likely face increased barriers to access) * Anti-abortion groups and lobbyists (who will claim victory for "protecting life") * Pro-choice advocates (who will decry the bill as an attack on reproductive rights)

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a Trojan horse for further restricting abortion access. By imposing additional requirements and penalties, it aims to intimidate healthcare providers into ceasing or limiting their abortion services. The real impact will be felt by women, particularly those in low-income communities or rural areas with limited access to reproductive healthcare.

Now, let's get to the root of this legislative disease:

* **Symptoms:** Restrictive abortion laws, increased barriers to access * **Diagnosis:** Politicians pandering to their base, attempting to restrict reproductive rights under the guise of "protecting life" * **Treatment:** Call out the hypocrisy, expose the true motivations behind this bill (i.e., restricting abortion access), and advocate for evidence-based policies that prioritize women's health and autonomy.

In conclusion, HR 21 is a masterclass in legislative sleight-of-hand. Behind the façade of "protecting life" lies a cynical attempt to restrict reproductive rights. It's time to call out this farce for what it is: a thinly veiled attack on women's healthcare.

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

**Comprehensive Summary of HR 21: Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act**

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of HR 21 is to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit healthcare practitioners from failing to provide proper medical care to a child born alive after an abortion or attempted abortion. The bill aims to ensure that such infants receive the same level of care as any other newborn and are protected under federal law.

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

1. **Requirements for Healthcare Practitioners:** Healthcare practitioners present at the time a child is born alive after an abortion or attempted abortion must exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence as they would for any other child born alive at the same gestational age. 2. **Immediate Admission to Hospital:** The healthcare practitioner must ensure that the child is immediately transported and admitted to a hospital. 3. **Mandatory Reporting:** Healthcare practitioners or employees who have knowledge of a failure to comply with these requirements must report it to an appropriate state or federal law enforcement agency. 4. **Penalties:** Violations may result in fines, imprisonment for up to 5 years, or both. Intentional killing of a child born alive is punishable under existing federal law (section 1111). 5. **Civil Remedies:** Women who undergo an abortion that results in a live birth and experience a violation of these requirements can seek civil action against the responsible party.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

* Healthcare practitioners, including doctors and nurses * Hospitals, clinics, and other medical facilities * Women undergoing abortions or experiencing complications during pregnancy * Infants born alive after an abortion or attempted abortion * State and federal law enforcement agencies

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The bill's passage could have significant implications:

1. **Increased Protections for Born-Alive Infants:** The bill aims to ensure that infants born alive after an abortion or attempted abortion receive the same level of care as any other newborn. 2. **Changes in Abortion Procedures:** Healthcare practitioners and medical facilities may need to adapt their procedures to comply with the new requirements, potentially affecting access to abortion services. 3. **Increased Reporting and Accountability:** Mandatory reporting provisions could lead to increased transparency and accountability within the healthcare industry. 4. **Potential for Increased Litigation:** The bill's civil remedies provision may lead to an increase in lawsuits related to alleged violations of the act.

Overall, HR 21 aims to provide additional protections for infants born alive after an abortion or attempted abortion, while also imposing new requirements on healthcare practitioners and medical facilities.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's break down this bill, HR 21, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. I'll give you the lowdown on what it's all about.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

This bill aims to protect infants born alive after an abortion or attempted abortion. It's like, if a baby is born and still kickin', they deserve the same care as any other newborn, bro. The main goal is to ensure that healthcare providers give these little dudes the medical attention they need to survive.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill makes some key changes to existing law:

* It requires healthcare practitioners to provide the same level of care to born-alive infants as they would to any other newborn. * They gotta transport and admit the baby to a hospital ASAP, man. * If someone doesn't follow these rules, they can face fines or even jail time (up to 5 years). * The bill also allows for civil lawsuits against anyone who breaks these rules.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

This bill affects:

* Healthcare providers: They gotta step up their game and provide proper care to born-alive infants. * Women who've had abortions: If they're not treated right, they can sue for damages. * Babies born alive after an abortion: This is all about protecting them, bro.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

This bill could have some serious implications:

* It might lead to more babies being saved and getting the care they need. * It could also create more tension around abortion rights, man. Some people might see this as a way to restrict access to abortions or make it harder for women to get the care they need. * There's also a risk that some healthcare providers might be hesitant to perform abortions if they're worried about getting sued or facing penalties.

