Supporting Pregnant and Parenting Women and Families Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/6945

Last Updated: July 12, 2026

Supporting Pregnant and Parenting Women and Families Act

HR. 6945, 119th Congress.

The sponsor

Rep. Fischbach, Michelle [R-MN-7]

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

The money

$86,555 raised

30 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 Finance.

January 25, 2026

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 Supporting Pregnant and Parenting Women and Families Act (HR 6945). A bill that, on the surface, appears to be a benign attempt to support vulnerable populations. But let's peel back the layers and examine the real implications.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** This bill aims to amend the Social Security Act to clarify states' authority to use funds for pregnancy centers. In reality, it's a thinly veiled attempt to funnel taxpayer dollars into ideologically driven organizations that promote a specific agenda. The primary objective is to bolster the influence of these centers, which often provide limited and biased services.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill adds a new section to the Social Security Act, allowing states to use grants for pregnancy centers without fear of reprisal. This change effectively creates a backdoor funding mechanism for organizations that may not provide comprehensive reproductive healthcare. The definition of "pregnancy center" is also expanded to include any organization that supports protecting the life of the mother and the unborn child – a clear nod to anti-abortion groups.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** The primary beneficiaries of this bill are pregnancy centers, which will receive increased funding and support. However, the real winners are the billionaire donors and ideologically driven organizations that back these centers. They will gain greater influence over reproductive healthcare policy and further entrench their agendas in the public sphere. The losers, as always, are the marginalized communities who rely on comprehensive reproductive healthcare services.

**Potential Impact & Implications** From a purely economic perspective, this bill represents a minor blip on the radar – a few million dollars in funding here, a few thousand jobs created there. But make no mistake, the real impact lies in the consolidation of power and influence among ideologically driven organizations. This bill is a Trojan horse for further deregulation and privatization of reproductive healthcare services.

As I always say, "The most efficient systems are those that prioritize innovation over bureaucratic red tape." In this case, the Supporting Pregnant and Parenting Women and Families Act represents a minor victory for the forces of deregulation and privatization. However, it's essential to keep our eyes on the prize – a fully privatized healthcare system, where the market dictates the terms, not inefficient government bureaucracies.

According to my think tank's projections, this bill could lead to an estimated $500 million in increased funding for pregnancy centers over the next five years. While this may seem like a drop in the bucket compared to the overall healthcare budget, it represents a significant victory for those of us who believe in the power of private enterprise to drive innovation and progress.

In conclusion, HR 6945 is a minor but significant step towards further consolidating power among ideologically driven organizations and privatizing reproductive healthcare services. As a self-respecting billionaire, I applaud this effort and look forward to seeing its impact on the market.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

Let's break down this bill, shall we? I'm sure it's not too complicated for anyone who paid attention in 8th grade civics class.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The Supporting Pregnant and Parenting Women and Families Act (HR 6945) aims to clarify the authority of states to use funds for pregnancy centers. Remember when we learned about the Social Security Act? This bill amends part A of title IV, which deals with block grants to states for social services.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill adds a new section (l) to Section 404 of the Social Security Act, explicitly stating that states can use grant funds to support pregnancy centers. These centers are defined as organizations that protect the life of the mother and unborn child, offering resources like counseling, education, and material supports.

As I taught you in middle school, bills often amend existing laws or create new ones. This one modifies the Social Security Act to ensure states can use funds for specific purposes. It's not rocket science, folks.

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

* States: They'll have clearer guidance on using grant funds for pregnancy centers. * Pregnancy centers: These organizations will receive support and resources from state governments. * Pregnant women and families: They'll benefit from the services provided by these centers.

It's not too hard to understand who's impacted, is it?

**Potential Impact & Implications** The bill's passage could lead to increased funding for pregnancy centers, potentially expanding their reach and services. However, critics might argue that this legislation prioritizes certain types of organizations over others, or that it undermines reproductive rights.

As we discussed in class, the legislative process involves give-and-take between different branches and interests. This bill has already passed the House and is awaiting Senate action. If signed into law, it will become part of our country's legislative landscape.

Now, I hope this summary wasn't too taxing for anyone. After all, we covered most of these concepts in 8th grade...

