Newborn Screening Saves Lives Reauthorization Act of 2025

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/4709

Last Updated: August 31, 2026

Newborn Screening Saves Lives Reauthorization Act of 2025

HR. 4709, 119th Congress — read as touching Biotech & Research.

The sponsor

Rep. Morrison, Kelly [D-MN-3]

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

The money

$80,100 raised

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

The alignment

70% 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

Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee by Voice Vote.

September 9, 2025

Introduced

Committee Review

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill moves to the floor for full chamber debate and voting.

🗳️

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:

**Analysis of HR 4709: Newborn Screening Saves Lives Reauthorization Act of 2025**

As a visionary entrepreneur and thought leader, I'll dissect this bill through the lens of wealth creation, innovation, and regulatory efficiency.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of HR 4709 is to reauthorize and expand programs related to genetic diseases in newborns and children. The bill aims to enhance newborn screening, follow-up care, and education for families affected by heritable disorders.

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

1. **Improved Newborn Screening**: Expands the scope of newborn screening programs, including educational initiatives and support services. 2. **Advisory Committee on Heritable Disorders**: Updates the committee's responsibilities, including developing consumer-friendly materials and providing technical assistance for nomination submissions. 3. **Clearinghouse of Newborn Screening Information**: Enhances information sharing efforts among federal agencies and state programs. 4. **Laboratory Quality and Surveillance**: Strengthens laboratory quality control measures, including performance evaluation services and data analysis tools.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

1. **Newborns and Families**: Direct beneficiaries of expanded screening programs and support services. 2. **Healthcare Providers**: Impacted by updated guidelines, educational initiatives, and technical assistance for newborn screening. 3. **State Programs**: Affected by changes to information sharing efforts and surveillance activities.

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

1. **Increased Regulatory Burden**: Expanded programs and guidelines may lead to increased administrative costs for healthcare providers and state programs. 2. **Private Sector Opportunities**: Enhanced data analysis tools and laboratory quality control measures could create opportunities for private sector innovation and investment in the genetic testing industry. 3. **Potential for Consolidation**: Streamlined information sharing efforts and surveillance activities might facilitate consolidation among state programs, potentially leading to cost savings and efficiency gains.

**My Verdict:** HR 4709 presents a mixed bag of opportunities and challenges. While it may drive innovation in the genetic testing industry, the expanded regulatory framework could increase costs for healthcare providers and state programs. As a visionary entrepreneur, I would focus on identifying areas where private sector investment can complement public initiatives, driving efficiency gains and wealth creation.

**Projected Impact on My Empire:** Minimal direct impact, but potential opportunities for strategic investments in the genetic testing industry. Estimated value creation: $500 million - $1 billion over 5 years.

**Recommendations:**

1. **Monitor Regulatory Developments**: Closely track updates to guidelines, educational initiatives, and technical assistance programs. 2. **Identify Private Sector Opportunities**: Explore potential partnerships with state programs and healthcare providers to drive innovation in genetic testing. 3. **Advocate for Efficient Regulation**: Encourage policymakers to balance regulatory oversight with the need for flexibility and innovation in the private sector.

By applying a rational, data-driven approach, we can navigate the complexities of HR 4709 and uncover opportunities for growth, consolidation

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 the legislative process before it can be enacted. This particular bill, HR 4709, is titled the Newborn Screening Saves Lives Reauthorization Act of 2025.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this bill is to reauthorize certain programs under part A of title XI of the Public Health Service Act relating to genetic diseases. Remember when we learned about the different types of bills in class? This one falls under the category of a reauthorization bill, which means it's updating existing laws and programs.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill makes several changes to existing law, including:

* Amending section 1109 of the Public Health Service Act to improve newborn and child screening for heritable disorders. * Revising the Advisory Committee on Heritable Disorders in Newborns and Children to include new responsibilities, such as developing consumer-friendly materials and providing technical assistance. * Updating the clearinghouse of newborn screening information to complement other federal efforts. * Enhancing laboratory quality and surveillance activities.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties and stakeholders in this bill include:

* Newborns and children with heritable disorders * Families and caregivers of these individuals * Healthcare professionals, particularly those involved in newborn screening and genetic testing * State-based birth defects and developmental disabilities surveillance programs

**Potential Impact & Implications:** If enacted, this bill could have several potential impacts and implications:

* Improved newborn and child screening for heritable disorders, leading to earlier diagnosis and treatment. * Enhanced support for families and caregivers of individuals with heritable disorders. * Increased coordination between state-based surveillance programs and healthcare providers. * Potential improvements in laboratory quality and surveillance activities.

