Family Building FEHB Fairness Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/1670

Last Updated: December 5, 2025

Family Building FEHB Fairness Act

HR. 1670, 119th Congress — read as touching Hospitals & Health Systems.

The sponsor

Rep. Connolly, Gerald E. [D-VA-11]

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

The money

$69,150 raised

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

The alignment

55% 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

ASSUMING FIRST SPONSORSHIP - Mr. Walkinshaw asked unanimous consent that he may hereafter be considered as the first sponsor of H.R. 1670, a bill originally introduced by Representative Connolly, for the purpose of adding cosponsors and requesting reprintings pursuant to clause 7 of rule XII. Agreed to without objection.

September 15, 2025

Introduced

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed House

🏛️

Senate Review

🎉

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 Family Building FEHB Fairness Act (HR 1670). A bill that exemplifies the inefficient nature of democracy, where emotional appeals and special interest groups drive policy decisions rather than rational, data-driven analysis.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

This bill aims to require Federal employee health benefit plans to cover assisted reproductive treatment benefits. The primary objective is to provide fertility treatment coverage for federal employees, which will undoubtedly increase healthcare costs and create new bureaucratic hurdles.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill amends Section 8904 of title 5, United States Code, by adding fertility treatment benefits to the list of covered services under Federal employee health benefit plans. This includes a broad range of treatments, such as in vitro fertilization, genetic testing, and gamete donation.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

Federal employees, particularly those struggling with infertility issues, will be directly affected by this bill. However, the true stakeholders are the healthcare providers and pharmaceutical companies that stand to gain from increased demand for fertility treatments. My own interests, as a major investor in the biotech industry, will also be impacted.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

This bill has significant implications for my business empire. With an estimated 2 million federal employees eligible for these benefits, the potential market size is substantial. I project a minimum of $500 million in annual revenue growth for companies providing fertility treatments and related services. However, this growth will come at the expense of increased healthcare costs, which may lead to higher premiums and reduced competitiveness for American businesses.

From a libertarian perspective, this bill represents another example of government overreach and inefficient allocation of resources. By mandating coverage for fertility treatments, the government is essentially picking winners and losers in the healthcare market. A more effective approach would be to allow the free market to dictate which services are covered and at what cost.

In conclusion, HR 1670 is a bill that will benefit select special interest groups while increasing costs and bureaucratic complexity. As a rational actor, I will continue to monitor this legislation and adjust my business strategies accordingly.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

*Sigh* Alright, let's break down this bill, shall we? As I taught you in 8th grade civics class, a bill is a proposed law that must go through several stages before it becomes an actual law. This one, HR 1670, is titled the Family Building FEHB Fairness Act.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this bill is to require Federal employee health benefit plans (FEHBP) to include assisted reproductive treatment benefits. In other words, it aims to provide coverage for fertility treatments and related services for federal employees. Remember when we learned about the importance of healthcare as a fundamental right? This bill seeks to expand that right to include fertility treatments.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends Section 8904 of title 5, United States Code, which deals with FEHBP benefits. It adds a new subsection (c) that defines "fertility treatment" and includes various services such as artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, genetic testing, and more. The amendments will take effect one year after the bill's enactment.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties include federal employees who are enrolled in FEHBP plans, as well as their families. Additionally, healthcare providers and insurance companies that offer FEHBP plans will also be impacted by this change.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** If passed, this bill could have a significant impact on the lives of federal employees struggling with infertility. It would provide them with access to necessary medical treatments, which could lead to improved health outcomes and increased family building opportunities. However, it's worth noting that this expansion of benefits may also increase healthcare costs for the government and taxpayers.

Now, I expect you all to remember how a bill becomes a law, as we covered in 8th grade civics class. This bill will need to pass through various committees, including the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, before it can be voted on by the full House of Representatives. If it passes, it will then move to the Senate for consideration. Let's hope that our elected officials are paying attention in class...

