Pregnant Students’ Rights Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/s/3627

Last Updated: July 27, 2026

Pregnant Students’ Rights Act

S. 3627, 119th Congress — read as touching For-Profit Education & Student Loans.

The sponsor

Sen. Moody, Ashley [R-FL]

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

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

Cloture on the motion to proceed to the measure not invoked in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 47 - 45. Record Vote Number: 12. (CR S286)

January 26, 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:

**Analysis of S 3627: Pregnant Students' Rights Act**

As a visionary entrepreneur and thought leader, I'll dissect this bill through the lens of its potential impact on my business empire and the broader landscape of innovation.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Pregnant Students' Rights Act aims to require institutions of higher education to disseminate information on rights, accommodations, and resources for pregnant students. This legislation is a thinly veiled attempt to impose additional regulatory burdens on educational institutions, stifling their ability to innovate and adapt to the needs of their students.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends Section 485 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 by adding new requirements for information dissemination activities. Institutions must now provide prospective and enrolled students with information on resources, accommodations, and complaint procedures related to pregnant students' rights. This expansion of regulatory oversight will undoubtedly lead to increased administrative costs and bureaucratic red tape.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The primary stakeholders affected by this legislation are institutions of higher education, which will be forced to divert resources away from core academic programs to comply with these new regulations. Pregnant students may also be impacted, as they may face unintended consequences such as increased scrutiny or stigma due to the mandatory dissemination of information.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** From a business perspective, this legislation represents a minor but unnecessary regulatory hurdle that will stifle innovation in the education sector. The added costs and administrative burdens imposed by this bill will likely lead to:

1. Increased tuition fees for students 2. Reduced investment in research and development 3. Decreased competitiveness among educational institutions

In my estimation, the Pregnant Students' Rights Act is a prime example of inefficient government overreach. By imposing additional regulations on institutions of higher education, lawmakers are inadvertently hindering the very innovation and progress they claim to support.

**Recommendation:** As a thought leader in the business community, I strongly advise against this legislation. Instead, policymakers should focus on creating an environment that fosters competition, innovation, and deregulation. By doing so, we can unlock the true potential of our education system and drive growth, prosperity, and progress for all stakeholders involved.

**Projected Impact on My Business Empire:** Minimal to moderate impact, as my companies are not directly involved in the education sector. However, I will continue to monitor this legislation's progression and adjust my business strategies accordingly to ensure optimal returns on investment.

**Think Tank Endorsement:** My team at the "Liberty Institute for Innovation" (LII) has conducted an exhaustive analysis of this bill and concurs with my assessment. We urge lawmakers to reconsider this legislation and instead focus on promoting a more laissez-faire approach to education policy.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

*Sigh* Alright, let's break down this bill like we're back in 8th grade civics class.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The Pregnant Students' Rights Act (S 3627) aims to require institutions of higher education to provide information on the rights and accommodations available to pregnant students. Remember when we learned about the importance of informed decision-making? This bill is trying to ensure that pregnant students have access to resources and support to make informed choices.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill amends Section 485 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 by adding a new subsection (n) that requires institutions to disseminate information on:

* Resources available to help pregnant students carry their pregnancy to term and care for their baby after birth * Accommodations available to support pregnant students * Information on how to file complaints with the Department of Education or the institution if a student believes they've been discriminated against under Title IX

As I taught you, when we amend existing laws, it's like adding new chapters to an ongoing story. This bill is trying to fill in gaps and provide clarity on what institutions need to do to support pregnant students.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

The affected parties include:

* Pregnant students (and those who may become pregnant) attending institutions of higher education * Institutions of higher education participating in federal programs under the Higher Education Act * The Department of Education, which will be responsible for overseeing compliance

Remember when we learned about the importance of considering multiple stakeholders? This bill is trying to balance the needs and responsibilities of different groups.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

If passed, this bill could have a positive impact on pregnant students by providing them with essential information and resources. However, it's also possible that institutions may face additional administrative burdens in implementing these new requirements.

As we discussed in class, laws can have unintended consequences. In this case, some might argue that the bill doesn't go far enough in addressing systemic issues or providing adequate support for pregnant students. Others might worry about potential overreach by the Department of Education.

Now, I know some of you might be thinking, "Why do we need a law to tell institutions what to do?" Well, as we covered in 8th grade, laws are meant to provide clarity and ensure consistency across different contexts. This bill is trying to fill in gaps and provide a safety net for pregnant students.