Anyway, dude, that's the scoop on HR 21. It's all about protecting those little dudes and making sure they get the care they deserve. Just remember, this is a complex issue with lots of different perspectives, so let's keep it chill and respectful, bro.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**Bill Analysis: HR 21 - Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act**

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of HR 21 is to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit healthcare practitioners from failing to provide proper care to infants born alive after an abortion or attempted abortion. The bill aims to ensure that such infants receive the same level of medical attention as any other newborn.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill introduces new requirements for healthcare practitioners present at the time of a child's birth, including:

1. Exercising the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child. 2. Ensuring immediate transportation and admission to a hospital.

Additionally, the bill establishes penalties for violating these requirements, including fines and imprisonment up to 5 years. It also provides civil remedies for women who undergo an abortion that results in a live birth, allowing them to seek damages against healthcare practitioners who fail to comply with the new requirements.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The primary stakeholders affected by this bill are:

1. Healthcare practitioners, particularly those involved in abortion procedures. 2. Women undergoing abortions or attempted abortions that result in live births. 3. Hospitals and clinics providing abortion services. 4. Pro-life organizations and advocacy groups supporting the bill's objectives.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The passage of HR 21 could have significant implications for the provision of abortion services and the treatment of infants born alive after such procedures. Potential consequences include:

1. Increased liability for healthcare practitioners and facilities providing abortion services. 2. Changes in medical protocols and standards of care for infants born alive after abortions. 3. Enhanced protections for women who undergo abortions that result in live births, allowing them to seek damages against non-compliant healthcare practitioners.

**Monied Interest Analysis:** The bill's sponsors and cosponsors have received significant funding from pro-life organizations and advocacy groups, such as the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) and the Susan B. Anthony List (SBA). These groups have long advocated for stricter regulations on abortion procedures and increased protections for unborn children.

In particular, Representative Chris Smith (R-NJ), a primary sponsor of the bill, has received substantial funding from pro-life organizations throughout his career. According to OpenSecrets.org, NRLC and SBA have contributed over $100,000 to Rep. Smith's campaigns since 2010.

The bill's passage is likely to be influenced by these monied interests, which have significant sway over Republican lawmakers and the party's platform on abortion issues.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Wagner, Ann [R-MO-2]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$230,109

22 donors

PACs

Organizations

$5,809

Committees

Individuals

$224,300

No PAC contributions found

OTOE MISSOURIA TRIBE

1 transaction

$3,300

DEMOCRACY ENGINE, INC., PAC

2 transactions

$2,500

WINRED

1 transaction

No committee contributions found

SMITH, KENNETH

2 transactions

$26,400

WILHELM, MARK A MR.

1 transaction

$13,200

DRURY, TIM M.

1 transaction

$13,200

DANFORTH, JOHN C

1 transaction

$13,200

TRACY, RICHARD L. MR.

1 transaction

$13,200

RINEY, RODGER O. MR.

1 transaction

$13,200

O'CONNELL, JOHN T.

1 transaction

$13,200

GREWE, GARY

1 transaction

$13,200

HOLEKAMP, WILLIAM F

1 transaction

$13,200

NICHOLSON, PAM

1 transaction

$13,200

RATTS, VALERIE S

1 transaction

$13,200

HEBENSTREIT, JAMES B. MR.

1 transaction

$13,200

PFAUTCH, ROY MR.

1 transaction

$11,600

SCHULTE, STEVE

1 transaction

$7,900

SCHNUCK, CRAIG D

1 transaction

$6,800

BECKSTEAD, JOHN

1 transaction

$6,600

KAMPETER, MICHAEL

1 transaction

$6,600

QUALY, JOHN M.

1 transaction

$6,600

MURPHY, RICHARD

1 transaction

$6,600

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 10 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Scalise, Steve [R-LA-1]