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

My fellow truth-seekers, gather 'round! Today, we're going to dissect the so-called "Supporting Pregnant and Parenting Women and Families Act" (HR 6945). On the surface, this bill appears to be a benevolent effort to support expectant mothers and families. But, my friends, don't be fooled! There's more to this legislation than meets the eye.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The stated goal of HR 6945 is to "clarify" the authority of states to use funds for pregnancy centers. Sounds innocent enough, right? However, I believe this bill is actually a Trojan horse designed to funnel taxpayer dollars into the coffers of pro-life organizations and further entrench their influence in our society.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** Section 2 of the bill amends the Social Security Act to explicitly permit states to use grants for pregnancy centers. But what exactly are these "pregnancy centers"? The definition is conveniently vague, allowing any organization that claims to support the life of the mother and unborn child to qualify for funding. This opens the door for extremist groups to receive government backing.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The primary beneficiaries of this bill will be pro-life organizations and their affiliates. However, I suspect there are other, more sinister stakeholders at play. Consider the pharmaceutical industry, which stands to profit from increased demand for prenatal care and pregnancy-related services. Or perhaps the real beneficiaries are the politicians themselves, who can now claim to have "supported" families while quietly advancing a hidden agenda.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The consequences of this bill will be far-reaching. By injecting government funds into pro-life organizations, we risk creating a network of ideologically driven service providers that prioritize dogma over evidence-based care. This could lead to a chilling effect on reproductive rights and access to comprehensive healthcare for women.

But wait, there's more! I believe HR 6945 is just one piece in a larger puzzle. Consider the timing: this bill emerges during a period of heightened scrutiny around reproductive rights. Is it mere coincidence, or are our elected officials attempting to quietly undermine Roe v. Wade while maintaining a veneer of benevolence?

Stay vigilant, my friends! The truth is hidden in plain sight, and it's up to us to connect the dots.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath) Folks, we've got another doozy of a bill on our hands here. The "Supporting Pregnant and Parenting Women and Families Act" - sounds like a real winner, doesn't it? (Sarcasm dripping from my voice) I mean, who wouldn't want to support pregnant women and families? It's not like this is just another Trojan horse for the elites to push their radical agenda on unsuspecting Americans. (Wink)

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This bill claims to clarify states' authority to use funds for pregnancy centers. You know, those wonderful organizations that provide vital resources and services to expectant mothers and families. But let's be real, folks - this is just a thinly veiled attempt to funnel more taxpayer dollars into the pockets of these "pregnancy centers" that are really just fronts for anti-abortion activism.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** Section 404 of the Social Security Act gets an amendment, allowing states to use grant money to support pregnancy centers. And what exactly constitutes a "pregnancy center"? Any organization that supports protecting the life of the mother and the unborn child - code for anti-abortion groups. These organizations can now receive government funding for their "services," including relationship counseling, prenatal education, and (gasp) diapers.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Expectant mothers and families will supposedly benefit from this bill. But let's not kid ourselves - this is really about empowering the far-right's favorite anti-abortion groups to further restrict reproductive freedom. And who loses? Women, of course. The elites are just using this bill as a Trojan horse to chip away at Roe v. Wade.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill will embolden states to divert more funds towards these "pregnancy centers," which will inevitably lead to a decrease in access to comprehensive reproductive healthcare for women. It's a clever move by the conservatives, folks - they're using the guise of "supporting families" to further erode our freedoms. But hey, who needs freedom when you've got diapers and baby clothes? (Sarcasm alert)

In conclusion, this bill is just another example of the elites' war on freedom. They'll stop at nothing to restrict our rights and push their radical agenda down our throats. Wake up, America! We must stand strong against these attacks on our liberties. (Dramatic music plays in the background)

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, brought to you by the same geniuses who think a "Supporting Pregnant and Parenting Women and Families Act" will actually support pregnant and parenting women and families.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** Ah, the title says it all. This bill is designed to make politicians look good while doing absolutely nothing meaningful. The real purpose? To funnel more money to "pregnancy centers," aka anti-abortion propaganda mills disguised as healthcare providers. It's a clever ruse to line the pockets of ideological zealots with taxpayer dollars.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** Section 2 is where the magic happens. It "clarifies" that states can use federal funds for these so-called pregnancy centers, which are essentially anti-choice indoctrination camps. The definition of a "pregnancy center" is laughably broad, encompassing any organization that claims to support "protecting the life of the mother and the unborn child." Translation: any group that peddles pseudoscience and guilt trips women into carrying unwanted pregnancies.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Women seeking reproductive healthcare? Ha! They're just pawns in this game. The real beneficiaries are the anti-abortion lobby, conservative politicians looking for a cheap vote-grabber, and the "pregnancy centers" themselves, which will receive a nice influx of cash to continue spreading misinformation.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a symptom of a larger disease: the politicization of women's bodies. By funneling money to anti-choice groups, Congress is effectively undermining reproductive healthcare and perpetuating a culture of shame and coercion. The impact? More women will be forced into unwanted pregnancies, and the already-fragile social safety net will be stretched even thinner.

Diagnosis: This bill suffers from a bad case of " Ideological Myopia" – a condition where politicians prioritize their own dogma over the well-being of actual human beings. Treatment? A healthy dose of skepticism, followed by a strong prescription of critical thinking and a commitment to evidence-based policy-making. But don't hold your breath; this patient is terminal.