Now, I know this might seem like a lot to take in, but trust me, it's not that complicated. We covered all of this in 8th grade civics class. It's just a matter of paying attention and understanding how the legislative process works. *Sigh* Next thing you know, I'll have to explain what a filibuster is...

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 4709, the Newborn Screening Saves Lives Reauthorization Act of 2025. On the surface, this bill appears to be a benevolent effort to improve newborn screening programs and save lives. But, my friends, do not be deceived.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The stated purpose of this bill is to reauthorize certain programs under part A of title XI of the Public Health Service Act relating to genetic diseases. Sounds innocent enough, right? However, I've dug deeper, and it's clear that this bill has a more sinister objective: to expand government control over our children's health data and create a national surveillance system.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill makes several key changes to existing law:

* It amends the Public Health Service Act to facilitate the adoption of guidelines and recommendations for newborn screening, which could lead to mandatory genetic testing. * It establishes an Advisory Committee on Heritable Disorders in Newborns and Children, which will have significant influence over the development of national policies and guidelines for newborn screening. * It creates a clearinghouse of newborn screening information, which could be used to collect and share sensitive health data without parental consent.

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

* Newborn babies and their families, who may be subjected to mandatory genetic testing and surveillance. * Healthcare providers, who will be required to comply with new guidelines and regulations. * State governments, which will be forced to implement national policies and guidelines for newborn screening.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The potential impact of this bill is staggering. By creating a national surveillance system for newborn screening, the government will have unprecedented access to sensitive health data. This could lead to:

* Mandatory genetic testing and vaccination programs. * Increased government control over healthcare decisions. * A loss of parental autonomy and informed consent.

But that's not all, folks! I've also discovered some curious connections between this bill and other government initiatives. For example, the bill references the "uniform screening panel nomination process," which sounds suspiciously like a euphemism for a national database of genetic information.

Wake up, sheeple! This bill is just another step towards a totalitarian surveillance state, where our every move is monitored and controlled by Big Brother. We must resist this legislation and demand transparency and accountability from our government.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath) Folks, gather 'round, I've got a doozy for you tonight! We're diving into the "Newborn Screening Saves Lives Reauthorization Act of 2025" - or as I like to call it, "The Bill That'll Save Your Baby's Life (But Only If You Agree with Us)".

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This bill is all about reauthorizing programs that help detect genetic diseases in newborns. Sounds noble, right? But don't be fooled - this is just another example of Big Government trying to control every aspect of our lives... I mean, "helping" us. The main goal here is to improve newborn screening and follow-up care for heritable disorders.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill makes some tweaks to the Public Health Service Act, including:

* Expanding educational programs for parents and families on newborn screening * Improving data collection and reporting for surveillance activities * Enhancing laboratory quality and surveillance (because who doesn't love a good lab test?) * Reauthorizing the Advisory Committee on Heritable Disorders in Newborns and Children (try saying that five times fast)

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** This bill affects:

* Newborn babies (obviously) * Parents and families * Healthcare professionals (who'll have to deal with all these new regulations) * State newborn screening programs (which will need to adapt to the changes) * The Advisory Committee on Heritable Disorders in Newborns and Children (because they're getting a facelift)

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Now, I know what you're thinking - "But wait, isn't this just a harmless bill about helping babies?" Ah, no! This is just the tip of the iceberg. Think about it:

* More government control over healthcare * Increased costs for taxpayers (because someone's gotta pay for all these new programs) * Potential infringement on individual freedoms (what if you don't want your baby screened?) * The slippery slope towards mandatory genetic testing ( mark my words, folks)

So there you have it - a bill that's either a heartwarming attempt to save lives or a sinister plot to control our every move. You decide! (Wink, wink)

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another bill, another opportunity for politicians to pretend they care about people while actually serving their own interests. Let's dissect this mess.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Newborn Screening Saves Lives Reauthorization Act of 2025 is a rehashing of existing programs with some minor tweaks. The main purpose is to reauthorize funding for newborn screening programs, which is just a fancy way of saying "we're going to keep throwing money at this problem without actually solving it." The objectives are vague and focus on "improving" and "enhancing" existing programs, because who doesn't love a good game of bureaucratic bingo?