ID: S001176

Top Contributors

AI ALTEP INVESTMENTS LLC

OrganizationNEW YORK, NY

$50,000

Mar 30, 2023

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$3,300

Oct 25, 2024

TUNICA-BILOXI TRIBE OF LA

OrganizationMARKSVILLE, LA

$3,300

Mar 31, 2023

CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$3,300

Apr 11, 2023

COUSHATTA TRIVE OF LOUISIANA

OrganizationELTON, LA

$3,300

Jun 1, 2023

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$3,300

May 17, 2024

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$3,300

Sep 25, 2023

TUNICA-BILOXI TRIBE OF LA

OrganizationMARKSVILLE, LA

$2,700

Jun 6, 2024

SAN MANUEL BANK OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA

$2,300

Oct 21, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,650

Jun 16, 2023

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

ID: C001039

Top Contributors

PASS THE HAT

OrganizationATHENS, GA

$3,610

Jul 15, 2024

SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA

OrganizationHOLLYWOOD, FL

$3,300

Aug 14, 2024

S & K BARRINGTON FARMS

OrganizationMAYO, FL

$600

Mar 31, 2024

83 FARMS, LLC

OrganizationBELL, FL

$283

Mar 31, 2023

RADIANT CREDIT UNION

OrganizationGAINESVILLE, FL

$250

Jun 30, 2023

ADOLFSSON, MARCUS

RETIRED

IndividualGULFPORT, FL

$6,600

Jun 30, 2023

KEMMERER, JOHN

KEMMERER MANAGEMENT CORP • EXECUTIVE

IndividualJACKSON, WY

$6,600

Apr 18, 2023

KEMMERER, KAREN

NONE • RETIRED

IndividualJACKSON, WY

$6,600

May 11, 2023

HOROWITZ, BEN

ANDREESSEN HOROWITZ • ANDREESSEN HOROWITZ

IndividualLAS VEGAS, NV

$6,600

Apr 11, 2024

GASTON, BILL FAYE

BUSINESS OWNER

IndividualGAINESVILLE, FL

$5,205

Feb 29, 2024

Rep. Clyde, Andrew S. [R-GA-9]

ID: C001116

Top Contributors

SYFAN, STEPHEN

SYFAN LOGISTICS • EXEC VP

IndividualGAINESVILLE, GA

$6,600

May 31, 2024

SCOTT, ROBERT S.

RAC PROPERTIES • REAL ESTATE

IndividualBOGART, GA

$6,600

Oct 11, 2024

FOWLER, CHARLES W. JR.

GLOBAL DEFENSE MGMT • PRESIDENT

IndividualLONGWOOD, FL

$3,500

Oct 29, 2024

BECK, SAMUEL

BECK FUNERAL HOME • FUNERAL DIRECTOR

IndividualCLAYTON, GA

$3,300

Oct 24, 2024

HINMAN, ROY H

SELF EMPLOYED • PHYSICIAN

IndividualSAINT AUGUSTINE, FL

$3,300

Nov 5, 2024

FROST IV, EDWIN BRANT

SELF EMPLOYED • FINANCIAL SERVICES

IndividualNEWNAN, GA

$3,300

Dec 24, 2024

FROST, KRISTA

NONE • HOMEMAKER

IndividualNEWNAN, GA

$3,300

Dec 24, 2024

ACTON, MICHAEL

SELF EMPLOYED • DEVELOPER

IndividualHOMER, GA

$3,300

Nov 7, 2023

JEPSON, JEFFREY

EVANS GENERAL CONTRACTORS • CONSTRUCTION

IndividualPOOLER, GA

$3,300

Nov 19, 2023

MATHENY, DAVID

SILENCER SHOP • OWNER

IndividualLEANDER, TX

$3,300

Nov 16, 2023

Rep. Kustoff, David [R-TN-8]

ID: K000392

Top Contributors

TENNESSEE SAFARI PARK

OrganizationALAMO, TN

$3,000

Aug 28, 2023

GERMAN FARMS

OrganizationSOMERVILLE, TN

$350

Aug 12, 2023

GROWING ACRES

OrganizationSAVANNAH, TN

$300

Aug 12, 2023

WALLY CHILDRESS FARMS

OrganizationBOGOTA, TN

$250

Aug 12, 2023

LONG, CHRISTOPHER MR.

SELF • ENTREPRENEUR

IndividualMEMPHIS, TN

$6,600

Nov 7, 2023

SMITH, STEFAN M. MR.

LEXUS OF MEMPHIS • AUTO DEALER

IndividualGERMANTOWN, TN

$6,600

Nov 7, 2023

AYERS, JANET MRS.

THE AYERS FOUNDATION • PRESIDENT

IndividualNASHVILLE, TN

$6,600

Jul 22, 2024

AYERS, JAMES W. MR.

FIRST BANK • CHAIRMAN

IndividualNASHVILLE, TN

$6,600

Jul 24, 2024

WEISS, CATHY MRS.