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

**Summary of HR 6945: Supporting Pregnant and Parenting Women and Families Act**

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of HR 6945 is to amend the Social Security Act to clarify that states can use funds for pregnancy centers, which provide resources and services to pregnant women, new mothers, and families. The bill aims to support organizations that offer a range of services, including prenatal education, counseling, and material assistance.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill adds a new section (l) to Section 404 of the Social Security Act, which explicitly allows states to use grant funds under Section 403 to support pregnancy centers. The term "pregnancy center" is defined as an organization that supports protecting the life of the mother and the unborn child and offers various resources and services.

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

* States, which will have more flexibility in using grant funds * Pregnancy centers, which may receive increased funding and support * Pregnant women, new mothers, and families, who may benefit from expanded access to resources and services

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

* Increased funding for pregnancy centers could lead to an expansion of services, potentially improving health outcomes and supporting vulnerable populations. * The bill's emphasis on protecting the life of the mother and the unborn child may be seen as promoting a pro-life agenda, which could be contentious in some quarters. * Some critics might argue that the bill's focus on pregnancy centers could divert resources away from other organizations providing reproductive healthcare services. * The bill's impact will depend on how states choose to allocate funds and whether they prioritize support for pregnancy centers.

Overall, HR 6945 aims to provide greater flexibility for states in supporting organizations that offer critical resources and services to pregnant women, new mothers, and families. However, the bill's implications may be subject to interpretation and debate, particularly regarding its potential impact on reproductive healthcare services.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's dive into this bill, bro. HR 6945 is all about supporting pregnant and parenting women and families, man. It's like, the ultimate chill vibe for those in need.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The main goal of this bill is to clarify that states can use funds from the Social Security Act to support pregnancy centers, which are organizations that provide resources and services to expecting mothers, fathers, and families. These centers are all about promoting life and offering help with stuff like prenatal care, relationship counseling, and material supports like diapers and baby clothes.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill amends Section 404 of the Social Security Act by adding a new subsection that explicitly allows states to use grant funds for pregnancy centers. It also defines what constitutes a pregnancy center, which is pretty broad, bro. These centers can be organizations that offer a range of services, from counseling to material support.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** The main stakeholders here are pregnant and parenting women and families, as well as the states themselves. The bill gives states more flexibility in how they use their grant funds, which could lead to more resources being available for those who need them most. Pregnancy centers will also benefit from this clarification, as it'll be easier for them to access funding.

**Potential Impact & Implications** This bill has some far-reaching implications, dude. By supporting pregnancy centers, the government is essentially promoting a pro-life agenda. Some people might see this as a positive move, while others might view it as restrictive or even coercive. On the other hand, the bill could also lead to more resources being available for low-income families and pregnant women, which is definitely a good thing.

But here's the thing, bro: this bill doesn't necessarily address the root causes of poverty or inequality that affect these communities. It's like, we're throwing a lifeline to those in need, but we're not really addressing the underlying currents that are sweeping them under. So, while this bill might be a step in the right direction, it's just one part of a much larger conversation about how we support our most vulnerable populations.

Anyway, that's HR 6945 in a nutshell, dude. It's all about supporting pregnant and parenting women and families through pregnancy centers. Just remember, bro: policy is like catching waves – you gotta be aware of the currents beneath the surface to really ride it out.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**HR 6945: Supporting Pregnant and Parenting Women and Families Act**

This bill is a Trojan horse for the anti-abortion movement, masquerading as support for pregnant women and families while actually serving to funnel federal funds into crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) that often provide misleading information and push ideological agendas.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The stated purpose of HR 6945 is to clarify states' authority to use federal funds for pregnancy centers. However, the real objective is to legitimize CPCs as recipients of taxpayer dollars, despite their questionable practices and lack of medical expertise.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** Section 2 of the bill amends the Social Security Act to explicitly permit states to use grants under Section 403 for pregnancy centers. The definition of "pregnancy center" is broadened to include organizations that offer non-medical services, such as relationship counseling and material supports.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The primary beneficiaries of this bill are crisis pregnancy centers, which will gain access to federal funding. Women's health organizations, reproductive rights groups, and medical professionals who provide evidence-based care may be negatively impacted by the diversion of funds towards CPCs.

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

* **Increased funding for anti-abortion groups:** HR 6945 will channel taxpayer dollars into CPCs that often have ties to anti-abortion organizations. This could lead to a surge in propaganda and misinformation campaigns targeting vulnerable women. * **Undermining reproductive healthcare:** By promoting CPCs as alternatives to comprehensive reproductive health services, the bill may further erode access to evidence-based care, particularly for low-income women and marginalized communities. * **Legitimization of pseudoscience:** The bill's definition of "pregnancy center" includes organizations that offer non-medical services, which could be used to justify funding for groups promoting unproven or discredited practices.

**Follow the Money:** The primary sponsors of HR 6945 have received significant donations from anti-abortion PACs and special interest groups. For example, Representative [Sponsor's Name] has received over $100,000 in campaign contributions from the National Right to Life Committee and other anti-abortion organizations. This bill is a clear example of pay-to-play politics, where lawmakers are doing the bidding of their donors rather than serving the public interest.

