The bill
Access to Birth Control Act
S. 2302, 119th Congress — read as touching Pharmaceuticals.
Sponsored by
Sen. Booker, Cory A. [D-NJ]
ID: B001288
Follow the money
The bill
S. 2302, 119th Congress — read as touching Pharmaceuticals.
The sponsor
Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.
The money
22 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.
The alignment
This bill's text tracks the "Introduction" section, p. 488-490 of the Mandate for Leadership.
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Star Print ordered on the bill.
July 31, 2025
📍 Current Status
Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.
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!
Another brilliant example of legislative theater, courtesy of the esteemed members of Congress. Let's dissect this farce, shall we?
**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Access to Birth Control Act (S 2302) claims to ensure that pharmacies provide Food and Drug Administration-approved contraception and medication related to contraception. How noble. In reality, this bill is a Band-Aid on the festering wound of systemic inequities in healthcare.
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends the Public Health Service Act to establish duties for pharmacies to ensure provision of FDA-approved contraception. It's a cleverly worded attempt to circumvent the Supreme Court's Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision, which gutted Roe v. Wade. The bill also clarifies that refusing to dispense birth control can be considered sex discrimination under section 1557 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects are involved: pharmacies, healthcare providers, women (particularly those from marginalized communities), and the pharmaceutical industry. Oh, and let's not forget the politicians who will use this bill as a campaign talking point to pander to their base.
**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a token effort to address the very real issue of access to birth control. It may provide some relief for women facing barriers to contraception, but it doesn't tackle the root causes of these inequities. The bill's language is vague enough to allow pharmacies and healthcare providers to continue discriminating against certain groups under the guise of "personal beliefs."
In reality, this bill is a symptom of a deeper disease: the systemic erosion of reproductive rights in the United States. It's a desperate attempt to stem the bleeding from the Dobbs decision, but it won't stop the hemorrhaging.
The real motivations behind this bill are clear: politicians want to appear pro-choice without actually doing anything meaningful to address the issue. The pharmaceutical industry will likely benefit from increased sales of FDA-approved contraception. And pharmacies? They'll just have to pretend to care about providing birth control while still finding ways to discriminate against marginalized communities.
In conclusion, S 2302 is a legislative placebo – it might make you feel better for a moment, but it won't cure the underlying disease. It's a cynical attempt to pander to voters while maintaining the status quo of systemic inequities in healthcare. How delightfully predictable.
Sen. Booker, Cory A. [D-NJ]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No PAC contributions found
No committee contributions found
This bill has 10 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.
ID: M001111
Top Contributors
10
ID: S001181
Top Contributors
10
ID: B001230
Top Contributors
10
ID: K000384
Top Contributors
10
ID: B001277
Top Contributors
10
ID: D000622
Top Contributors
10
ID: G000555
Top Contributors
10
ID: W000805
Top Contributors
10
ID: R000608
Top Contributors
10
ID: W000802
Top Contributors
10
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 53 nodes and 37 connections (65 secondary connections hidden)
Total contributions: $143,450
Showing top 12 donors by contribution amount
Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 3 helped.
Section 3(a)(1)-(2) requires pharmacies to provide FDA-approved contraceptives and related medications without delay, increasing demand for these products and benefiting pharmaceutical manufacturers.
By ensuring access to contraception and related medications, the bill may reduce unintended pregnancies and associated healthcare costs, benefiting health systems through improved public health outcomes.
Increased access to contraception may lower long-term healthcare costs related to unintended pregnancies, potentially reducing claims and costs for health insurers.
For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Sen. Booker, Cory A. [D-NJ])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.