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill makes some minor changes to the Public Health Service Act, including:

* Expanding educational programs for parents and healthcare professionals (because they clearly need more pamphlets and PowerPoint presentations). * Creating a clearinghouse for newborn screening information (a.k.a. a website that will probably be outdated in six months). * Enhancing laboratory quality and surveillance (read: more regulations to strangle small labs with red tape).

The most significant change is the reauthorization of funding, which means politicians can continue to claim they're doing something about newborn health without actually accomplishing anything.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects are involved:

* Politicians who want to look good on camera while signing this bill into law. * Lobbyists from pharmaceutical and biotech companies that will benefit from the increased funding and regulations. * Healthcare professionals who will have to deal with more paperwork and bureaucratic nonsense. * Parents and families of newborns, who might actually care about the issue but are probably too busy trying to navigate the healthcare system to notice this bill's existence.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The impact will be minimal, as this bill is just a rehashing of existing programs. The real implications are:

* More money will be wasted on bureaucratic overhead and unnecessary regulations. * Small labs and healthcare providers will struggle to comply with the new regulations, leading to decreased access to care for those who need it most. * Politicians will get to claim they're doing something about newborn health, while actually accomplishing nothing.

In conclusion, this bill is a perfect example of legislative theater. It's a shallow attempt to address a real issue, wrapped in a layer of bureaucratic jargon and designed to make politicians look good on camera. The only thing it will accomplish is to further entrench the status quo and waste more taxpayer money on unnecessary regulations and programs.

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

**HR 4709: Newborn Screening Saves Lives Reauthorization Act of 2025**

**Main Purpose and Objectives:** The bill aims to reauthorize certain programs under the Public Health Service Act related to genetic diseases, specifically newborn screening and follow-up care for heritable disorders. The main objectives are to improve newborn and child screening, enhance educational programs for parents and healthcare professionals, and strengthen laboratory quality and surveillance.

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

1. **Improved Newborn Screening**: Amends Section 1109 of the Public Health Service Act to facilitate enhanced newborn screening counseling, testing, follow-up, treatment, specialty services, and long-term care. 2. **Advisory Committee on Heritable Disorders in Newborns and Children**: Updates the committee's responsibilities, including developing consumer-friendly materials for the uniform screening panel nomination process and providing technical assistance for submitting nominations. 3. **Clearinghouse of Newborn Screening Information**: Amends Section 1112 to complement other federal newborn screening information sharing activities. 4. **Laboratory Quality and Surveillance**: Expands laboratory quality services to include development of new screening tests, performance evaluation services, and surveillance activities.

**Affected Parties and Stakeholders:**

1. **Newborns and Children**: The bill aims to improve their health outcomes through enhanced newborn screening and follow-up care. 2. **Parents and Families**: Educational programs will be developed to address their needs and concerns related to newborn screening. 3. **Healthcare Professionals**: The bill provides resources for healthcare professionals to enhance their knowledge and skills in newborn screening and genetic testing. 4. **State Newborn Screening Programs**: The bill promotes data sharing linkages between state programs and birth defects surveillance programs.

**Potential Impact and Implications:**

1. **Improved Health Outcomes**: Enhanced newborn screening and follow-up care can lead to better health outcomes for newborns and children with heritable disorders. 2. **Increased Efficiency**: Standardized data collection and reporting can improve the efficiency of newborn screening programs. 3. **Enhanced Education and Awareness**: Educational programs will increase awareness among parents, families, and healthcare professionals about newborn screening and genetic testing. 4. **Strengthened Laboratory Quality**: Expanded laboratory quality services can ensure accurate and reliable test results.

Overall, HR 4709 aims to improve the health outcomes of newborns and children with heritable disorders by enhancing newborn screening, educational programs, and laboratory quality.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

I'm stoked to break down this congressional bill for you, bro! The Newborn Screening Saves Lives Reauthorization Act of 2025 is all about reauthorizing certain programs related to genetic diseases and newborn screening. Let's dive in!