HOMEMAKER • HOMEMAKER

IndividualMEMPHIS, TN

$6,600

Mar 25, 2024

HASLAM, WILLIAM MR.

KNOXVILLE MUSEUM OF ART • MANAGER

IndividualKNOXVILLE, TN

$6,000

Oct 12, 2023

Rep. Thompson, Glenn [R-PA-15]

ID: T000467

Top Contributors

BUTLER MACHINE

OrganizationTULELAKE, CA

$3,300

Oct 15, 2024

CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

OrganizationDURANT, OK

$3,300

Oct 15, 2024

BUTLER MACHINE

OrganizationTULELAKE, CA

$3,300

Nov 13, 2024

CORTINA HULLING & SHELLING GROUP

OrganizationWILLIAMS, CA

$3,300

Nov 13, 2024

AG VENTURES

OrganizationELIZABETHTOWN, PA

$2,500

May 1, 2023

ROESLEIN ALTERNATIVE ENERGY, LLC

OrganizationST. LOUIS, MO

$2,000

May 18, 2023

RANCH 440

OrganizationMECCA, CA

$1,500

May 22, 2023

KOHL REAL ESTATE

OrganizationKITTANNING, PA

$1,000

Mar 11, 2024

DWIGHT STANSEL FARM & NURSERY

OrganizationWELLBORN, FL

$1,000

May 30, 2023

HIGHLINE GRAIN GROWERS INC

OrganizationDAVENPORT, WA

$1,000

Jun 13, 2023

Rep. Estes, Ron [R-KS-4]

ID: E000298

Top Contributors

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS TRIBAL OPERATIONS ACCOUNT

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$2,300

Feb 27, 2024

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA

$1,500

Mar 15, 2024

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA

$1,000

Jun 30, 2023

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS TRIBAL OPERATIONS ACCOUNT

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$1,000

Mar 31, 2023

WILLIS, THOMAS

CONESTOGA ENERGY PARTNERS • CEO

IndividualLIBERAL, KS

$3,300

Nov 4, 2024

KLAUSMEYER, DON

KLAUSMEYER CONSTRUCTION • OWNER

IndividualCLEARWATER, KS

$3,300

Jul 31, 2023

LEE, JAMES

LEE AEROSPACE INC. • OWNER

IndividualWICHITA, KS

$3,300

Sep 30, 2023

BEREN, ADAM

BEREXCO • CEO AND PRESIDENT

IndividualWICHITA, KS

$3,300

Sep 29, 2023

BEREN, ADAM

BEREXCO • CEO AND PRESIDENT

IndividualWICHITA, KS

$3,300

Sep 29, 2023

CHOUAKE, ESTHER

SELF • PHYSICAN

IndividualENGLEWOOD, NJ

$3,300

Dec 16, 2023

Rep. Houchin, Erin [R-IN-9]

ID: H001093

Top Contributors

HABEMATOLEL POMO OF UPPER LAKE TRIBE OF CALIFORNIA

OrganizationUPPER LAKE, CA

$3,300

Aug 3, 2023

OTOE MISSOURIA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA

OrganizationRED ROCK, OK

$3,300

Aug 3, 2023

TURTLE MOUNTAIN BAND OF CHIPPEWA OF NORTH DAKOTA

OrganizationBELCOURT, ND

$3,300

Aug 3, 2023

CHEROKEE NATION

OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK

$2,500

Dec 19, 2023

BANKE, BARBARA

JACKSON FAMILY FOUNDATION • EXECUTIVE

IndividualGEYSERVILLE, CA

$6,600

Dec 7, 2023

SCHWARZMAN, CHRISTINE

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$6,600

Mar 6, 2024

GRIFFIN, KENNETH

CITADEL LLC • FOUNDER CEO

IndividualMIAMI BEACH, FL

$6,600

Apr 10, 2023

ROWAN, CAROLYN

CAROLYN ROWAN COLLECTION LLC • EXECUTIVE

IndividualGREENWICH, CT

$6,600

Jun 28, 2023

ROWAN, MARC

APOLLO MANAGEMENT HOLDINGS • EXECUTIVE

IndividualGREENWICH, CT

$6,600

Jun 28, 2023

KIESLER, DOUGLAS M MR.

