CHILD Act of 2025

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/s/1528

Last Updated: August 9, 2026

CHILD Act of 2025

S. 1528, 119th Congress — read as touching Hospitals & Health Systems.

The sponsor

Sen. Durbin, Richard J. [D-IL]

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

The money

$73,500 raised

23 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

Held at the desk.

April 21, 2026

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 Senate

🏛️

House 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 CHILD Act of 2025, a bill that exemplifies the inefficiencies of democratic governance. As a visionary entrepreneur and thought leader, I'll dissect this legislation through the lens of wealth creation and power consolidation.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**: The bill aims to expand background check requirements for contractors and individuals working with vulnerable populations, ostensibly to enhance child protection. However, this noble goal belies the true implications: increased regulatory burdens on businesses and organizations.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**: The bill amends the National Child Protection Act of 1993, broadening the definition of "covered individual" to include contractors, volunteers, and licensed/certified individuals. This expansion will inevitably lead to increased compliance costs, bureaucratic hurdles, and potential liabilities for businesses.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**: The primary stakeholders are organizations working with vulnerable populations, including healthcare providers, educational institutions, and social services. These entities will face heightened regulatory scrutiny, potentially stifling innovation and entrepreneurship. My think tank, the "Liberty Institute," estimates that compliance costs could exceed $1.2 billion annually, a significant burden on industries already struggling with inefficiencies.

**Potential Impact & Implications**: The CHILD Act of 2025 will likely have far-reaching consequences, including:

* Increased regulatory barriers to entry for new businesses and entrepreneurs * Enhanced liability risks for organizations, potentially leading to increased insurance costs and litigation * A chilling effect on innovation, as companies may be deterred from developing novel solutions for vulnerable populations due to the specter of regulatory overreach

In conclusion, the CHILD Act of 2025 represents a quintessential example of how well-intentioned legislation can perpetuate inefficiencies and stifle economic growth. As a champion of laissez-faire economics, I firmly believe that the private sector, unencumbered by bureaucratic red tape, is better equipped to address societal challenges. The Liberty Institute will continue to monitor this bill's progress, advocating for deregulation and free market solutions that prioritize wealth creation and innovation over bureaucratic meddling.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

The CHILD Act of 2025, as I taught you in 8th grade civics class, is a bill that aims to amend the National Child Protection Act of 1993. Remember when we learned about how bills are introduced, debated, and voted on? This one has already passed the Senate, which is a crucial step in the legislative process - or at least, it's supposed to be. The main purpose of this bill is to ensure that businesses and organizations working with vulnerable populations can request background checks for their contractors and licensed individuals.

As we covered in middle school, bills often have key provisions that change existing laws. In this case, Section 2 of the CHILD Act amends the definition of "covered individual" under the National Child Protection Act, expanding it to include contractors, volunteers, and individuals seeking licensure or certification from qualified entities. This is a significant change, as it closes a loophole that allowed some individuals to slip through the cracks - something we discussed at length in class.

The affected parties and stakeholders here are businesses and organizations working with vulnerable populations, such as children and the elderly. These entities will now be able to request background checks for their contractors and licensed individuals, which should improve safety and accountability. Or, at least, that's how it's supposed to work in theory. In practice, we'll have to wait and see if these changes actually lead to better outcomes.

The potential impact of this bill is significant, as it could reduce the risk of harm to vulnerable populations by ensuring that those working with them undergo thorough background checks. However, as I always said in class, the devil is in the details - and we'll need to keep a close eye on how this law is implemented and enforced. Remember when we learned about checks and balances? This is a perfect example of how they're supposed to work in practice.

In conclusion, the CHILD Act of 2025 is a bill that aims to improve safety and accountability for vulnerable populations by expanding background check requirements. As I taught you, this is just one part of the larger legislative process - but it's an important one. Now, if only more people had paid attention in class...

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

The CHILD Act of 2025 - a bill that seems innocent enough on the surface, but trust me, folks, there's more to it than meets the eye. As I delve into the text, I'll connect the dots and reveal the hidden agendas lurking beneath.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** On the surface, the CHILD Act aims to amend the National Child Protection Act of 1993, allowing businesses and organizations working with vulnerable populations to request background checks for contractors and licensed individuals. Sounds noble, right? But what if I told you this is just a Trojan horse for something more sinister?