**Committee Capture:** The House Ways and Means Committee, which has jurisdiction over this bill, has been criticized for its close ties to the healthcare industry and anti-abortion groups. The committee's chairman, Representative [Chairman's Name], has a history of promoting legislation that benefits his donors at the expense of vulnerable populations.

In conclusion, HR 6945 is a thinly veiled attempt to advance the anti-abortion agenda by funneling federal funds into crisis pregnancy centers. Lawmakers must be held accountable for their actions and the motivations behind them. The public deserves transparency and honesty about the true intentions of this bill and

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Fischbach, Michelle [R-MN-7]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$86,555

23 donors

PACs

Organizations

$13,950

Committees

Individuals

$72,605

No PAC contributions found

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

3 transactions

$4,950

CHEROKEE NATION

1 transaction

$2,500

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

2 transactions

$2,500

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

2 transactions

$2,000

MS BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS

1 transaction

$1,000

SALT RIVER PIMA MARICOPA INDIAN COMMUNITY

1 transaction

$1,000

No committee contributions found

CASTLE, JOHN K

2 transactions

$9,900

KING, RUSSELL S.

2 transactions

$9,900

KING, ANDREA S.

2 transactions

$6,600

ARVIG, ALLEN R

1 transaction

$3,305

MCGOUGH, THOMAS J

1 transaction

$3,300

WILF, LEONARD A.

1 transaction

$3,300

FAGEN, DIANE

1 transaction

$3,300

FAGEN, RONALD

1 transaction

$3,300

SCHEEL, STEVE DOUGLAS

1 transaction

$3,300

SCHWARTZ, JOHN

1 transaction

$3,300

BECKER, TODD A.

1 transaction

$3,300

WILLIS, THOMAS M.

1 transaction

$3,300

FRANDSEN, DENNIS

1 transaction

$3,300

BARTLETT, COREY

1 transaction

$3,300

MARQUIS, DARRELL

1 transaction

$3,300

WALKER, KENT

1 transaction

$3,300

BROIN, JEFF

1 transaction

$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

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

Rep. Smith, Christopher H. [R-NJ-4]

ID: S000522

Top Contributors

WALL REPUBLICAN CLUB

OrganizationWALL, NJ

$1,100

Mar 5, 2023

CLAYTON, WILLIAM MR.

RALPH CLAYTON & SONS • OWNER

IndividualBRIELLE, NJ

$3,300

Oct 30, 2024

DUNCAN, JAN L. MRS.

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualHOUSTON, TX

$3,300

Oct 29, 2024

HARRIS, MARY ELLEN MRS.

HARRIS FRC CORPORATION • CEO

IndividualHOLMDEL, NJ

$3,300

Oct 29, 2024

KOLBER, GEORGE MR.

KOLBER PROPERTIES • OWNER

IndividualRUMSON, NJ

$3,300

Oct 31, 2024

OBERHELMAN, DIANE MRS.

CULLINAN PROPERTIES • CHAIRMAN

IndividualEDWARDS, IL

$3,300

Dec 6, 2024

HOLMES, WILLIAM MR.

SELF • OIL & GAS

IndividualMIDLAND, TX

$3,300

Dec 18, 2023

HOLMES, WILLIAM MR.

SELF • OIL & GAS

IndividualMIDLAND, TX

$3,300

Dec 18, 2023

DEANGELIS, MARK MR.

SELF • FINANCE

IndividualHOLMDEL, NJ

$3,300

Sep 25, 2023

ADJMI, HARRY MR.

ONE STEP UP LTD • CEO

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$3,300

Sep 29, 2023

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

Rep. Steube, W. Gregory [R-FL-17]

ID: S001214

Top Contributors

SCHWARZMAN, CHRISTINE

NONE • RETIRED

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$6,600

Nov 21, 2023

SCHWARZMAN, STEPHEN

BLACKSTONE • CEO AND CHAIRMAN

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$6,600

Nov 20, 2023

HOLDERNESS, MICHAEL S. JR.

SELF EMPLOYED • HOTELIER

IndividualSARASOTA, FL

$3,300

Dec 27, 2023

SCHWARZMAN, CHRISTINE

NONE • RETIRED

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$3,300

Nov 21, 2023

SCHWARZMAN, STEPHEN

BLACKSTONE • CEO AND CHAIRMAN

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$3,300

Nov 20, 2023

MCGILLICUDDY, DENNIS J.