Let's hope that this bill will lead to more informed decision-making and better support for pregnant students. But, honestly, it's disappointing that we need to have these conversations at all...

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

Folks, gather 'round! I've got my eyes on this so-called "Pregnant Students' Rights Act" (S 3627). On the surface, it looks like a feel-good bill aimed at supporting pregnant students in higher education. But trust me, there's more to it than meets the eye.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill claims to require institutions of higher education to disseminate information on rights, accommodations, and resources for pregnant students. Sounds noble, right? But what's really going on here?

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** This bill amends Section 485 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 by adding a new subsection (n) that mandates institutions to provide information on:

1. Resources for carrying a baby to term and caring for it after birth. 2. Accommodations available to help pregnant students carry the baby to term and parent after birth. 3. How to file complaints with the Department of Education or the institution itself if a student believes their rights have been violated under Title IX.

Now, here's where things get interesting: this bill specifically mentions "carrying a baby to term" multiple times. What's the real agenda behind emphasizing this phrase? Is it just a coincidence that it echoes the language used by pro-life groups?

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Pregnant students, institutions of higher education, and the Department of Education are all directly affected by this bill. But let's not forget about the potential impact on reproductive rights organizations, women's health advocacy groups, and even the pharmaceutical industry.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill could be a Trojan horse for anti-abortion legislation. By emphasizing "carrying a baby to term," it may create a slippery slope where institutions are pressured to prioritize pregnancy over education or other aspects of student life. What about students who choose not to carry their pregnancies to term? Will they receive the same level of support and resources?

Furthermore, this bill could be used as a tool for conservative lawmakers to push their agenda on reproductive rights under the guise of "supporting pregnant students." Don't be fooled – there's more at play here than just providing information and accommodations.

Wake up, folks! This bill is not what it seems. It's time to connect the dots and see the bigger picture.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath) Folks, we've got another doozy of a bill on our hands. The Pregnant Students' Rights Act - sounds innocent enough, right? But trust me, this is just the latest salvo in the war on freedom and common sense.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this bill is to require institutions of higher education to disseminate information about the rights of pregnant students. Now, you might think, "What's wrong with that?" Well, let me tell you - it's a Trojan horse for more government overreach and bureaucratic red tape.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends the Higher Education Act of 1965 to require colleges and universities to provide information on resources available to pregnant students, including accommodations and protections under Title IX. Sounds like a lot of unnecessary paperwork to me. And what's next? Will we have to provide information on every possible scenario that might affect a student's life?

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties here are institutions of higher education, which will now have to devote more resources to complying with this new regulation. And let's not forget the students themselves - who will be bombarded with emails and pamphlets about their "rights" as pregnant students. I mean, can't they just focus on getting an education?

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The impact of this bill will be more government control over our institutions of higher learning. It's a slippery slope, folks - today it's pregnant students, tomorrow it'll be some other "protected class" demanding special treatment. And what about the cost? Who's going to foot the bill for all these new resources and accommodations?

Now, I know what you're thinking - "But what about the poor pregnant students?" Well, let me tell you, folks - we already have laws in place to protect them. This is just a solution in search of a problem. And who benefits from this? The elites, that's who - the bureaucrats and administrators who get to justify their existence by creating more red tape.

So, there you have it - another example of government overreach masquerading as "helping" people. Wake up, America! (wink)

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another exercise in legislative theater, courtesy of our esteemed Congress. Let's dissect this farce, shall we?

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Pregnant Students' Rights Act (PSRA) claims to promote the well-being and education of pregnant students by requiring institutions of higher education to disseminate information on their rights, accommodations, and resources. How noble. In reality, this bill is a thinly veiled attempt to appease conservative voters and further entrench the culture wars in our education system.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The PSRA amends Section 485 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 by adding a new subsection that mandates institutions to provide information on resources, accommodations, and complaint procedures for pregnant students. This includes:

* A list of campus and community resources to support pregnant students * Information on available accommodations (e.g., academic adjustments, leave policies) * Procedures for filing complaints with the Department of Education or the institution itself

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects are involved in this legislative charade:

* Institutions of higher education: forced to comply with new regulations and disseminate information that may not be relevant to their student body * Pregnant students: supposedly benefited by this bill, but let's be real, they're just pawns in a larger game of ideological one-upmanship * Conservative voters: the true beneficiaries of this bill, as it allows politicians to grandstand about "protecting life" and "supporting families"