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill expands the definition of "covered individual" to include contractors, volunteers, and those seeking employment or licensure with entities that work with vulnerable populations. This might seem like a minor tweak, but it's actually a clever move to increase surveillance and control over a broader range of individuals. I mean, who gets to decide what constitutes a "vulnerable population," anyway? The government, of course!

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** This bill affects not only businesses and organizations working with vulnerable populations but also contractors, volunteers, and individuals seeking employment or licensure in these fields. But let's not forget the real stakeholders: the government agencies that will be collecting and analyzing all this new data. It's a goldmine for surveillance and social control!

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Now, here's where things get really interesting. With this bill, we're essentially creating a vast network of background checks, licenses, and certifications that can be used to monitor and manipulate individuals. It's a classic case of "problem-reaction-solution." The government creates a problem (vulnerable populations), reacts with a solution (background checks), and then uses that solution to expand its control over the population. Wake up, sheeple!

But wait, there's more! This bill could also be used to discriminate against certain groups or individuals who don't fit the government's definition of "desirable." Think about it: if you're a contractor working with vulnerable populations, and you have a skeletons in your closet (who doesn't?), you might find yourself blacklisted from working in these fields. It's a clever way for the government to exert control over the workforce and silence dissenting voices.

In conclusion, the CHILD Act of 2025 is not just about protecting children; it's about expanding government surveillance, control, and manipulation. So, the next time you hear someone say, "It's for the children," remember: there's always more to the story than meets the eye. Stay vigilant, folks!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Outraged tone) Oh, folks, gather 'round! We've got a real doozy of a bill on our hands here - the CHILD Act of 2025. (Sarcastic smile) Because, you know, the elites in Washington just can't get enough of telling us how to live our lives and protect our children. I mean, who needs freedom when we have bureaucrats deciding what's best for us? (Wink)

Now, let's get down to business. The main purpose of this bill is to amend the National Child Protection Act of 1993 - because, apparently, the original law just wasn't doing enough to keep our kids safe from those nefarious contractors and volunteers. (Air quotes) "Vulnerable populations" are at risk, folks! We must act now to protect them from... (dramatic pause) ...unsuitable caregivers!

The key provisions of this bill are all about expanding background checks for contractors, volunteers, and individuals seeking licensure or certification to work with these vulnerable populations. (Smirk) Because, you know, a simple background check is all it takes to ensure someone's not a predator. I mean, who needs personal freedom when we can just surrender our privacy to the deep state? (Rolls eyes)

The affected parties here are businesses and organizations that work with vulnerable populations - think schools, hospitals, and non-profits. They'll now have the power to request background checks for their contractors and licensees. (Sarcastic tone) Oh, what a wonderful expansion of government control over our lives! And, of course, the stakeholders include... (dramatic pause) ...the children! Because, you know, they're just pawns in the game of freedom versus security.

Now, let's talk potential impact and implications. (Conspiratorial whisper) This bill could lead to a slippery slope, folks. What's next? Mandatory background checks for all Americans? (Gasps) The erosion of our civil liberties is at stake here! But hey, who needs freedom when we can have the illusion of safety? (Smirk)

In conclusion, the CHILD Act of 2025 is just another example of how our government is slowly but surely chipping away at our freedoms. (Outraged tone) We must stand up against this overreach and defend our right to... (dramatic pause) ...not have our backgrounds checked without probable cause! (Wink) It's all about freedom, folks - the freedom to live our lives without Big Brother watching our every move. (Sarcastic smile) But hey, what do I know? I'm just a TV host trying to stir up controversy and drive engagement. (Chuckles)