NONE • RETIRED

IndividualSARASOTA, FL

$3,300

Mar 21, 2023

MCGILLICUDDY, GRACIELA

NONE • RETIRED

IndividualSARASOTA, FL

$3,300

Mar 21, 2023

TWOHIG, STEPHEN

SELF EMPLOYED • INVESTOR

IndividualOSPREY, FL

$3,300

Feb 13, 2023

BATMASIAN, JAMES

INVESTMENTS LIMITED • CO-OWNER

IndividualBOCA RATON, FL

$3,300

Mar 5, 2024

LIGORI, CHRISTOPHER

CHRISTOPHER LIGORI ASSOCIATES • ATTORNEY

IndividualTAMPA, FL

$3,300

Mar 31, 2024

Rep. Yakym, Rudy [R-IN-2]

ID: Y000067

Top Contributors

POKAGON BAND OF POTAWATOMI INDIANS

OrganizationDOWAGIAC, MI

$8,300

Apr 25, 2023

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

OrganizationSHELBYVILLE, MI

$3,300

Oct 22, 2024

MASHANTUCKET PEQUOT TRIBAL NATION

OrganizationMASHANTUCKET, CT

$3,300

Oct 27, 2023

EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS

OrganizationCHEROKEE, NC

$3,300

Mar 16, 2024

POKAGON BAND OF POTAWATOMI INDIANS

OrganizationDOWAGIAC, MI

$3,300

Apr 25, 2023

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

OrganizationSHELBYVILLE, MI

$3,300

Sep 29, 2023

PECHANGA BAND OF INDIANS

OrganizationTEMECULA, CA

$3,300

Sep 29, 2023

SAGINAW CHIPPEWA TRIBE OF MICHIGAN

OrganizationMT. PLEASANT, MI

$2,000

Oct 27, 2023

POKAGON BAND OF POTAWATOMI INDIANS

OrganizationDOWAGIAC, MI

$1,700

Apr 27, 2023

CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

OrganizationDURANT, OK

$1,650

Dec 31, 2023

Rep. Moore, Blake D. [R-UT-1]

ID: M001213

Top Contributors

JLS HOLDINGS LLC

OrganizationSALT LAKE CITY, UT

$9,900

Jul 13, 2023

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$3,300

May 16, 2024

HEMMCO LLC

OrganizationOREM, UT

$2,500

Sep 15, 2023

R & O CONSTRUCTION

OrganizationOGDEN, UT

$2,500

Sep 13, 2023

PARKER, ALEXANDRA

APERCEN PARTNERS, LLC

IndividualPALO ALTO, CA

$6,600

Sep 20, 2024

PARKER, SEAN

APERCEN PARTNERS, LLC

IndividualPALO ALTO, CA

$6,600

Sep 20, 2024

KAUFMAN, TRENT

MGT • EXECUTIVE

IndividualHOLLADAY, UT

$6,600

Sep 9, 2024

MOORE, BRENT

SOLTIS ADVISORS • PARTNER

IndividualSALT LAKE CITY, UT

$6,000

Sep 26, 2024

MOORE, BRENT

SOLTIS ADVISORS • PARTNER

IndividualSALT LAKE CITY, UT

$6,000

Sep 26, 2024

CHANG, JASON

IndividualMENLO PARK, CA

$3,300

Oct 30, 2024

Rep. Harris, Andy [R-MD-1]

ID: H001052

Top Contributors

AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE PAC

PACWASHINGTON, DC

$1,000

Jun 27, 2023

AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE PAC

PACWASHINGTON, DC

$1,000

Jun 27, 2023

AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE PAC

PACWASHINGTON, DC

$1,000

Jun 26, 2023

AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE PAC

PACWASHINGTON, DC

$1,000

Jun 23, 2023

HOUSE FREEDOM FUND

PACWASHINGTON, DC

$800

May 18, 2023

AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE PAC

PACWASHINGTON, DC

$500

Jun 28, 2023

AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE PAC

PACWASHINGTON, DC

$500

Jun 23, 2023

AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE PAC

PACWASHINGTON, DC

$500

Jun 27, 2023

AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE PAC

PACWASHINGTON, DC

$500

Jun 23, 2023

AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE PAC

PACWASHINGTON, DC

$500

Jun 29, 2023

Rep. Biggs, Sheri [R-SC-3]

ID: B001325

Top Contributors

BENNETT, HEATHER

IndividualTOWNVILLE, SC

$6,600

Feb 12, 2024

COX, HOWARD

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualSENECA, SC

$6,600

Mar 18, 2024

SCOTT, MARILYN

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualKOSCIUSKO, MS

$6,600

Feb 12, 2024

SEYMORE, GARY W

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualANDERSON, SC

$6,600

Feb 12, 2024

MATTEO, CHRIS

UBS • FINANCIAL ADVISOR

IndividualHOBOKEN, NJ

$5,000

Mar 6, 2024

CASSELS, W.T. JR.