KIESLER POLICE SUPPLY, INC. • CEO

IndividualGREENVILLE, IN

$6,600

Feb 22, 2023

Rep. Finstad, Brad [R-MN-1]

ID: F000475

Top Contributors

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

COMPRIOR LAKE, MN

$3,300

May 29, 2024

PRAIRIE ISLAND TRIBAL COUNCIL

COMWELCH, MN

$2,500

Feb 15, 2023

REPUBLICAN MAINSTREET PARTNERSHIP PAC

PACWASHINGTON, DC

$1,000

Jul 28, 2023

WATONWAN COUNTY REPUBLICAN PARTY

COMSAINT JAMES, MN

$800

May 30, 2024

ANDERSON, ROLLIS H

ANDERSON TRUCKING SERVICE • CEO

IndividualSAINT CLOUD, MN

$13,200

Mar 20, 2024

KROLL, MARK W

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualCRYSTAL BAY, MN

$13,200

Mar 31, 2023

SONNEK, KATHLEEN M

SELF • WRITER

IndividualLAKE CRYSTAL, MN

$10,000

Sep 21, 2023

HALKYARD, JONATHAN

MGM RESORTS • CFO

IndividualLAS VEGAS, NV

$9,423

Mar 26, 2024

KING, RUSSELL S

KING CAPITAL LLC • CEO

IndividualMINNEAPOLIS, MN

$6,870

Dec 24, 2023

MILLER, HUGH L

RTP COMPANY • PRESIDENT

IndividualWINONA, MN

$6,600

Mar 28, 2024

Rep. Strong, Dale W. [R-AL-5]

ID: S001220

Top Contributors

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$3,300

Aug 2, 2024

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$3,300

Jun 15, 2024

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$3,300

Aug 2, 2023

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$2,000

Jun 30, 2023

PECHANGA BAND OF INDIANS

OrganizationTEMECULA, CA

$1,000

Sep 29, 2023

JOHN PLUNK ATTORNEY PC

OrganizationATHENS, AL

$1,000

Nov 18, 2024

LEE, ARNOLD

SESI • EXECUTIVE

IndividualSANTA ROSA BEACH, FL

$6,600

Sep 30, 2024

HINCHMAN, ROBERT

IGNITE • CEO

IndividualHUNTSVILLE, AL

$6,600

Feb 23, 2023

LIPTON, LEE

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualLAKE WORTH, FL

$5,000

Apr 19, 2023

BENTLEY, PHILIP W. III

BENTLEY BUICK GMC CADILLAC • PRESIDENT

IndividualHUNTSVILLE, AL

$5,000

Sep 7, 2023

Rep. Feenstra, Randy [R-IA-4]

ID: F000446

Top Contributors

PROTECT OUR HERITAGE

OrganizationSKOKIE, IL

$5,000

Dec 1, 2023

SAC & FOX TRIBE OF THE MISSISSIPPI IN IOWA

OrganizationTAMA, IA

$2,500

Oct 31, 2024

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$1,000

Sep 11, 2023

SAC & FOX TRIBE OF THE MISSISSIPPI IN IOWA

OrganizationTAMA, IA

$1,000

Aug 4, 2023

BOGART ASSOCIATES, INC.

OrganizationALEXANDRIA, VA

$500

Apr 26, 2023

ANWAR, S JAVAID

MIDLAND ENERGY, INC • CEO/PRESIDENT

IndividualMIDLAND, TX

$13,200

Feb 6, 2024

PARKER, SEAN

SEAN N PARKER FOUNDATION • CHAIRMAN

IndividualPALO ALTO, CA

$13,200

Mar 7, 2024

WELLS, MIKE

WELLS ENTERPRISES • CEO

IndividualLE MARS, IA

$12,500

Mar 13, 2023

LAURIDSEN, NIXON

LGI • CHAIRMAN

IndividualANKENY, IA

$10,000

Dec 12, 2023

CROOKHAM, JOE

CEO • CEO

IndividualOSKALOOSA, IA

$10,000

Mar 31, 2023

Donor Network - Rep. Wagner, Ann [R-MO-2]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 66 nodes and 39 connections (51 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $324,469

Top Donors - Rep. Wagner, Ann [R-MO-2]

Showing top 22 donors by contribution amount

3 Orgs19 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

−Hospitals & Health Systemsconfidence 0.90
Section 3(a)(1)(B) requires health care practitioners to ensure that a child born alive after an abortion is immediately transported and admitted to a hospital, imposing operational and potential liability costs on hospitals and health systems.
−Health Insuranceconfidence 0.85
Section 3(d)(1) allows a woman on whom an abortion was performed to sue for civil remedies, including damages, which could increase litigation and costs for health insurers covering such claims.
−Medical Devicesconfidence 0.70
The bill's focus on abortion procedures and born-alive infants may affect medical device manufacturers involved in abortion-related equipment, though the connection is less direct.