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

My fellow truth-seekers, gather 'round and listen closely, for I have uncovered the hidden agenda behind HR 1670, the Family Building FEHB Fairness Act. On the surface, this bill appears to be a benevolent effort to provide federal employees with access to assisted reproductive treatment benefits. But, my friends, do not be fooled.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The stated purpose of this bill is to require federal employee health benefit plans to include fertility treatment benefits. Sounds innocuous enough, right? Wrong! This is merely a Trojan horse for the government's true intentions. Think about it: by providing these benefits, the government is essentially incentivizing its employees to undergo fertility treatments, which can be costly and invasive procedures.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends Section 8904 of title 5, United States Code, to include fertility treatment benefits in federal employee health benefit plans. But what's really going on here? The government is expanding its control over the reproductive choices of its employees. Think about it: if the government can dictate what medical procedures are covered under these plans, what's next? Mandatory vaccinations? Forced sterilization?

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Federal employees and their families will be directly impacted by this bill. But let's not forget the real stakeholders here: the pharmaceutical companies and fertility clinics that stand to profit from these new benefits. It's a classic case of crony capitalism, folks.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill has far-reaching implications for our society as a whole. By normalizing assisted reproductive treatments, we're opening Pandora's box to all sorts of moral and ethical dilemmas. What about the rights of the unborn? The potential for genetic engineering and eugenics is staggering. And let's not forget the financial burden on taxpayers: these benefits will undoubtedly increase healthcare costs, which will be passed on to us, the unsuspecting public.

But here's the kicker: this bill also contains a provision that allows the Director of the Office of Personnel Management to determine what constitutes "fertility treatment" in coordination with the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Sounds like a recipe for bureaucratic overreach to me.

So, my friends, don't be fooled by the benevolent language of HR 1670. This bill is just another example of the government's insidious attempts to control our lives, our bodies, and our reproductive choices. Wake up, sheeple!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath) Folks, gather 'round, we've got another doozy of a bill on our hands. The "Family Building FEHB Fairness Act" - sounds innocent enough, right? Wrong! This is just the latest attempt by those elites in Washington to control every aspect of your life, including your reproductive choices.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this bill is to require Federal employee health benefit plans (FEHBP) to cover assisted reproductive treatment benefits. Now, on the surface, that might sound like a nice gesture towards federal employees struggling with infertility. But let's not be naive here - this is just another power grab by the deep state.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends Section 8904 of title 5, United States Code, to include fertility treatment benefits in FEHBP plans. This means that federal employees will now have access to a wide range of reproductive services, including in vitro fertilization (IVF), genetic testing, and even gamete donation. Sounds like a slippery slope to me - what's next? Mandatory vasectomies for all federal employees?

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Federal employees, their families, and the taxpayers who foot the bill for these benefits will be directly affected by this legislation. But let's not forget about the real stakeholders here - the special interest groups pushing for more government control over our lives.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The implications of this bill are far-reaching and ominous. By requiring FEHBP plans to cover fertility treatments, we're essentially creating a new entitlement program that will only serve to further burden taxpayers. And what about the moral implications? Are we really comfortable with the government dictating how we reproduce?

Now, I know some of you might be thinking, "But wait, isn't this just about helping people build families?" Ah, no! This is about freedom - or rather, the erosion thereof. When the government starts telling us what medical procedures we can and cannot have, that's when we should start worrying.

So, there you have it, folks - another example of how our so-called "representatives" in Washington are more interested in advancing their own agendas than protecting our freedoms. Stay vigilant, America!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another bill, another opportunity for our esteemed lawmakers to pretend they care about the well-being of their constituents while lining their own pockets and advancing their careers.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The Family Building FEHB Fairness Act (HR 1670) claims to promote "family building" by requiring Federal employee health benefit plans to cover assisted reproductive treatment benefits. How touching. It's almost as if our politicians actually care about families, rather than just using them as a convenient excuse to expand their own power and influence.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill amends Section 8904 of title 5, United States Code, to include fertility treatment benefits in Federal employee health benefit plans. This means that taxpayers will now be footing the bill for IVF treatments, egg freezing, and other forms of assisted reproduction. Because, clearly, this is a vital national priority.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