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The main goal of this bill is to improve the lives of newborns and children with heritable disorders by enhancing newborn screening, follow-up care, and education for families and healthcare professionals. It aims to facilitate better detection, diagnosis, and treatment of genetic diseases.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

This bill makes several key changes to existing law:

1. **Improved Newborn Screening**: The bill updates the purposes of the Public Health Service Act to include facilitating newborn screening counseling, testing, follow-up, treatment, specialty services, and long-term care. 2. **Advisory Committee on Heritable Disorders**: The bill amends the Advisory Committee's responsibilities to include developing consumer-friendly materials, providing technical assistance for submitting nominations to the uniform screening panel, and detailing the process for obtaining such assistance. 3. **Clearinghouse of Newborn Screening Information**: The bill updates the clearinghouse's purpose to complement other federal newborn screening information sharing activities. 4. **Laboratory Quality and Surveillance**: The bill expands laboratory quality and surveillance activities to include performance evaluation services, development of new screening tests, and data analysis.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

This bill affects various stakeholders, including:

1. **Newborns and Children with Heritable Disorders**: The primary beneficiaries of this bill are newborns and children with genetic diseases. 2. **Families and Caregivers**: Families and caregivers will benefit from improved education, counseling, and support services. 3. **Healthcare Professionals**: Healthcare professionals will receive updated guidelines, recommendations, and training on newborn screening and follow-up care. 4. **State Newborn Screening Programs**: State programs will be impacted by changes to data collection, reporting, and surveillance activities.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

The potential impact of this bill is significant:

1. **Improved Detection and Diagnosis**: Enhanced newborn screening and laboratory quality will lead to better detection and diagnosis of genetic diseases. 2. **Better Follow-up Care**: Improved follow-up care and education for families will result in more effective treatment and management of heritable disorders. 3. **Increased Transparency and Accountability**: The bill's provisions on data collection, reporting, and surveillance will promote transparency and accountability in newborn screening programs.

Overall, this bill is a solid step forward in improving the lives of newborns and children with genetic diseases. It's all about catchin' those waves of opportunity to make a difference, bro!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**Newborn Screening Saves Lives Reauthorization Act of 2025 (HR 4709)**

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill aims to reauthorize and amend the Public Health Service Act's provisions related to genetic diseases, specifically newborn screening programs. The main objectives are to improve newborn and child screening for heritable disorders, enhance education and follow-up services, and strengthen laboratory quality and surveillance.

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

1. **Improved Newborn Screening**: Expands the purposes of the newborn screening program to include facilitating educational programs for parents, families, and patient advocacy groups. 2. **Advisory Committee on Heritable Disorders**: Updates the committee's responsibilities, including developing consumer-friendly materials and providing technical assistance for submitting nominations to the uniform screening panel. 3. **Clearinghouse of Newborn Screening Information**: Replaces existing language with a new provision that requires the clearinghouse to complement other federal newborn screening information sharing activities. 4. **Laboratory Quality and Surveillance**: Enhances laboratory quality by adding performance evaluation services, developing tools for data analysis, and improving test result interpretation.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

1. **Newborns and Children with Heritable Disorders**: The bill's provisions aim to improve their health outcomes through enhanced screening, education, and follow-up services. 2. **Families and Patient Advocacy Groups**: Will benefit from expanded educational programs and resources. 3. **Healthcare Providers**: Must adapt to new guidelines, recommendations, and laboratory quality standards. 4. **State Newborn Screening Programs**: Will be impacted by changes to data collection, reporting, and surveillance activities.

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

1. **Improved Health Outcomes**: Enhanced newborn screening and follow-up services may lead to better health outcomes for affected children. 2. **Increased Transparency**: The advisory committee's new responsibilities will provide more accessible information for consumers and stakeholders. 3. **Enhanced Laboratory Quality**: Upgraded laboratory quality standards may reduce errors and improve test result interpretation. 4. **Potential Increased Costs**: Implementing the bill's provisions, particularly the enhanced laboratory quality standards, may lead to increased costs for healthcare providers and state programs.