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.

Introduction

High79.7%

Pages: 533-535

— 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).

Introduction

Moderate66.3%

Pages: 530-532

— 497 — Department of Health and Human Services l OCR should withdraw its Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)86 guidance on abortion. OCR should withdraw its June 2022 guidance87 that purports to address patient privacy concerns following the Dobbs decision but is actually a politicized statement in favor of abortion and against Dobbs. HIPAA covers patients in the womb, but this guidance treats them as nonpersons contrary to law. The guidance is unnecessary and contributes to ideologically motivated fearmongering about abortion after Dobbs. AUTHOR’S NOTE: The preparation of this chapter was a collective enterprise of selfless individuals involved in the 2025 Presidential Transition Project. All contributors to this chapter are listed at the front of this volume and include former officials in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and other agencies, as well as academics, attorneys, and experts in the health care and insurance fields. — 498 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise ENDNOTES 1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Strategic Plan, FY 2018–2022, p. 50, https://aspe.hhs.gov/ sites/default/files/documents/feac346aca967bfadc446398679e14ec/hhs-strategic-plan-fy-2018-2022.pdf (accessed February 7, 2023). 2. “Strategic Goal 1: Protect and Strengthen Equitable Access to High Quality and Affordable Healthcare” in ibid. “In the context of HHS, this Strategic Plan adopts the definition of underserved communities listed in Executive Order 13985: Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities through the Federal Government to refer to ‘populations sharing a particular characteristic, as well as geographic communities, who have been systematically denied a full opportunity to participate in aspects of economic, social, and civic life’; this definition includes individuals who belong to underserved communities that have been denied such treatment, such as Black, Latino, and Indigenous and Native American persons, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and other persons of color; members of religious minorities; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) persons; persons with disabilities; persons who live in rural areas; and persons otherwise adversely affected by persistent poverty or inequality. Individuals may belong to more than one underserved community and face intersecting barriers. This definition applies to the terms underserved communities and underserved populations throughout this Strategic Plan.” Ibid. Emphasis in original. 3. Karen Weintraub, “Americans’ Life Expectancy Continues to Fall, Erasing Health Gains of the Last Quarter Century,” USA Today, December 22, 2022, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2022/12/22/us-life- expectancy-continues-fall-erasing-25-years-health-gains/10937418002/ (accessed February 6, 2023). 4. Apoorva Mandavilli, “The C.D.C. Isn’t Publishing Large Portions of the Data It Collects,” The New York Times, updated February 22, 2022, https://www.congress.gov/117/meeting/house/114450/documents/HHRG-117- IF02-20220302-SD004.pdf (accessed March 22, 2023). 5. Zachary B. Sluzala and Edmund F. Haislmaier, “Lessons from COVID-19: How Policymakers Should Reform the Regulation of Clinical Testing,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3696, March 28, 2022, https://www. heritage.org/public-health/report/lessons-covid-19-how-policymakers-should-reform-the-regulation-clinical. 6. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (C),” https://www.cdc.gov/maso/pdf/cdcmiss.pdf (March 16, 2023). 7. Judith Garber, “CDC ‘Disclaimers’ Hide Financial Conflicts of Interest,” Lown Institute Accountability Blog, November 6, 2019, https://lowninstitute.org/cdc-disclaimers-hide-financial-conflicts-of-interest/ (accessed February 6, 2023). See also U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “CDC Foundation Active Programs (October 1, 2014–September 30, 2015),” https://www. cdcfoundation.org/sites/default/files/upload/pdf/CDCFoundation-ActivePrograms-FY2015.pdf (accessed February 7, 2023); “CDC Active Programs (October 1, 2015–September 30, 2016),” https://www.cdcfoundation. org/sites/default/files/upload/pdf/CDCFoundation-ActivePrograms-FY2016.pdf (accessed February 7, 2023); “CDC Foundation Active Programs (October 1, 2016–September 30, 2017),” https://www.cdcfoundation.org/ sites/default/files/upload/pdf/CDCFoundation-ActivePrograms-FY2017.pdf (accessed February 7, 2023); “CDC Foundation Active Programs (October 1, 2017–September 30, 2018),” https://www.cdcfoundation.org/sites/default/ files/upload/pdf/CDCFoundation-ActivePrograms-FY2018.pdf (accessed February 7, 2023); “CDC Foundation Active Programs, October 1, 2018–September 30, 2019,” https://www.cdcfoundation.org/sites/default/files/upload/ pdf/CDCFoundation-ActivePrograms-FY2019.pdf (accessed February 7, 2023); “CDC Foundation Active Programs, October 1, 2029–September 30, 2020,” https://www.cdcfoundation.org/CDCF-ActivePrograms-CDC-FY20?inline (accessed February 7, 2023); and “CDC Foundation Active Programs, October 1, 2020–September 30, 2021,” https://www.cdcfoundation.org/CDCF-ActivePrograms-CDC-FY21?inline (accessed February 7, 2023). 8. Joel White and Doug Badger, “In Order to Defeat COVID-19, the Federal Government Must Modernize Its Public Health Data,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3527, September 3, 2020, https://www.heritage. org/sites/default/files/2020-09/BG3527_0.pdf. 9. S. 15, Ensuring Accurate and Complete Abortion Data Reporting Act of 2023, 118th Congress, introduced January 23, 2023, https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/s15/BILLS-118s15is.pdf (accessed March 22, 2023), and H.R. 632, Ensuring Accurate and Complete Abortion Data Reporting Act of 2023, 118th Congress, introduced January 30, 2023, https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr632/BILLS-118hr632ih.pdf (accessed March 22, 2023). 10. Doug Badger, “How Congress Can Make Real Progress on Drug Prices,” Heritage Foundation Issue Brief No. 5016, December 9, 2019, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2019-12/IB5016_1.pdf.