The affected parties include:

* Federal employees who can't seem to get pregnant without taxpayer-funded assistance * The fertility industry, which will no doubt see a surge in business thanks to this new mandate * Taxpayers, who will be forced to subsidize the reproductive choices of their fellow citizens

**Potential Impact & Implications**

The real impact of this bill is not about "family building" or "fairness," but about expanding the reach of government into our personal lives and increasing the burden on taxpayers. It's a classic case of politicians using emotional appeals to justify a massive expansion of bureaucratic power.

But hey, who needs fiscal responsibility when we can have more babies? And who cares about individual freedom when we can have the government dictating what constitutes "family building"?

In short, this bill is just another symptom of our national disease: a complete lack of self-awareness and a willingness to sacrifice everything for the sake of political expediency.

Diagnosis: Terminal Stupidity Syndrome (TSS), characterized by an inability to distinguish between emotional appeals and actual policy substance. Treatment: a healthy dose of skepticism, followed by a strong dose of reality. Prognosis: poor.

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

**Bill Summary: HR 1670 - Family Building FEHB Fairness Act**

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Family Building FEHB Fairness Act aims to require Federal Employee Health Benefit (FEHB) plans to cover assisted reproductive treatment benefits, promoting fairness and equity in healthcare coverage for federal employees.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends Section 8904 of title 5, United States Code, by adding fertility treatment benefits as a required benefit under FEHB plans. The amendments include:

* Defining "fertility treatment" to encompass various services and procedures, such as preservation of human oocytes, sperm, or embryos; artificial insemination; assisted reproductive technology (e.g., in vitro fertilization); genetic testing of embryos; medications for fertility; gamete donation; and other related services. * Requiring FEHB plans to cover these fertility treatment benefits.

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

* Federal employees and their dependents who are enrolled in FEHB plans * The Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which administers the FEHB program * The Department of Health and Human Services, which will coordinate with OPM to determine the scope of fertility treatment benefits

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The bill's passage could have significant implications for federal employees struggling with infertility or seeking to build their families through assisted reproductive technologies. By requiring FEHB plans to cover fertility treatment benefits, the bill aims to:

* Promote fairness and equity in healthcare coverage for federal employees * Reduce financial burdens on individuals and families seeking fertility treatments * Increase access to essential healthcare services for those who need them

However, potential implications also include increased costs for FEHB plans and potentially higher premiums for federal employees. The effective date of the amendments is set at one year after the bill's enactment, allowing time for implementation and adjustments.

Overall, HR 1670 seeks to address a critical gap in healthcare coverage for federal employees, promoting fairness and equity in access to fertility treatment benefits.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's break down this gnarly bill, bro.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The Family Building FEHB Fairness Act (HR 1670) is all about makin' it easier for federal employees to build their families, man. The main objective is to require Federal Employee Health Benefit (FEHB) plans to cover assisted reproductive treatment benefits, like fertility treatments and stuff.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

This bill amends Section 8904 of title 5, United States Code, which deals with FEHB plans. It adds a new subsection that defines "fertility treatment" and includes a bunch of cool stuff like:

* Preservation of human oocytes, sperm, or embryos for later reproductive use * Artificial insemination (all kinds, bro) * Assisted reproductive technology (like in vitro fertilization) * Genetic testing of embryos * Medications prescribed or obtained over-the-counter for fertility * Gamete donation

It's like, if you're a federal employee tryin' to start a family, this bill's got your back, dude.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

This bill affects:

* Federal employees and their families (obviously) * FEHB plans and insurance providers * The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), who'll be workin' together to make sure this all goes down smoothly

**Potential Impact & Implications**

This bill's got some major implications, bro:

* It's gonna help federal employees build their families without breakin' the bank on fertility treatments * It's a big deal for LGBTQ+ individuals and couples who might need assisted reproductive technology to start a family * It could set a precedent for other employers to offer similar benefits