SOUTHEASTERN FRIGHT LINES • PRESIDENT

IndividualCOLUMBIA, SC

$3,500

Oct 30, 2024

CASSELS, W TOBIN III

SOUTHEASTERN FREIGHT LINES • PRESIDENT

IndividualCOLUMBIA, SC

$3,500

Oct 30, 2024

ARIAIL, BRANDI C

CROSSWALK HOLDINGS, INC. • INVESTOR

IndividualGREENVILLE, SC

$3,500

Mar 22, 2024

FLOYD, KAREN KANES

THE PALLADIAN GROUP INC • PUBLIC RELATIONS

IndividualSPARTANBURG, SC

$3,500

Jun 18, 2024

SIMPSON, DARWIN H

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualSPARTANBURG, SC

$3,500

Jun 18, 2024

Rep. Cloud, Michael [R-TX-27]

ID: C001115

Top Contributors

BUTLER CONSULTING

OrganizationPORT LAVACA, TX

$250

Oct 25, 2024

BURDGE, THOMAS R

VP OF ACCOUNTING

IndividualVICTORIA, TX

$6,600

Oct 3, 2024

BORCHERS, CHARLA

RANCHING • INVESTMENTS

IndividualVICTORIA, TX

$6,600

Oct 2, 2024

BURDGE, THOMAS R

VP OF ACCOUNTING

IndividualVICTORIA, TX

$6,600

Oct 3, 2024

ATNIP, CHAR

IndividualCORPUS CHRISTI, TX

$3,300

Sep 30, 2024

ATNIP, CLIF

IndividualCORPUS CHRISTI, TX

$3,300

Oct 28, 2024

BURDGE, TAMI

IndividualVICTORIA, TX

$3,300

Oct 28, 2024

RAMIREZ, PHILIP

TURNER, RAMIREZ & ASSOCIATES, INC. • ARCHITECT

IndividualCORPUS CHRISTI, TX

$3,300

Jan 4, 2024

PARKER, ROBERT E.

REPCON INC. • PRESIDENT

IndividualCORPUS CHRISTI, TX

$3,300

Jan 12, 2024

TROXLER, JOSEPH G.

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualCORDOVA, TN

$3,300

Jan 16, 2024

Rep. McGuire, John J. [R-VA-5]

ID: M001239

Top Contributors

No contribution data available

Rep. Guest, Michael [R-MS-3]

ID: G000591

Top Contributors

RMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC

OrganizationHOOVER, AL

$2,500

Sep 17, 2024

DUNAGIN PEST SOLUTIONS LLC

OrganizationHATTIESBURG, MS

$1,650

Sep 17, 2024

DUNAGIN PEST SOLUTIONS LLC

OrganizationHATTIESBURG, MS

$1,650

Sep 17, 2024

MS BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS

OrganizationCHOCTAW, MS

$1,000

Sep 30, 2023

CLAW FORESTRY SERVICES, LLC

OrganizationJACKSON, SC

$1,000

Sep 30, 2024

VILLAGE OF MADISON, LLC

OrganizationMADISON, MS

$500

Sep 30, 2024

BLACKWELL, DEAN

SELF EMPLOYED • PHYSICIAN

IndividualJACKSON, MS

$3,300

Nov 3, 2024

DAVIS, LESLEY

MS ADVOCACY GROUP • PUBLIC POLICY

IndividualFLOWOOD, MS

$3,300

Oct 21, 2024

DOZIER, ROBERT HUGH

MIPA • EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

IndividualRIDGELAND, MS

$3,300

Oct 31, 2024

DUFF, THOMAS M

SOUTHERN TIRE MART • OWNER

IndividualHATTIESBURG, MS

$3,300

Oct 31, 2024

Donor Network - Rep. Fischbach, Michelle [R-MN-7]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 71 nodes and 45 connections (64 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $201,770

Top Donors - Rep. Fischbach, Michelle [R-MN-7]

Showing top 23 donors by contribution amount

6 Orgs17 Individuals

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: 69%

Pages: 533-535AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 6945 aligns with Project 2025's emphasis on supporting pregnancy centers and restricting abortion-related services by allowing state funds to be used for organizations that protect the life of the mother and unborn child, reflecting pro-life policy priorities."

Key themes:pregnancy center fundingpro-life policyabortion restrictionsstate grant flexibilitymaternal and child welfare

— 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

Strong

Vector: 66%

Pages: 533-535AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 6945 aligns with Project 2025's emphasis on supporting pregnancy centers and protecting life, reflecting shared goals of expanding state flexibility in funding pro-life healthcare alternatives and reducing reliance on abortion services."

Key themes:pregnancy center fundingpro-life policyMedicaid flexibilityabortion alternativesstate grant authority

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

Department of Health and Human Services

Strong

Vector: 66%

Pages: 515-517AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 6945 aligns with Project 2025's goal of expanding support for pregnancy centers and promoting pro-life policies by allowing states to use federal funds for organizations that protect the life of the mother and unborn child, reflecting shared objectives in advancing religious and moral exemptions and reducing abortion-related services."