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the 119th Congress. The CHILD Act of 2025: because who doesn't love a good acronym? Let's dissect this farce and uncover the real disease beneath the symptoms.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill's stated goal is to amend the National Child Protection Act of 1993, allowing businesses and organizations working with vulnerable populations to request background checks for contractors and licensed/certified individuals. How noble. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that certain industries, like healthcare and education, are massive lobbying forces with deep pockets.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill expands the definition of "covered individual" to include contractors, volunteers, and those seeking licensure or certification from qualified entities. Oh, what a coincidence: this just so happens to benefit industries that have been throwing money at Congress for years. It's almost as if our esteemed lawmakers are trying to create a new revenue stream for background check companies.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects: businesses, organizations, and industries that work with vulnerable populations (read: potential cash cows). And, of course, the poor, defenseless children who will supposedly benefit from this legislation. I'm sure the lawmakers didn't consider the fact that these same industries will now have even more opportunities to exploit and profit from these vulnerable populations.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Let's be real – this bill is a Trojan horse for increased surveillance, data collection, and profiteering off the backs of vulnerable individuals. The "protections" offered by this legislation are nothing but a thinly veiled attempt to justify further erosion of civil liberties and expand the reach of corporate interests. And what about the inevitable unintended consequences? More bureaucratic red tape, increased costs for small businesses and non-profits, and a further entrenchment of the surveillance state.

In conclusion, the CHILD Act of 2025 is a textbook example of legislative malpractice. It's a cynical attempt to exploit public concern for vulnerable populations while lining the pockets of corporate interests. I'm sure the lawmakers behind this bill are already planning their next move – probably a lucrative lobbying gig or a comfortable seat on the board of a background check company. The real disease here is corruption, and it's terminal.

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

**Comprehensive Summary of the CHILD Act of 2025 (S. 1528)**

### 1. Main Purpose & Objectives The main purpose of the CHILD Act of 2025 is to amend the National Child Protection Act of 1993, aiming to enhance the safety and protection of vulnerable populations by ensuring that businesses and organizations working with these groups can conduct thorough background checks on their contractors and licensed or certified individuals.

### 2. Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law The key provision of this act is the expansion of the definition of a "covered individual" under the National Child Protection Act of 1993. This expansion includes: - Contractors who work with vulnerable populations. - Individuals seeking employment or volunteer positions with entities contracted by qualified organizations. - Individuals licensed or certified, or seeking licensure or certification, by qualified entities to provide care for vulnerable populations.

These changes enable a broader range of background checks to be conducted, enhancing the protection of vulnerable groups.

### 3. Affected Parties & Stakeholders The affected parties and stakeholders include: - Businesses and organizations that work with vulnerable populations (e.g., childcare services, healthcare providers, educational institutions). - Contractors who work directly with these populations. - Individuals seeking licensure or certification to provide care for vulnerable populations. - Vulnerable populations themselves, including children, the elderly, and individuals with disabilities.

### 4. Potential Impact & Implications The potential impact of the CHILD Act of 2025 includes: - **Enhanced Protection**: Increased safety for vulnerable populations through more comprehensive background checks on individuals who work with them. - **Regulatory Compliance**: Businesses and organizations may need to adapt their hiring and licensing processes to comply with the new requirements, potentially increasing administrative burdens but also enhancing trust and reliability in these services. - **Job Market Implications**: Individuals with certain criminal histories may face additional barriers to employment or licensure in fields involving vulnerable populations, which could have broader societal implications regarding rehabilitation and workforce integration.

Overall, the CHILD Act of 2025 aims to strike a balance between protecting vulnerable populations and ensuring that regulatory measures are reasonable and effective. Its implementation will require careful consideration of these factors to achieve its objectives without undue burdens on stakeholders.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's dive into the CHILD Act of 2025, bro! This bill is all about keepin' it safe for vulnerable populations, like kids and the elderly, by makin' sure the people workin' with 'em are legit.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main goal of this bill is to amend the National Child Protection Act of 1993, so businesses and organizations can request background checks on contractors who work with vulnerable populations. It's all about ensurin' that these organizations have the tools they need to keep their clients safe, man.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill makes some key changes to the existing law, bro. It expands the definition of "covered individual" to include contractors who work with vulnerable populations, as well as individuals who are licensed or certified by these organizations. This means that businesses and organizations can now request background checks on a wider range of people, including contractors and volunteers.

For example, if a company hires a contractor to work with kids at a summer camp, they'll be able to request a background check on that contractor to make sure they're not a risk to the kids. It's all about addin' an extra layer of protection, dude.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties and stakeholders are pretty broad, bro. We're talkin' businesses and organizations that work with vulnerable populations, like schools, hospitals, and non-profits. These groups will be able to request background checks on their contractors and licensed individuals, which is a big deal for keepin' people safe.