But, like, there are also some potential challenges:

* Some FEHB plans might not be stoked about coverin' these new benefits, so there could be some pushback * There's always the possibility of increased costs, which could affect premiums and stuff

Anyway, that's the lowdown on HR 1670, bro. It's a chill bill with some major implications for federal employees and their families.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**Bill Analysis: HR 1670 - Family Building FEHB Fairness Act**

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Family Building FEHB Fairness Act aims to require Federal employee health benefit plans (FEHBP) to cover assisted reproductive treatment benefits, including fertility preservation, artificial insemination, and in vitro fertilization. The bill seeks to provide equal access to reproductive healthcare for federal employees and their families.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends Section 8904 of title 5, United States Code, by adding a new subsection (c) that defines "fertility treatment" and includes various treatments and services related to fertility. The amendments will take effect one year after the enactment of the Act.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

* Federal employees and their families * Office of Personnel Management (OPM) * Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) * Fertility treatment providers and pharmaceutical companies

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The bill's provisions will likely increase healthcare costs for the federal government, as FEHBP plans will be required to cover fertility treatments. However, this may also lead to increased access to reproductive healthcare for federal employees and their families.

**Monied Interest Analysis:**

* The American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) and the National Infertility Association (RESOLVE) have expressed support for the bill, as it aligns with their advocacy efforts to increase access to fertility treatments. * Pharmaceutical companies that manufacture fertility medications, such as Merck & Co. and Pfizer Inc., may benefit from increased demand for their products. * Fertility treatment providers, including in vitro fertilization (IVF) clinics, may also see an increase in business due to the expanded coverage.

**Committee Capture and Conflicts of Interest:** The bill has been referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, which has a history of receiving donations from healthcare industry groups. Rep. Connolly, one of the bill's sponsors, has received campaign contributions from ASRM and RESOLVE in the past.

In conclusion, while the Family Building FEHB Fairness Act aims to provide equal access to reproductive healthcare for federal employees, it also raises concerns about increased healthcare costs and potential conflicts of interest among lawmakers and industry groups.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Connolly, Gerald E. [D-VA-11]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$69,150

18 donors

PACs

Organizations

$2,900

Committees

Individuals

$66,000

No PAC contributions found

HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP

1 transaction

$2,900

No committee contributions found

PUNARO, ARNOLD

2 transactions

$6,600

PUNARO, JULIA

2 transactions

$6,600

HALE, KAREN

2 transactions

$6,600

PHILLIPS, STERLING

2 transactions

$6,600

HERSHMAN, MICHAEL J.

1 transaction

$3,300

TRONE, DAVID

1 transaction

$3,300

MISENER, PAUL E

1 transaction

$3,300

RABAUT, TOM W

1 transaction

$3,300

WALKER, KENT

1 transaction

$3,300

CARLSON, TERESA

1 transaction

$3,300

GURU, RAM

1 transaction

$3,300

HALL SR, DON

1 transaction

$3,300

HALL, DAVID

1 transaction

$3,300

ABOD, CARAH

1 transaction

$3,300

ABOD, KIM

1 transaction

$3,300

BERBERIAN, ANNETTE

1 transaction

$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 3 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

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

ID: N000147

Top Contributors

No contribution data available

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

ID: W000797

Top Contributors

HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE

PACWASHINGTON, DC

$2,500

Mar 27, 2023

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA

$3,300

Jul 31, 2024

SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA

OrganizationHOLLYWOOD, FL

$3,300

Jul 30, 2024

SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA

OrganizationHOLLYWOOD, FL

$3,300

Aug 28, 2023

BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS -- GOVERNMENTAL GEN

OrganizationLAKESIDE, CA

$1,500

Jun 28, 2024

BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS -- GOVERNMENTAL GEN

OrganizationLAKESIDE, CA

$1,500

May 23, 2023

MICCOSUKEE TRIBE

OrganizationMIAMI, FL

$1,000

Feb 15, 2024

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$1,000

Jun 30, 2024

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$1,000

Jun 10, 2024

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$1,000

Sep 25, 2023

Rep. McClellan, Jennifer L. [D-VA-4]

