IVF for Military Families Act
Download PDFSponsored by
Sen. Duckworth, Tammy [D-IL]
ID: D000622
Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Invalid Date
Introduced
đź“Ť Current Status
Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.
Committee Review
Floor Action
Passed Senate
House Review
Passed Congress
Presidential Action
Became Law
đź“š 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
Another bill, another exercise in legislative theater. Let's dissect this farce and get to the real diagnosis.
**Main Purpose & Objectives**
The IVF for Military Families Act (S 1231) claims to provide fertility treatment under the TRICARE Program for active-duty military personnel and their dependents. How noble. The main purpose is to make politicians look good, while the actual objective is to line the pockets of fertility clinics and pharmaceutical companies.
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**
The bill amends title 10, United States Code, to include fertility-related care under TRICARE Prime and TRICARE Select. It covers in vitro fertilization (IVF), embryo transfers, and other fertility treatments, with some limitations on the number of oocyte retrievals. The Secretary of Defense will establish a program for fertility treatment coordination, providing training and support for community health care providers.
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**
The affected parties include active-duty military personnel, their dependents, and – more importantly – the fertility clinics and pharmaceutical companies that will reap the benefits of this bill. Lobbyists from these industries must be thrilled to have such a lucrative opportunity.
**Potential Impact & Implications**
This bill is a classic case of "feel-good" legislation, designed to garner support from military families while enriching special interest groups. The real impact will be on the taxpayers' wallets, as they foot the bill for expensive fertility treatments that may not even be necessary or effective. The potential implications include:
* Increased healthcare costs for TRICARE beneficiaries * Unnecessary medical interventions and procedures * Further entrenchment of the military-industrial complex's influence over healthcare policy
Diagnosis: This bill is a symptom of a deeper disease – the corrupting influence of special interest groups on our legislative process. The politicians sponsoring this bill are either incompetent or complicit in this charade, while voters remain blissfully unaware of the real motivations behind it.
Treatment: A healthy dose of skepticism and critical thinking would be a good start. Unfortunately, that's not likely to happen anytime soon.
Related Topics
đź’° Campaign Finance Network
Sen. Duckworth, Tammy [D-IL]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No PAC contributions found
No committee contributions found
Donor Network - Sen. Duckworth, Tammy [D-IL]
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 23 nodes and 26 connections
Total contributions: $73,510
Top Donors - Sen. Duckworth, Tammy [D-IL]
Showing top 22 donors by contribution amount
Project 2025 Policy Matches
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document. Higher similarity scores indicate stronger thematic connections.
Introduction
— 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:
Introduction
— 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
Introduction
— 491 — Department of Health and Human Services in the Office of Science and Medicine to drive investigative review of literature for a variety of issues including the effect of abortion on prematurity and breast cancer; lack of evidence for so-called gender-affirming care; and physical and emotional damage following cross-sex treatments, especially on children. The OASH should withdraw all recommendations of and support for cross-sex medical interventions and “gender-affirming care.” Title X. The Title X family planning program should be reframed with a focus on better education around fertility awareness and holistic family planning and a Deputy Assistant Secretary for Population Affairs that understands the program and is able to work within its legislative framework (ideally, an MD). In addition, the Office of Population Affairs should eliminate religious discrimination in grant selections and guarantee the right of conscience and religious freedom of health care workers and participants in the Title X program. In 2021, HHS reversed a Trump Administration regulation that required grant- ees to maintain strict physical and financial separation between Title X activity and abortion-related activity.76 Under the Biden Administration’s regulation,77 Title X activity can be conducted alongside abortion activity without strict physical and financial separation. The regulation also requires grantees to refer for abortions despite sincere moral or religious objections. This effectively bans otherwise qual- ified pro-life grantees from participating in the program. HHS should rescind the Biden Administration’s regulation and reinstate the Trump Administration regulation for the program. It should also do this quickly (the Biden Administration completed its regulatory process and issued a final rule in less than nine months) and expand the potential grantee population beyond abortion providers like Planned Parenthood. Congress should complement these efforts by passing legislation such as the Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act,78 which would prohibit family planning grants from going to entities that perform abortions or provide funding to other entities that perform abortions. This would help to protect the integrity of the Title X program even under an abortion-friendly Administration. ADMINISTRATION FOR STRATEGIC PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE (ASPR) ASPR vs. FEMA. When the President declares a national emergency (per the Stafford Act) related to a public health emergency declared by the HHS Secretary, FEMA is activated and controls instead of HHS/ASPR. While this arrangement has some benefits because of FEMA’s unique logistical capabilities, the arrange- ment should be reviewed—especially considering the COVID-19 pandemic—for improvements in efficiency according to expertise and available resources, reduced confusion for ASPR and among HHS agencies, and avoidance of duplicated efforts among agencies and personnel. — 492 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Strategic National Stockpile. The President should invoke the Defense Pro- duction Act,79 which is a form of temporary takeover of private enterprises, only in the gravest circumstances. The Strategic National Stockpile (SNS) should be reformed to consider the potential supply chain disruptions of pandemics or global conflicts. Also, during the COVID pandemic, many states received ventilators from the SNS and hoarded them in places where a rush of COVID patients needing ven- tilators never materialized. The SNS should clarify its mission as supplier of last resort to the federal government, state governments, or first responders and key medical staff and should not portray itself as serving the public as a whole. OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) The Office of General Counsel is essential to ensuring that HHS is operating within the bounds of its numerous governing statutes. However, legal caution can outweigh practical necessity and often slows processes and decisions when time is of the essence. Such problems were evident both before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Internal processes should be reformed to streamline necessary legal determinations during crises, and general processes should be reviewed for effi- ciency. OGC should also: l Rescind its PREP Act liability memo. OGC issued a PREP Act liability memo that suspended application of civil rights and other laws in the context of the administration of covered countermeasures during the pandemic. It should be rescinded as contrary to law. l Rescind efforts to curtail OCR authority over conscience and religious freedom. All OGC memos and Federal Register notices of organization or delegations of authority moving any OCR conscience and religious freedom enforcement to OGC, including RFRA, should be rescinded, and independent authority over these matters should be restored to OCR. l Encourage DOJ to repeal OLC memos allowing abortion funding despite Hyde and memos allowing federal enclave immunity to perform abortions despite the Assimilative Crimes Act.80 l Rescind legal analysis that authorized HHS to impose a moratorium on rental evictions during COVID. l Rescind the OGC legal analysis saying that the injunction in Bowen v. American Hospital Association81 prevents any proposed HHS regulations or enforcement actions concerning the denial of care
Showing 3 of 5 policy matches
About These Correlations
Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.