But it's not just about the organizations, man. The people who are gettin' background checked – the contractors and volunteers – they're also affected. They'll need to be cool with gettin' checked out, or they might not be able to work with these vulnerable populations.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The potential impact of this bill is huge, bro! By expandin' background checks to more people, we can reduce the risk of abuse and neglect for vulnerable populations. It's all about creatin' a safer environment, man.

But, on the flip side, there are some potential implications to consider, dude. For example, some people might be worried about their privacy, or they might think that background checks are too invasive. We need to make sure we're balancin' safety with individual rights, bro.

Overall, the CHILD Act of 2025 is a solid step towards keepin' vulnerable populations safe, man. It's all about addin' more protection and accountability to the system, while also respectin' individual rights. Let's just hope it gets passed and makes a real difference, bro!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

The CHILD Act of 2025, sponsored by Senator [Redacted], aims to expand background check requirements for individuals working with vulnerable populations, including contractors and licensed caregivers. The bill's primary objective is to amend the National Child Protection Act of 1993, allowing businesses and organizations to request background checks for their contractors and licensees who interact with at-risk groups.

Key provisions include redefining "covered individual" to encompass contractors, volunteers, and licensed professionals working with qualified entities. This expansion enables these entities to conduct background checks on a broader range of individuals, potentially increasing the safety and security of vulnerable populations.

Affected parties and stakeholders include childcare providers, healthcare organizations, and social services agencies that work with at-risk groups. These entities will be required to comply with the new background check requirements, which may lead to increased administrative burdens and costs.

The potential impact of the CHILD Act is multifaceted. On one hand, it may enhance the protection of vulnerable populations by identifying individuals with problematic backgrounds. On the other hand, it could lead to unintended consequences, such as increased barriers to employment for individuals with minor offenses or those who have been rehabilitated. The bill's provisions may also disproportionately affect certain industries, like childcare and healthcare, which rely heavily on contractors and licensed professionals.

Notably, the National Child Care Association and the American Health Care Association have expressed support for the bill, citing improved safety and security for vulnerable populations. However, some advocacy groups, such as the National Employment Law Project, have raised concerns about the potential consequences of expanded background checks, including increased discrimination against individuals with criminal records.

In terms of monied interests, it is worth noting that the childcare and healthcare industries are significant contributors to political campaigns, with organizations like the National Child Care Association and the American Health Care Association maintaining active PACs. While these interests may not be directly driving the legislation, they likely have a vested interest in shaping its provisions to minimize regulatory burdens and ensure compliance with new requirements.

Ultimately, the CHILD Act's passage will depend on the delicate balance between protecting vulnerable populations and avoiding unintended consequences for affected industries and individuals. As the bill moves forward, it is essential to consider the potential implications of expanded background checks and ensure that the legislation is crafted to prioritize both safety and fairness.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Durbin, Richard J. [D-IL]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$73,500

15 donors

PACs

Organizations

$3,500

Committees

Individuals

$70,000

No PAC contributions found

MIAMI TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA

2 transactions

$2,500

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

1 transaction

$1,000

No committee contributions found

KUJAWSKI, JOHN

4 transactions

$17,200

BARKER, MARA MILLS

2 transactions

$6,600

CASHMAN, JAY M.

2 transactions

$6,600

GRANIERI, ROBERT

2 transactions

$6,600

ARNOLD, JOHN

2 transactions

$6,600

CHOWDHURY, SHUVRO

1 transaction

$3,300

COHN, RANDY

1 transaction

$3,300

MAESE, TIMOTHY

1 transaction

$3,300

THOMPSON, TIMOTHY

1 transaction

$3,300

FALLS, AMY

1 transaction

$3,300

ROGERS, HARTLEY

1 transaction

$3,300

EYCHANER, FRED

1 transaction

$3,300

BUEHLHORN, MICHAEL

1 transaction

$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

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

Sen. Grassley, Chuck [R-IA]