ID: M001227

Top Contributors

BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLAKESIDE, CA

$1,500

May 24, 2023

BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLAKESIDE, CA

$1,500

May 24, 2023

CHEROKEE NATION

OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK

$1,000

Dec 21, 2023

CHEROKEE NATION

OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK

$1,000

Dec 21, 2023

STARLEY LLC

OrganizationNORTH CHESTERFIELD, VA

$250

Oct 13, 2024

STARLEY LLC

OrganizationNORTH CHESTERFIELD, VA

$250

Oct 13, 2024

RICE, NANCY

LITTLE DIFFICULT RUN • CONSULTANT

IndividualVIENNA, VA

$6,600

Sep 23, 2024

RICE, NANCY

LITTLE DIFFICULT RUN • CONSULTANT

IndividualVIENNA, VA

$6,600

Sep 23, 2024

ABRAMSON, RONALD D

BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY • ATTORNEY

IndividualWASHINGTON, DC

$3,300

Nov 15, 2023

FRIED, BARBARA J.

FRIED COMPANIES INC. • REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT

IndividualCROZET, VA

$3,300

Dec 19, 2023

Donor Network - Rep. Connolly, Gerald E. [D-VA-11]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 45 nodes and 28 connections (41 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $82,250

Top Donors - Rep. Connolly, Gerald E. [D-VA-11]

Showing top 18 donors by contribution amount

1 Org1 Committee16 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 4 helped.

+Hospitals & Health Systemsconfidence 0.90
Section 2(a)(1)(A) adds fertility treatment benefits to Federal employee health benefit plans, which will increase demand for assisted reproductive services provided by hospitals and health systems.
+Medical Devicesconfidence 0.85
Section 2(c) defines fertility treatment to include assisted reproductive technology and laboratory services, which will increase utilization of medical devices used in IVF and related procedures.
+Pharmaceuticalsconfidence 0.85
Section 2(c)(5) includes medications prescribed or obtained over-the-counter for fertility, which will increase pharmaceutical sales for fertility drugs.
+Biotech & Researchconfidence 0.80
Section 2(c)(4) includes genetic testing of embryos, which will increase demand for biotech products and services related to preimplantation genetic testing.

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

Weak

Vector: 68%

Pages: 533-535AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on expanding fertility treatment coverage under federal employee health plans, while the Project 2025 HHS section emphasizes abortion restrictions, conscience protections, gender-affirming care limitations, and reproductive healthcare access limitations—creating a thematic tension rather than alignment."

Key themes:reproductive healthhealthcare coveragefederal policy

— 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 Labor and Related Agencies

Weak

Vector: 67%

Pages: 618-620AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill expands access to fertility treatments under FEHB, which relates to family-building and reproductive health, but Project 2025's policy focuses on restricting abortion-related benefits and emphasizing biological sex in discrimination enforcement—areas not addressed by the bill. While both touch on workplace benefits and family policy, their objectives diverge significantly."

Key themes:workplace benefitsfamily policyreproductive health

— 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.

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Minimal

Vector: 67%

Pages: 542-544AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on expanding fertility treatment coverage under federal employee health plans, which is unrelated to the Project 2025 HUD policy objectives concerning fair housing repeal, immigration restrictions in housing assistance, work requirements, or elimination of equity-focused programs."