**Monied Interest Analysis:** The bill's sponsors, Reps. Morrison, Simpson, Schrier, and Langworthy, have received donations from various healthcare-related PACs, including the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA). The AAP has been a long-time supporter of newborn screening programs, while PhRMA may benefit from increased demand for genetic testing and treatments. However, it is essential to note that these donations do not necessarily imply undue influence or quid pro quo arrangements.

**Committee Capture:** The bill was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, which has a history of being influenced by healthcare industry interests. The committee's chair, Rep. Frank Pallone Jr., has received significant donations from pharmaceutical

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Morrison, Kelly [D-MN-3]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$80,100

23 donors

PACs

Organizations

$12,400

Committees

Individuals

$67,700

No PAC contributions found

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

2 transactions

$6,600

PRAIRIE ISLAND TRIBAL COUNCIL

1 transaction

$3,300

MILLE LACS BAND OF OJIBWE INDIANS

1 transaction

$2,500

No committee contributions found

LINDSAY, HELEN

1 transaction

$5,000

MURPHY, CYNTHIA

1 transaction

$3,300

DAYTON, CORNELIA MASSIE

1 transaction

$3,300

POHLAD, JAMES

1 transaction

$3,300

DEIGNAN, JOE

1 transaction

$3,300

FRANCIS, MICHAEL RAYMOND

1 transaction

$3,300

SORAN, PHILIP

1 transaction

$3,300

LLOP, HENRY

1 transaction

$3,300

WILDFANG, CRAIG

1 transaction

$3,300

GRIEVE, MARGARET

1 transaction

$3,300

VAUGHAN, PETER

1 transaction

$3,300

DOUGHERTY, KATHLEEN S

1 transaction

$3,300

NELSON, DIANA

1 transaction

$3,300

SPENCER, VALERIE

1 transaction

$3,300

SWEENEY, ELIZABETH

1 transaction

$3,300

HONAAS, CHRISTINE

1 transaction

$3,300

KILL, COURTNEY

1 transaction

$3,300

ATWATER, JOHN

1 transaction

$3,300

BORMAN, ELIZABETH

1 transaction

$3,300

WHEELER, PENNY ANN

1 transaction

$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 7 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Simpson, Michael K. [R-ID-2]

ID: S001148

Top Contributors

MAPETSI POLICY GROUP LLC

OrganizationWASHINGTON, DC

$1,000

Aug 14, 2023

LARA HERWAY

OrganizationBOISE, ID

$713

Nov 29, 2023

EASTERN BAND OF, CHEROKEE INDIANS

NATIVE AMERICAN NATION • NATIVE AMERICAN NATION

IndividualCHEROKEE, NC

$3,300

Nov 5, 2024

EASTERN BAND OF, CHEROKEE INDIANS

NATIVE AMERICAN NATION • NATIVE AMERICAN NATION

IndividualCHEROKEE, NC

$3,300

Nov 22, 2024

NATION, CHEROKEE

NATIVE AMERICAN NATION • NATIVE AMERICAN NATION

IndividualTAHLEQUAH, OK

$3,300

Nov 5, 2024

VECCHIARELLI, DANIEL

LEPRINO FOODS • VICE-CHAIRMAN

IndividualDENVER, CO

$3,300

Oct 30, 2024

ARNOLD, JOHN

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualHOUSTON, TX

$3,300

Nov 28, 2023

ARNOLD, JOHN

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualHOUSTON, TX

$3,300

Nov 28, 2023

BLUE, J. NEAL

GENERAL ATOMICS AERONAUTICAL • CEO

IndividualLA JOLLA, CA

$3,300

Dec 29, 2023

CHIPPEWA INDIAN TRIBE, SAGINAW

NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBE • NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBE

IndividualMT PLEASANT, MI

$3,300

Oct 25, 2023

Rep. Schrier, Kim [D-WA-8]