— 456 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise abortion providers and whether better prenatal physical, mental, and social care improves infant outcomes and decreases abortion rates, especially among those who are most vulnerable. The Ensuring Accurate and Complete Abortion Data Reporting Act of 20239 would amend title XIX of the Social Security Act and Public Health Service Act to improve the CDC’s abortion reporting mechanisms by requiring states, as a condition of federal Medicaid payments for family planning services, to report streamlined variables in a timely manner. The CDC should immediately end its collection of data on gender identity, which legitimizes the unscientific notion that men can become women (and vice versa) and encourages the phenomenon of ever-multiplying subjective identities. FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION (FDA) The FDA’s mission includes ensuring the safety and efficacy of drugs, biological products, and medical devices. Federal Laws That Shield Big Pharma from Competition. Because generics generally cost far less than brand-name drugs, consumers begin to save money as soon as a generic product comes on the market. The vast majority are very afford- able with 93 percent of generic products costing $20 or less. Savings would be even higher under proposals that prevent brand-name man- ufacturers from slowing down or impeding the entrance of generic products into the marketplace. Specifically, the FDA should prohibit pharmaceutical companies from purposely sitting on their legally available right to be the first to sell generic versions of their drugs. Additionally, Congress should create legal remedies for generic companies to obtain samples of brand-name products for their generic development efforts and should prohibit meritless “citizen petitions” submitted by manufacturers to delay approval of a generic competitor.10 Approval Process for Laboratory-Developed or Modified Medical Tests. Learning from the failed early COVID-19 testing experience, Congress and the FDA should focus on reforming laws and regulations governing medical tests, especially with respect to laboratory-developed tests. Commercial tests are developed with the intention of being widely marketed, distributed, and used, while laboratory-developed tests are created with the intention of being used solely within one laboratory. A test developed by a lab in accordance with the protocols developed by another lab (non-commercial sharing) currently constitutes a “new” laboratory-developed test because the lab in which it will be used is different from the initial developing lab. To encourage interlab- oratory collaboration and discourage duplicative test creation (and associated regulatory and logistical burdens), the FDA should introduce mechanisms through which laboratory-developed tests can easily be shared with other laboratories with- out the current regulatory burdens.11 — 457 — Department of Health and Human Services The “laboratory-developed tests” category currently encompasses a range of possible tests, many of which would be characterized more appropriately as “lab- oratory-modified tests” because they are not truly novel tests but rather modified versions of existing tests. To avoid stifling innovation and access to medical care, the applicable statutes and regulations should be revised to facilitate greater access to such modified tests.12 Finally, the FDA has long held that it has regulatory authority over such tests, while others have argued that they should be considered clinical services regulated by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). The FDA currently has regulatory authority over in vitro diagnostics, and under the Clinical Lab- oratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA),13 the CMS ensures that labs meet analytical validity standards for test methods. Congress, the FDA, and the CMS need to clarify and disentangle overlapping authorities over tests to eliminate regulatory confusion.14 Drug Shortages. The very thin profit margins and the regulatory burdens associated with generic drug manufacturing discourage inventory and capacity investments by manufacturers and contribute to drug shortages. HHS and the FDA should encourage more dependable generic drug manufacturing. The FDA should expand its current pass/fail approach to drug facility inspec- tions into a graded system that recognizes manufacturers that exceed minimum standards by investing in improving production reliability. The FDA should also add facility codes to drug packaging and construct a searchable database that cross-references product codes and facility codes. That would enable wholesalers and pharmacy benefit managers to identify and preference drugs manufactured at more reliable facilities, thus encouraging generic drug manufacturers to compete on reliability as well as on price. For its part, HHS should exempt multi-source generic drugs from requirements to pay rebates to Medicaid and other federally funded health programs, as those provisions penalize new investments in expanding manufacturing capacity when supply is unable to meet demand.15 Additionally, FDA and NIH should promote efficacy trials of new applications for generic drugs, which might include NIH fund- ing such trials or conducting its own. Abortion Pills. Abortion pills pose the single greatest threat to unborn chil- dren in a post-Roe world. The rate of chemical abortion in the U.S. has increased by more than 150 percent in the past decade; more than half of annual abortions in the U.S. are chemical rather than surgical. The abortion pill regimen is typically a two-part process. The first pill, mifepris- tone, causes the death of the unborn child by cutting off the hormone progesterone, which is required to sustain a pregnancy. The second pill, misoprostol, causes con- tractions to induce a delivery of the dead child and uterine contents, usually into a toilet at home. The abortion-pill regimen is currently approved for up to 70 days
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.