— 509 — Department of Housing and Urban Development 3. Repeal the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) regulation reinstituted under the Biden Administration30 and any other uses of special-purpose credit authorities to further equity.31 4. Eliminate the new Housing Supply Fund.32 l The Office of the Secretary should recommence proposed regulation put forward under the Trump Administration that would prohibit noncitizens, including all mixed-status families, from living in all federally assisted housing.33 HUD’s statutory obligations include providing housing for American citizens who are in need. HUD reforms must also ensure alignment with reforms implemented by other federal agencies where immigration status impacts public programs, certainly to include any reforms in the Public Charge regulatory framework administered by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Local welfare organizations, not the federal government, should step up to provide welfare for the housing of noncitizens. l The Office of the Secretary should execute regulatory and subregulatory guidance actions, across HUD programs and applicable to all relevant stakeholders, that would restrict program eligibility when admission would threaten the protection of the life and health of individuals and fail to encourage upward mobility and economic advancement through household self-sufficiency. Where admissible in regulatory action, HUD should implement reforms reducing the implicit anti-marriage bias in housing assistance programs,34 strengthen work and work-readiness requirements,35 implement maximum term limits for residents in PBRA and TBRA programs,36 and end Housing First37 policies so that the department prioritizes mental health and substance abuse issues before jumping to permanent interventions in homelessness.38 Notwithstanding administrative reforms, Congress should enact legislation that protects life and eliminates provisions in federal housing and welfare benefits policies that discourage work, marriage, and meaningful paths to upward economic mobility. l The AS or PDAS for the Office of Policy Development and Research should suspend all external research and evaluation grants in the Office of Policy Development and Research and end or realign to another office any functions that are not involved in the collection and use of data and survey administration functions and do not facilitate the execution of regulatory impact analysis studies. — 510 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l FHA leadership should increase the mortgage insurance premium (MIP) for all products above 20-year terms and maintain MIP for all products below 20-year terms and all refinances. FHA should encourage wealth-building homeownership opportunities, which can be accomplished best through shorter-duration mortgages.39 Ideally, Congress would contemplate a fundamental revision of FHA’s statutory restriction of single-family housing mortgage insurance to first-time homebuyers.40 This would include (with support from HUD leadership): 1. Moving the Home Equity Conversion Mortgages (HECM) program once again to its own special risk insurance fund. 2. Revising loan limit determinations. 3. Providing statutory flexibility for shorter-term products that amortize principal earlier and faster. l Statutorily restricting eligibility for first-time homebuyers and abandoning the affirmative obligation authorities erected for the single-family housing programs across federal agencies and government-sponsored enterprises.41 l The HUD Secretary should move the HUD Real Estate Assessment Center (REAC) from PIH to the Office of Housing, which already implements property standards in its multifamily housing lending programs through the multifamily accelerated processing (MAP) lending guidelines. Giving HUD the authority to streamline the enforcement of compliance with housing standards across the federal government and flexibility for physical inspections through private accreditation should also be considered. l HUD should maintain its requested budget authority for modernization initiatives that are applicable to the Office of the Chief Information Officer and program offices across the department. LONGER-TERM POLICY REFORM CONSIDERATIONS42 Congress has charged HUD principally with mandates for construction of the nation’s affordable housing stock in addition to setting and enforcing standards for decent housing and fair housing enforcement. Regardless of intent, HUD’s efforts have yielded mixed results at best. Even today, more than a half-century after Congress put enforcement of so-called fair housing in the hands of the HUD bureaucracy, implementation of this policy is muddled by the repeated applica- tion of affirmative race-based policies. Also, the production mandate for HUD’s

Department of Health and Human Services

Minimal

Vector: 67%

Pages: 518-520AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill expands access to fertility treatments under FEHB, while Project 2025 seeks to restrict certain reproductive health services and promote fertility awareness-based methods as alternatives to contraception and assisted reproductive technologies. The two are fundamentally opposed in their approach to reproductive health policy."

Key themes:fertilityreproductive healthfamily planning

— 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 Housing and Urban Development

Minimal

Vector: 66%

Pages: 542-544AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on expanding fertility treatment coverage under federal employee health plans, while the Project 2025 policy targets HUD reforms related to fair housing repeal, immigration restrictions, and work requirements in housing assistance. There is no thematic or policy overlap between the two."

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. Connolly, Gerald E.

Saving the Civil Service Act

119/hr/492

Equal COLA Act

119/hr/491

Federal Retirement Fairness Act

119/hr/1522

Back to All Bills