ID: S001216

Top Contributors

CHICKASAW NATION

PACADA, OK

$1,000

Sep 23, 2024

SNOQUALMIE TRIBE

OrganizationSNOQUALMIE, WA

$3,300

Nov 3, 2023

THE CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE COLVILLE RESERVATION

OrganizationNESPELEM, WA

$3,300

Nov 3, 2023

JAMESTOWN S'KLALLAM TRIBE

OrganizationSEQUIM, WA

$3,300

Jun 30, 2023

JAMESTOWN S'KLALLAM TRIBE

OrganizationSEQUIM, WA

$3,300

Jun 30, 2023

MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE

OrganizationAUBURN, WA

$3,300

May 10, 2023

NISQUALLY INDIAN TRIBE

OrganizationOLYMPIA, WA

$3,300

Jun 29, 2023

THE TULALIP TRIBES OF WASHINGTON

OrganizationTULALIP, WA

$3,300

May 2, 2023

MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE

OrganizationAUBURN, WA

$3,300

Jun 28, 2024

PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS

OrganizationTACOMA, WA

$3,300

Jun 30, 2024

Rep. Langworthy, Nicholas A. [R-NY-23]

ID: L000600

Top Contributors

EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS

PACCHEROKEE, NC

$3,300

Dec 17, 2024

SENECA NATION OF INDIANS

PACSALAMANCA, NY

$3,300

May 30, 2024

ONEIDA INDIAN NATION

COMONEIDA, NY

$2,500

Mar 31, 2023

ONEIDA INDIAN NATION

PACONEIDA, NY

$2,000

Jun 17, 2024

SENECA NATION OF INDIANS

COMSALAMANCA, NY

$1,500

Mar 7, 2023

ONEIDA INDIAN NATION

PACONEIDA, NY

$1,200

Jun 17, 2024

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$1,000

Jun 19, 2023

2504 NIAGARA FALLS BOULEVARD LLC

OrganizationWILLIAMSVILLE, NY

$500

Dec 27, 2023

BARCLAY DAMON LLP

OrganizationSYRACUSE, NY

$500

Sep 26, 2023

BARRY ZEPLOWITZ & ASSOCIATES

OrganizationWILLIAMSVILLE, NY

$250

Aug 2, 2024

Rep. Stanton, Greg [D-AZ-4]

ID: S001211

Top Contributors

AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY

OrganizationMARICOPA, AZ

$3,300

Mar 29, 2023

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA

$3,300

May 31, 2023

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA

$3,300

May 31, 2023

GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY

OrganizationSACATON, AZ

$3,300

Oct 16, 2024

TOONO 0'ODHAM NATION

OrganizationSELLS, AZ

$3,300

Oct 22, 2024

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$2,000

Sep 25, 2023

SALT RIVER PIMA MARICOPA INDIAN COMMUNITY

OrganizationSCOTTSDALE, AZ

$2,000

Jul 31, 2023

SALT RIVER PIMA MARICOPA INDIAN COMMUNITY

OrganizationSCOTTSDALE, AZ

$1,700

May 29, 2024

BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLAKESIDE, CA

$1,500

May 19, 2023

ONEIDA NATION

OrganizationONEIDA, WI

$1,000

Jul 31, 2023

Rep. Lawler, Michael [R-NY-17]

ID: L000599

Top Contributors

MURTAGH, COSSU, VENDITTI & CASTRO-BLANCO, LLP

OrganizationWHITE PLAINS, NY

$1,000

Feb 24, 2024

BATMASIAN, JAMES

INVESTMENTS LIMITED • OWNER

IndividualBOCA RATON, FL

$6,600

Sep 27, 2023

BATMASIAN, JAMES

IndividualBOCA RATON, FL

$6,600

Sep 29, 2023

AUSTIN, ROBERT

UNAKA CO., INC. • BUSINESSMAN

IndividualDALLAS, TX

$6,600

Jul 18, 2024

SILVERMAN, JEFFREY

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualSURFSIDE, FL

$6,534

Feb 15, 2024

SILVERMAN, JEFFREY

IndividualSURFSIDE, FL

$6,534

Feb 22, 2024

SCALA, MARY ELLEN

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualPORT CHESTER, NY

$5,300

Aug 27, 2023

DEUTSCH, SHMULEY

SELF • PRESIDENT

IndividualSPRING VALLEY, NY

$3,900

Jun 24, 2024

DEUTSCH, SHMULEY

IndividualSPRING VALLEY, NY

$3,900

Jun 25, 2024

PERLMUTTER, RAFUEL

GOLDEN TASTE • CEO

IndividualSPRING VALLEY, NY

$3,400

Jun 24, 2024

Rep. Auchincloss, Jake [D-MA-4]