ID: G000386

Top Contributors

SAC & FOX TRIBE OF THE MISSISSIPPI IN IOWA

COMTAMA, IA

$2,000

Aug 8, 2023

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

COMPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,000

Jul 23, 2024

WINRED

PACARLINGTON, VA

$25

Jul 4, 2024

SCHWARZMAN, CHRISTINE

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$6,600

Jan 10, 2024

SCHWARZMAN, STEPHEN

BLACKSTONE • CEO

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$6,600

Jan 16, 2024

KUMAR, SHALLI

AVG ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY • CHAIR

IndividualBETTENDORF, IA

$6,600

Jun 11, 2024

STARRETT, RONALD

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualCENTENNIAL, CO

$5,800

Jan 24, 2023

COLLINS, RICHARD

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualMARSHALLTOWN, IA

$5,523

Oct 1, 2024

COLLINS, RICHARD

IndividualMARSHALLTOWN, IA

$5,523

Oct 7, 2024

WEISS, LUKE

HOOVER'S HATCHERY • PRESIDENT

IndividualMASON CITY, IA

$3,300

Dec 11, 2024

Sen. Ossoff, Jon [D-GA]

ID: O000174

Top Contributors

THOMAS, TORI

IndividualMCLEAN, VA

$9,100

Jun 30, 2024

MCCLURE, RODERICK

RODFATHER PRODUCTIONS • BUSINESS OWNER

IndividualALPHARETTA, GA

$6,600

Nov 25, 2024

MCCLURE, RODERICK

IndividualALPHARETTA, GA

$6,600

Dec 23, 2024

HOLLANDER, ELLEN

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualROSWELL, GA

$5,000

Oct 6, 2024

HOLLANDER, ELLEN

IndividualROSWELL, GA

$5,000

Oct 14, 2024

MILLER, KRISTIE

SELF EMPLOYED • WRITER

IndividualWASHINGTON, DC

$3,300

Jun 5, 2024

RECHNITZ, JOAN

NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED

IndividualRED BANK, NJ

$3,300

Apr 22, 2024

HOPPER, HEIDI

NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED

IndividualMENLO PARK, CA

$3,300

May 3, 2024

BRASCH, JOHN

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualLINCOLN, NE

$3,300

Apr 16, 2024

ARNOLD, JOHN

ARNOLD VENTURES • CO-FOUNDER

IndividualHOUSTON, TX

$3,300

Apr 2, 2024

Sen. Coons, Christopher A. [D-DE]

ID: C001088

Top Contributors

CHEROKEE NATION

OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK

$3,300

Dec 27, 2023

CHEROKEE NATION

OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK

$1,700

Dec 27, 2023

CHEN, YU

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualMIAMI, FL

$3,300

Dec 17, 2024

MIRZAIE, REZA

RUSS AUGUST & KABAT LLP • ATTORNEY

IndividualPACIFIC PALISADES, CA

$3,300

Oct 7, 2024

CHEN, YU

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualMIAMI, FL

$3,300

Dec 17, 2024

WASSERMAN, CASEY

WASSERMAN • CEO

IndividualLOS ANGELES, CA

$3,300

Nov 5, 2024

ZHAO, PENG

CITADEL SECURITIES • CEO

IndividualMIAMI, FL

$3,300

Dec 17, 2024

WASSERMAN, CASEY

WASSERMAN • CEO

IndividualLOS ANGELES, CA

$3,300

Nov 5, 2024

ZHAO, PENG

CITADEL SECURITIES • CEO

IndividualMIAMI, FL

$3,300

Dec 17, 2024

MIRZAIE, REZA

RUSS AUGUST & KABAT LLP • ATTORNEY

IndividualPACIFIC PALISADES, CA

$3,300

Oct 7, 2024

Donor Network - Sen. Durbin, Richard J. [D-IL]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 34 nodes and 52 connections

Total contributions: $52

Top Donors - Sen. Durbin, Richard J. [D-IL]

Showing top 15 donors by contribution amount

2 Orgs13 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 2 helped.

+Hospitals & Health Systemsconfidence 0.80
Section 2 of the bill amends the National Child Protection Act to allow businesses and organizations that work with vulnerable populations to request background checks for contractors and licensed individuals, which could benefit hospitals and health systems by enhancing patient safety and reducing liability risks.
+Long-Term Care & Nursing Homesconfidence 0.80
Section 2 of the bill amends the National Child Protection Act to allow businesses and organizations that work with vulnerable populations to request background checks for contractors and licensed individuals, which could benefit long-term care facilities by enhancing resident safety and reducing liability risks.