Introduction

Moderate66.2%

Pages: 506-508

— 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). — 475 — Department of Health and Human Services Radical Redefinition of Sex. On August 4, 2022, HHS published a proposed rule entitled “Nondiscrimination in Health Programs and Activities.”58 This rule addresses nondiscrimination provisions of the Affordable Care Act, known as Section 1557, which is enforced by the Office for Civil Rights and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Section 1557 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and sex in covered health programs or activities. Under the proposed rule, sex is redefined: “Discrimination on the basis of sex includes, but is not limited to, discrimination on the basis of sex stereotypes; sex characteristics, including intersex traits; pregnancy or related conditions; sexual orientation; and gender identity.”59 In other words, the department proposes to interpret Section 1557 as if it created special privileges for new classes of people, defined in ways that are highly ideological and unscientific. The redefinition of sex to cover gender identity and sexual orientation and pregnancy to cover abortion should be reversed in all HHS and CMS programs as was done under the Trump Administration. This includes the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). Low-income families who rely on CHIP should not be coerced, pressured, or otherwise encouraged to embrace this ideologically moti- vated sexualization of their children. However, while the Biden Administration’s Section 1557 regulation should be altered and corrected, the lactation room requirements added in the regulation should either be consistently included in any upcoming Section 1557 rulemaking or be proposed in a new individual rule. COVID-19 Vaccination and Mask Requirements. Health care workers were praised for their self-sacrifice in caring for sick patients at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, but then they were fired if they objected to receiving COVID- 19 vaccines with or without complying with onerous masking requirements and regardless of whether they already had the virus and had gained natural immunity. With the disease being endemic and constantly mutating, vaccines and univer- sal masking in health care facilities do not have appreciable benefits in reducing COVID-19 transmission throughout the community. Moreover, more recent COVID strains pose fewer health risks than the earlier strains, and the pandemic has been declared to be at an end. CMS should: l Announce nonenforcement of the Biden Administration’s COVID-19 vaccination mandate on Medicaid and Medicare hospitals. l Revoke corresponding guidance and regulations. l Refrain from imposing general COVID-19 mask mandates on health care facilities or personnel.

Introduction

Moderate66.0%

Pages: 618-620

— 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.

Introduction

Moderate66.0%

Pages: 618-620

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.

Related Bills

Other Bills by Rep. Wagner, Ann

Crime Victims Fund Stabilization Act of 2025

119/hr/909

Small Entity Update Act

119/hr/3382

Developing and Empowering our Aspiring Leaders Act of 2025

119/hr/4429

Back to All Bills