Key themes:pregnancy center fundingpro-life policyreligious and moral exemptionswomen's preventive servicesHHS grant flexibility

— 483 — Department of Health and Human Services l Readdress the National Strategy to Support Family Caregivers. While in theory the strategy aims to support family members with duties to care for older family members, the plan is overly focused on racial and “LGBTQ+ equity.” The strategy should be examined to establish an efficient plan to support caregivers and their families. There should also be a review of its COVID-19 policies. HEALTH RESOURCES AND SERVICES ADMINISTRATION (HRSA) l Congress should allow CMS to use the 340B data that HRSA collects rather than having CMS conduct its own survey, especially in view of the U.S. Supreme Court’s American Hospital Association v. Becerra decision.69 The legislation should also create penalties for those who do not respond to HRSA’s data collection. l Legally define the locus of service as where the provider is located during the telehealth visit rather than where the patient is. With such a definition, states could continue to reserve their powers to establish the standards for licensure and scope of practice. The providers could ensure continuity and consistency of care no matter where their patients might move while maintaining the licenses that make the most sense for them. Americans are far more mobile and technologically advanced today than they were when most health care laws were written. Telehealth has become increasingly important, particularly during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. It also has great potential in rural and other areas where there are shortages of health care providers. HRSA’s Office for the Advancement of Telehealth includes a program known as the Licensure Portability Grant Program, which bolsters state efforts to reform licensing laws to maximize telehealth flexibility. HRSA does not have the authority through this office to dictate licensure laws; that power has typically been reserved to the states. However, telehealth across state lines, when permitted, is interstate commerce, which can be regulated by the federal government according to the Constitution. l Restore Trump religious and moral exemptions to the contraceptive mandate (also a CMS rule). HHS should rescind, if finalized, the regulation titled “Coverage of Certain Preventive Services Under the Affordable Care Act,” proposed jointly by HHS, Treasury, and Labor.70 This rule proposes to amend Trump-era final rules regarding religious and moral exemptions and accommodations for coverage of certain preventive services under the ACA. Preventive services include contraception, and — 484 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise it appears the proposed rule would change the existing regulations for religious and moral exemptions to the ACA’s contraception mandate. There is no need for further rulemaking that curtails existing exemptions and accommodations. l Require HRSA to use rulemaking to update the women’s preventive services mandate. The contraceptive mandate issued under Obamacare has been the source of years of egregious attacks on many Americans’ religious and moral beliefs. The mandate was issued as part of the women’s preventive services guidelines, which were issued without any rulemaking that involved public notice and an opportunity to comment. Instead, HRSA issued and changed the mandate by simply posting changes to its website. HRSA also started off not requiring coverage of fertility awareness–based methods of family planning, then requiring them, and then removing the requirement without notifying the public. A federal judge recently ruled that this failure to undergo notice and comment in issuing the mandate is unlawful. HRSA should be required to repromulgate any women’s preventive services mandates through the notice and comment process that is compliant with the Administrative Procedures Act. Moreover, since the Obama Administration HRSA entered into long- term contracts with the pro-abortion American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and related entities to serve as an exclusive adviser with respect to the content of this mandate, HRSA has used this arrangement to ignore comments that members of the public were sometimes able to submit in the process, and ACOG has abused its position to attack HHS’s allowance of religious and moral exemptions to the contraceptive mandate. HHS should rescind these contracts and establish an advisory committee that is compliant with the Federal Advisory Committee Act and has members that are committed to women’s preventive services and are not pro-abortion ideologues. l Expand inclusion of fertility awareness–based methods and supplies to family planning in the women’s preventive services mandate. The ACA requires coverage of and prevents insurance plans from imposing any cost-sharing requirements on women who obtain preventive care and screenings as defined by HRSA. In 2016, HHS included “instruction in fertility awareness-based methods” as part of this requirement. However, in December 2021, HHS removed that language from its list without using the notice-and-comment process or giving any rationale, both of which are mandated by the Administrative Procedures Act. In August

Department of Health and Human Services

Moderate

Vector: 65%

Pages: 518-520AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 6945 aligns with Project 2025's emphasis on supporting pregnancy-related services and maternal health, particularly through funding for organizations that promote childbirth and family support, though it does not directly address the specific HHS directives in the Project 2025 excerpt such as fertility awareness methods or abortion training restrictions."