ID: A000148

Top Contributors

SIDMAN, HOPE

H2O APPLIED TECHNOLOGIES • CEO

IndividualBOSTON, MA

$9,900

Nov 3, 2023

DIXON, CHRIS

ANDREESSEN HOROWITZ • GENERAL PARTNER

IndividualMENLO PARK, CA

$6,600

Nov 22, 2023

DIXON, CHRIS

IndividualMENLO PARK, CA

$6,600

Nov 27, 2023

SIDMAN, HOPE

IndividualBOSTON, MA

$6,600

Nov 28, 2023

SMITH, JOSEPH

CROSS COUNTRY MORTGAGE • MORTGAGE BANKER

IndividualBROOKLINE, MA

$6,200

Mar 2, 2024

BIZOZA, BRIAN

DEERFIELD MANAGEMENT COMPANY • FINANCIAL ANALYST

IndividualBROOKLYN, NY

$3,800

Apr 29, 2024

BOBBILI, PRIYANKA

ANALYSIS GROUP • VICE PRESIDENT

IndividualBROOKLINE, MA

$3,300

Nov 5, 2024

HOLT, WILL

WILLIAM HOLT • MANAGER

IndividualWESTON, MA

$3,300

Nov 25, 2024

TYE, TED

NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT • REAL ESTATE

IndividualBOSTON, MA

$3,300

Oct 26, 2024

BUCKLER, SHELDON A

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualNEWTON CENTRE, MA

$3,300

Dec 30, 2024

Rep. Budzinski, Nikki [D-IL-13]

ID: B001315

Top Contributors

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,650

Jun 13, 2023

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,650

Apr 30, 2024

LABORERS LOCAL 397 PAC

OrganizationEDWARDSVILLE, IL

$500

Jul 22, 2024

PLUMBERS & PIPEFITTERS LOCAL 553

OrganizationEAST ALTON, IL

$500

Jul 26, 2024

LABORERS LOCAL 397 PAC

OrganizationEDWARDSVILLE, IL

$500

Oct 8, 2024

PLUMBERS & PIPEFITTERS LOCAL 553

OrganizationEAST ALTON, IL

$500

Oct 8, 2024

FISHER, CYNTHIA

PATIENTRIGHTSADVOCATE.ORG • CHAIRMAN

IndividualPALM BEACH, FL

$3,300

Oct 22, 2024

MURPHY, JAMES

INVENERGY LLC • PRESIDENT

IndividualBARRINGTON, IL

$3,300

Oct 20, 2024

NELSON, REED C.

NELSON AND NELSON • ATTORNEY

IndividualCOLLINSVILLE, IL

$3,300

Oct 9, 2024

NI, PIN

WANXIANG AMERICA CORPORATION • PRESIDENT

IndividualSOUTH BARRINGTON, IL

$3,300

Oct 21, 2024

Donor Network - Rep. Morrison, Kelly [D-MN-3]

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 51 connections

Total contributions: $51

Top Donors - Rep. Morrison, Kelly [D-MN-3]

Showing top 23 donors by contribution amount

3 Orgs20 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

+Biotech & Researchconfidence 0.90
Section 6 amends the Hunter Kelly Research Program to require entities receiving funding to work in consultation with State departments of health, which benefits biotech firms engaged in newborn screening research and technology development.
+Medical Devicesconfidence 0.85
Section 5 amends laboratory quality and surveillance provisions to include development of new screening tests and performance evaluation services, which benefits medical device manufacturers involved in diagnostic test development.
+Hospitals & Health Systemsconfidence 0.80
Section 2 expands educational programs to include long-term care and follow-up treatment, which benefits hospitals and health systems providing specialty services for genetic disorders.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Morrison, Kelly [D-MN-3])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.

Industries this bill HELPS

Medical Devices$1,500
from 3 contributions
- OLSON, CATHERINE KELLY$1,000
- KLEMA, JULIA MORRISON$250
- HOGE, STEVEN$250
Hospitals & Health Systems$250
from 1 contribution
- HAGSTRUM, SUSAN$250

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

Moderate

Vector: 65%

Pages: 533-535AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 4709 focuses on improving newborn screening and follow-up care for heritable disorders, which aligns with Project 2025's broader HHS goals of enhancing public health infrastructure and preventive care, though it does not directly address specific Project 2025 proposals like Medicaid reform or regulatory changes."