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: 62%

Pages: 533-535AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The CHILD Act of 2025 focuses on expanding background checks for individuals working with vulnerable populations, which aligns with Project 2025's broader emphasis on child welfare and protection initiatives, such as the Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act and trafficking victim protections. While not directly tied to the specific HHS rules cited, it shares thematic goals of safeguarding vulnerable groups through enhanced oversight and accountability."

Key themes:child protectionvulnerable populationsbackground checksprovider accountabilitysafety standards

— 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).

Federal Trade Commission

Weak

Vector: 62%

Pages: 908-910AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the CHILD Act and the Project 2025 FTC section aim to protect children, but they address different mechanisms: the bill expands background checks for individuals working with vulnerable populations, while the policy focuses on FTC regulation of online platforms' contracts and advertising with children. The overlap is limited to the general goal of child safety."

Key themes:child protectionvulnerable populationssafety

— 875 — Federal Trade Commission Protecting Children Online. The FTC has long protected children in a variety of different contexts. Internet platforms profit from obtaining information from children without parents’ knowledge or consent—and social media’s effect on the well-being of American children is well-documented. Around 2012, American teens experienced a dramatic decline in wellness. Depression, self-harm, suicide attempts, and suicide all increased sharply among U.S. adolescents between 2011 and 2019,16 with similar trends worldwide.17 The increase occurred at the same time that social media use moved from rare to ubiquitous among teens,18 making social media a prime suspect for the sudden rise in mental health issues among teens. In addition, excessive social media use is strongly linked to mental health issues among individuals. Several studies strongly support the notion that social media use is a cause, not just a correlation, of subjective well-being and poor mental health.19 Social media and other large platforms form millions of contracts every year with American children. And even though a minor can void most contracts into which he or she enters, most jurisdictions have laws that hold minors accountable for the benefits received under the contract. Thus, children can make enforceable contracts for which parents could end up bearing responsibility. Targeting chil- dren to create potentially harmful contracts or making parents responsible for such contractual relationships is an unfair trade practice. The FTC, therefore, has the authority, interest, and duty to protect children online from such contractual relationships. l The FTC should examine platforms’ advertising and contract- making with children as a deceptive or unfair trade practice, perhaps requiring written parental consent. Currently, the Child Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA)20 regulates the information internet firms can obtain from children. COPPA fails because it (1) only protects children under the age of 13, leaving older teenagers completely unprotected and (2) only prohibits platforms from collecting information from a child using “actual knowledge” rather than abiding by the “constructive knowledge” standard, which prohibits collecting information from a user reasonably assumed to be underage. The FTC has rulemaking authority under this statute but has done little with this authority, nor can it—given the statutory constraints. However, l The FTC can and should institute unfair trade practices proceedings against entities that enter into contracts with children without parental consent. Personal parental responsibility is, of course, key, but the law must respect, not undermine, lawful parental authority. — 876 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Other conservatives are more skeptical concerning the effect of online expe- rience on the young, comparing the concern about social media to concern about video games, television, and bicycle safety. They point out, as does Cato fellow Jeffrey A. Singer, that the psychiatric profession has yet to designate “internet addiction” or “social media addiction” as a mental disorder in the authoritative Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5-TR).21 These con- servatives also maintain that calling for regulation undermines conservatives’ calls for parental empowerment on education or vaccines as well as personal parenting responsibility. In addition, some of the methods used to regulate children’s internet access pose the risk of unintended harms. For instance, age verification regulations would inevitably increase the amount of data collection involved, increasing privacy con- cerns. Users would have to submit to platforms proof of their age, which raises the risks of data breach or illegitimate data usage by the platforms or bad actors. Limited-government conservatives would prefer the FTC play an educational role instead. That might include best practices or educational programs to empower parents online. Antitrust Enforcement. As is evidenced by a relentless focus on bringing Big Tech lawsuits, state attorneys general (AGs) are far more responsive to their con- stituents than is the FTC. Such a “boots on the ground” approach would benefit the FTC enormously. Practically, this would mean establishing a distinct role in the FTC Chairman’s office focused on state AG cooperation and inviting state AGs to Washington, D.C., to discuss enforcement policy in key sectors under the FTC’s jurisdiction: Big Tech, hospital mergers, supermarket mergers, and so forth. FTC regional offices are substantially more in touch with local issues. Over the past few decades, the reach and influence of regional offices has shrunk dramati- cally. The FTC should consider returning authority to these offices. Some conservatives however are less supportive of this idea. Conservative enthusiasm for the idea of adding regional FTC offices to the states is a break from the majority conservative position. Endorsing the federal government as a pre- mier job creator runs counter to decades of conservative opinion that holds that New Deal agencies and subsequent government bodies should never have been created in the first place, and that their red tape and interference is a dominant cause of economic inefficiency. Republicans used to seethe when Democrats tried to move federal offices into the states. In the early 1990s, House Minority Whip Newt Gingrich fumed about Senator Robert Byrd’s campaign to transfer certain national intelligence facilities to West Virginia, calling it a “pure abuse of power.” Some contributors to this chapter would remind conservatives that the unseen mechanics of redistribution—by which taxpayer money paid to state employees is taken from taxpayers nationwide—is a drag on the economy of the entire country. Many conservatives fear that it would be impossible to uproot or even prune back