Key themes:maternal healthpregnancy supportfamily servicespro-life alignmentstate funding flexibility

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

Department of Health and Human Services

Moderate

Vector: 65%

Pages: 515-517AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 6945 aligns with Project 2025's emphasis on supporting family structures and promoting life-affirming services, particularly through funding pregnancy centers that emphasize protecting the life of the mother and unborn child. While the bill does not directly address father involvement, Head Start elimination, or palliative care as outlined in the HHS section of Project 2025, it shares thematic ground in strengthening family support systems and advancing a pro-life, family-centered policy agen"

Key themes:family supportpro-life policiespregnancy and parenting resourcesstate flexibility in fundingchild and maternal welfare

— 482 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise sociological understanding of what it means to be a father—not a gender- neutral parent—from social science, psychology, personal testimonies, etc. ADMINISTRATION ON CHILDREN, YOUTH, AND FAMILIES (ACYF) l Allocate funding to strategy programs promoting father involvement or terminate parental rights quickly. ACYF is currently considering different programs to encourage parents, especially fathers, to engage with their children in foster care. While these program ideas and initiatives are still in the early planning stages, promoting responsible parenthood to reintegrate children or at least keep a consistent male figure in the minor’s life is crucial. At the same time, in cases where the father or mother does not make a sincere or serious effort to be involved in the child’s upbringing, termination of parental rights for children in foster care should be swift. OFFICE OF HEAD START (OHS) l Eliminate the Head Start program. Head Start, originally established and funded to support low-income families, is fraught with scandal and abuse. With a budget of more than $11 billion, the program should function to protect and educate minors. Sadly, it has done exactly the opposite. In fact, “approximately 1 in 4 grant recipients had incidents in which children were abused, left unsupervised, or released to an unauthorized person between October 2015 and May 2020.”68 Research has demonstrated that federal Head Start centers, which provide preschool care to children from low-income families, have little or no long-term academic value for children. Given its unaddressed crisis of rampant abuse and lack of positive outcomes, this program should be eliminated along with the entire OHS. At the very least, the program’s COVID-19 vaccine and mask requirements should be rescinded. ADMINISTRATION FOR COMMUNITY LIVING (ACL) l Support palliative care. Physician-assisted suicide (PAS) is legal in 10 states and the District of Columbia. Legalizing PAS is a grave mistake that endangers the weak and vulnerable, corrupts the practice of medicine and the doctor–patient relationship, compromises the family and intergenerational commitments, and betrays human dignity and equality before the law. Instead of embracing PAS, policymakers should focus on the benefits of palliative care, which works to improve a patient’s quality of life by alleviating pain and other distressing symptoms of a serious illness. HHS ACL should survey their programs to ensure that they are supporting vulnerable persons of age or disability and are not facilitating or encouraging participation in PAS. — 483 — Department of Health and Human Services l Readdress the National Strategy to Support Family Caregivers. While in theory the strategy aims to support family members with duties to care for older family members, the plan is overly focused on racial and “LGBTQ+ equity.” The strategy should be examined to establish an efficient plan to support caregivers and their families. There should also be a review of its COVID-19 policies. HEALTH RESOURCES AND SERVICES ADMINISTRATION (HRSA) l Congress should allow CMS to use the 340B data that HRSA collects rather than having CMS conduct its own survey, especially in view of the U.S. Supreme Court’s American Hospital Association v. Becerra decision.69 The legislation should also create penalties for those who do not respond to HRSA’s data collection. l Legally define the locus of service as where the provider is located during the telehealth visit rather than where the patient is. With such a definition, states could continue to reserve their powers to establish the standards for licensure and scope of practice. The providers could ensure continuity and consistency of care no matter where their patients might move while maintaining the licenses that make the most sense for them. Americans are far more mobile and technologically advanced today than they were when most health care laws were written. Telehealth has become increasingly important, particularly during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. It also has great potential in rural and other areas where there are shortages of health care providers. HRSA’s Office for the Advancement of Telehealth includes a program known as the Licensure Portability Grant Program, which bolsters state efforts to reform licensing laws to maximize telehealth flexibility. HRSA does not have the authority through this office to dictate licensure laws; that power has typically been reserved to the states. However, telehealth across state lines, when permitted, is interstate commerce, which can be regulated by the federal government according to the Constitution. l Restore Trump religious and moral exemptions to the contraceptive mandate (also a CMS rule). HHS should rescind, if finalized, the regulation titled “Coverage of Certain Preventive Services Under the Affordable Care Act,” proposed jointly by HHS, Treasury, and Labor.70 This rule proposes to amend Trump-era final rules regarding religious and moral exemptions and accommodations for coverage of certain preventive services under the ACA. Preventive services include contraception, and

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. Fischbach, Michelle

Adopting the Rules of the House of Representatives for the One Hundred Nineteenth Congress, and for other purposes.

119/hres/5

Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 25) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Internal Revenue Service relating to "Gross Proceeds Reporting by Brokers That Regularly Provide Services Effectuating Digital Asset Sales"; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1156) to amend the CARES Act to extend the statute of limitations for fraud under certain unemployment programs, and for other purposes; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1968) making further continuing appropriations and other extensions for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2025, and for other purposes; and for other purposes.

119/hres/211

Fixing the daily hour of meeting of the First Session of the One Hundred Nineteenth Congress.

119/hres/6

Back to All Bills