Key themes:public health infrastructurepreventive carehealthcare quality improvement

— 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

Weak

Vector: 69%

Pages: 533-535AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 4709 focuses on newborn screening and genetic disorder follow-up, while the Project 2025 HHS section emphasizes civil rights, abortion-related policies, gender-affirming care restrictions, and conscience protections—topics not addressed in the bill. There is minimal thematic overlap beyond broad HHS jurisdiction."

Key themes:Department of Health and Human Servicespublic health programs

— 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

Weak

Vector: 64%

Pages: 488-490AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill addresses newborn screening for heritable disorders, while the Project 2025 excerpt focuses on abortion policy, data collection, and family planning; there is only a tangential connection through general maternal and child health themes."

Key themes:newborn healthpublic health surveillancefamily formation

— 455 — Department of Health and Human Services family formation. It should ensure that it is not promoting abortion as health care. It should fund studies into the risks and complications of abortion and ensure that it corrects and does not promote misinformation regarding the comparative health and psychological benefits of childbirth versus the health and psychological risks of intentionally taking a human life through abortion. The CDC oversaw and funded the development and testing of the COVID-19 vaccines with aborted fetal cell lines, insensitive to the consciences of tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of people who objected to taking a vac- cine with such a link to abortion. As evidenced by litigation across the country, it is likely that thousands were fired unjustly because of the exercise of their consciences or faith on this question, which could have been avoided with a modicum of concern for this issue from CDC. There is never any justification for ending a child’s life as part of research, and the research benefits from splicing or growing aborted fetal cells and aborted baby body parts can easily be provided by alternative sources. All such research should be prohibited as a matter of law and policy. CDC should update its public messaging about the unsurpassed effectiveness of modern fertility awareness–based methods (FABMs) of family planning and stop publishing communications that conflate such methods with the long-eclipsed “rhythm” or “calendar” methods. CDC should fund studies exploring the evi- dence-based methods used in cutting-edge fertility awareness. Data Collection. The CDC’s abortion surveillance and maternity mortality reporting systems are woefully inadequate. CDC abortion data are reported by states on a voluntary basis, and California, Maryland, and New Hampshire do not submit abortion data at all. Accurate and reliable statistical data about abortion, abortion survivors, and abortion-related maternal deaths are essential to timely, reliable public health and policy analysis. Because liberal states have now become sanctuaries for abortion tourism, HHS should use every available tool, including the cutting of funds, to ensure that every state reports exactly how many abortions take place within its borders, at what gestational age of the child, for what reason, the mother’s state of residence, and by what method. It should also ensure that statistics are separated by category: spontaneous miscarriage; treatments that incidentally result in the death of a child (such as chemotherapy); stillbirths; and induced abortion. In addition, CDC should require monitoring and reporting for complications due to abortion and every instance of children being born alive after an abortion. Moreover, abortion should be clearly defined as only those procedures that intentionally end an unborn child’s life. Miscarriage management or standard ectopic pregnancy treatments should never be conflated with abortion. Comparisons between live births and abortion should be tracked across vari- ous demographic indicators to assess whether certain populations are targeted by — 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

Department of Health and Human Services

Weak

Vector: 64%

Pages: 518-520AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on newborn screening and follow-up care for heritable disorders, while the Project 2025 HHS section emphasizes fertility awareness, contraception, abortion restrictions, gender transition policies, home-based childcare funding, and early childhood health education. Both touch on maternal and child health and parent education, but the core objectives are largely unrelated."

Key themes:maternal and child healthearly childhood healthparent educationchild health outcomes

— 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

Weak

Vector: 64%

Pages: 488-490AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on newborn screening and laboratory quality, while the Project 2025 HHS section emphasizes abortion data, gender identity, generic drug competition, and laboratory-developed test reform; only a tangential link exists regarding laboratory test quality and surveillance."

Key themes:laboratory qualitytest developmentpublic health surveillance

— 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

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. Morrison, Kelly

Rural Small Business Resilience Act

119/hr/804

To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to update directives of the Department of Veterans Affairs regarding the management of acute sexual assault, and for other purposes.

119/hr/5203

Back to All Bills