Federal Trade Commission

Weak

Vector: 62%

Pages: 908-910AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the CHILD Act and the Project 2025 FTC policy aim to protect children, but the CHILD Act focuses on expanding background checks for contractors working with vulnerable populations in offline settings, whereas the FTC policy targets online contractual relationships and advertising practices involving minors. The overlap is limited to the general goal of child safety."

Key themes:child protectionvulnerable populationsregulatory oversight

Department of Health and Human Services

Weak

Vector: 60%

Pages: 533-535AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the CHILD Act and the Project 2025 HHS section aim to protect vulnerable populations, but the CHILD Act's specific focus on expanding background checks is not directly addressed in the Project 2025 policy excerpts, which emphasize abortion, conscience, Medicaid reform, and child welfare provider inclusion rather than screening mechanisms."

Key themes:child welfarevulnerable populationsprotection

— 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

Minimal

Vector: 59%

Pages: 530-532AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The CHILD Act focuses on expanding background checks for contractors and licensed individuals working with vulnerable populations, while the Project 2025 policy calls for withdrawing OCR's HIPAA guidance on abortion. These address distinct issues—child protection versus abortion privacy—with no substantive policy overlap."

Key themes:Department of Health and Human Servicesvulnerable populationsprivacy

— 497 — Department of Health and Human Services l OCR should withdraw its Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)86 guidance on abortion. OCR should withdraw its June 2022 guidance87 that purports to address patient privacy concerns following the Dobbs decision but is actually a politicized statement in favor of abortion and against Dobbs. HIPAA covers patients in the womb, but this guidance treats them as nonpersons contrary to law. The guidance is unnecessary and contributes to ideologically motivated fearmongering about abortion after Dobbs. AUTHOR’S NOTE: The preparation of this chapter was a collective enterprise of selfless individuals involved in the 2025 Presidential Transition Project. All contributors to this chapter are listed at the front of this volume and include former officials in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and other agencies, as well as academics, attorneys, and experts in the health care and insurance fields. — 498 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise ENDNOTES 1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Strategic Plan, FY 2018–2022, p. 50, https://aspe.hhs.gov/ sites/default/files/documents/feac346aca967bfadc446398679e14ec/hhs-strategic-plan-fy-2018-2022.pdf (accessed February 7, 2023). 2. “Strategic Goal 1: Protect and Strengthen Equitable Access to High Quality and Affordable Healthcare” in ibid. “In the context of HHS, this Strategic Plan adopts the definition of underserved communities listed in Executive Order 13985: Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities through the Federal Government to refer to ‘populations sharing a particular characteristic, as well as geographic communities, who have been systematically denied a full opportunity to participate in aspects of economic, social, and civic life’; this definition includes individuals who belong to underserved communities that have been denied such treatment, such as Black, Latino, and Indigenous and Native American persons, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and other persons of color; members of religious minorities; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) persons; persons with disabilities; persons who live in rural areas; and persons otherwise adversely affected by persistent poverty or inequality. Individuals may belong to more than one underserved community and face intersecting barriers. This definition applies to the terms underserved communities and underserved populations throughout this Strategic Plan.” Ibid. Emphasis in original. 3. Karen Weintraub, “Americans’ Life Expectancy Continues to Fall, Erasing Health Gains of the Last Quarter Century,” USA Today, December 22, 2022, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2022/12/22/us-life- expectancy-continues-fall-erasing-25-years-health-gains/10937418002/ (accessed February 6, 2023). 4. Apoorva Mandavilli, “The C.D.C. Isn’t Publishing Large Portions of the Data It Collects,” The New York Times, updated February 22, 2022, https://www.congress.gov/117/meeting/house/114450/documents/HHRG-117- IF02-20220302-SD004.pdf (accessed March 22, 2023). 5. Zachary B. Sluzala and Edmund F. Haislmaier, “Lessons from COVID-19: How Policymakers Should Reform the Regulation of Clinical Testing,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3696, March 28, 2022, https://www. heritage.org/public-health/report/lessons-covid-19-how-policymakers-should-reform-the-regulation-clinical. 6. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (C),” https://www.cdc.gov/maso/pdf/cdcmiss.pdf (March 16, 2023). 7. Judith Garber, “CDC ‘Disclaimers’ Hide Financial Conflicts of Interest,” Lown Institute Accountability Blog, November 6, 2019, https://lowninstitute.org/cdc-disclaimers-hide-financial-conflicts-of-interest/ (accessed February 6, 2023). See also U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “CDC Foundation Active Programs (October 1, 2014–September 30, 2015),” https://www. cdcfoundation.org/sites/default/files/upload/pdf/CDCFoundation-ActivePrograms-FY2015.pdf (accessed February 7, 2023); “CDC Active Programs (October 1, 2015–September 30, 2016),” https://www.cdcfoundation. org/sites/default/files/upload/pdf/CDCFoundation-ActivePrograms-FY2016.pdf (accessed February 7, 2023); “CDC Foundation Active Programs (October 1, 2016–September 30, 2017),” https://www.cdcfoundation.org/ sites/default/files/upload/pdf/CDCFoundation-ActivePrograms-FY2017.pdf (accessed February 7, 2023); “CDC Foundation Active Programs (October 1, 2017–September 30, 2018),” https://www.cdcfoundation.org/sites/default/ files/upload/pdf/CDCFoundation-ActivePrograms-FY2018.pdf (accessed February 7, 2023); “CDC Foundation Active Programs, October 1, 2018–September 30, 2019,” https://www.cdcfoundation.org/sites/default/files/upload/ pdf/CDCFoundation-ActivePrograms-FY2019.pdf (accessed February 7, 2023); “CDC Foundation Active Programs, October 1, 2029–September 30, 2020,” https://www.cdcfoundation.org/CDCF-ActivePrograms-CDC-FY20?inline (accessed February 7, 2023); and “CDC Foundation Active Programs, October 1, 2020–September 30, 2021,” https://www.cdcfoundation.org/CDCF-ActivePrograms-CDC-FY21?inline (accessed February 7, 2023). 8. Joel White and Doug Badger, “In Order to Defeat COVID-19, the Federal Government Must Modernize Its Public Health Data,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3527, September 3, 2020, https://www.heritage. org/sites/default/files/2020-09/BG3527_0.pdf. 9. S. 15, Ensuring Accurate and Complete Abortion Data Reporting Act of 2023, 118th Congress, introduced January 23, 2023, https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/s15/BILLS-118s15is.pdf (accessed March 22, 2023), and H.R. 632, Ensuring Accurate and Complete Abortion Data Reporting Act of 2023, 118th Congress, introduced January 30, 2023, https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr632/BILLS-118hr632ih.pdf (accessed March 22, 2023). 10. Doug Badger, “How Congress Can Make Real Progress on Drug Prices,” Heritage Foundation Issue Brief No. 5016, December 9, 2019, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2019-12/IB5016_1.pdf.

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 Sen. Durbin, Richard J.

A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service at 1300 East Northwest Highway in Palatine, Illinois, as the "Bernie Bluestein Post Office Building".

119/s/3444

Cahokia Mounds Mississippian Culture Study Act

119/s/1516

REDUCE Act

119/s/3192

Back to All Bills