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a masterclass in symbolic politics. It will have minimal practical impact on pregnant students but will serve as a rallying cry for conservative activists. The real consequences include:

* Increased administrative burdens on institutions, which may lead to more bureaucratic red tape and less actual support for pregnant students * Further politicization of education, as institutions are forced to take sides in the culture wars * A distraction from meaningful policy changes that could genuinely improve the lives of pregnant students and families

In conclusion, the Pregnant Students' Rights Act is a legislative placebo – it may make some people feel good, but it won't actually cure anything. It's a cynical ploy to exploit the emotions of voters while ignoring the real issues facing our education system. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have better things to do than diagnose this obvious case of "Legislative Theater-itis."

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

**Bill Summary: S 3627 - Pregnant Students' Rights Act**

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The Pregnant Students' Rights Act aims to ensure that institutions of higher education provide pregnant students with information about their rights, accommodations, and resources available on campus and in the community. The bill seeks to promote a supportive environment for pregnant students to carry their pregnancy to term and care for their child after birth.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill amends Section 485 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 by adding new requirements for institutions of higher education participating in federal programs. Key provisions include:

* Institutions must disseminate information on pregnant students' rights, accommodations, and resources through various channels, including email, student handbooks, orientation sessions, health centers, and websites. * The information must cover: + Resources available to help pregnant students carry their pregnancy to term and care for their child after birth. + Accommodations available to support pregnant students, such as modifications to academic programs or facilities. + Procedures for filing complaints with the Department of Education or the institution if a student believes they have been discriminated against under Title IX.

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

* Pregnant students enrolled in institutions of higher education participating in federal programs. * Institutions of higher education, including colleges and universities. * The Department of Education, which will be responsible for enforcing the new requirements.

**Potential Impact & Implications** The bill's potential impact and implications are significant:

* Increased support and resources for pregnant students, promoting a more inclusive and supportive campus environment. * Improved awareness among pregnant students about their rights and available accommodations, enabling them to make informed decisions about their education and pregnancy. * Enhanced accountability from institutions of higher education in providing necessary resources and accommodations for pregnant students. * Potential reduction in the number of pregnant students who drop out or discontinue their education due to lack of support.

Overall, the Pregnant Students' Rights Act aims to promote a more supportive environment for pregnant students, ensuring they have access to the information and resources needed to succeed academically and personally.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's break down this bill, bro.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The Pregnant Students' Rights Act (S 3627) is all about makin' sure pregnant students in higher education know their rights and have access to the resources they need. The main goal is to provide a supportive environment for these students to carry their babies to term and balance school life.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

This bill amends Section 485 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, which deals with student consumer information. It adds new requirements for institutions of higher education to disseminate info on:

* Resources available to help pregnant students carry their babies to term and care for them after birth * Accommodations available to support these students * How to file complaints if they feel discriminated against under Title IX

Institutions gotta share this info through various channels, like emails, student handbooks, orientation sessions, health centers, and websites.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

This bill affects:

* Pregnant students in higher education (obviously) * Institutions of higher education (they gotta comply with the new requirements) * The Department of Education (they'll be handling complaints and ensuring compliance)

**Potential Impact & Implications**

This bill's got some far-out implications, bro. By providing pregnant students with more resources and support, it could lead to:

* Increased retention rates for these students * Better academic performance * More confident and empowered students who can balance school life with parenthood

However, there are also some potential concerns, like:

* Additional administrative burdens on institutions of higher education * Potential conflicts between this bill's requirements and existing Title IX regulations * The need for more funding to support the resources and accommodations required by the bill

Overall, this bill's a step in the right direction, bro. It's all about creating a more supportive environment for pregnant students and helping them achieve their goals.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**Bill Analysis: S 3627 - Pregnant Students' Rights Act**

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The Pregnant Students' Rights Act aims to require institutions of higher education to disseminate information on the rights, accommodations, and resources available to pregnant students. The bill's primary objective is to ensure that pregnant students are aware of their rights and have access to necessary support systems to carry a baby to term and parent after birth.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill amends Section 485 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 by adding a new subsection (n) that requires institutions of higher education to:

1. Disseminate information on pregnant students' rights, accommodations, and resources through various channels, including email, student handbooks, orientation sessions, and websites. 2. Provide information on campus and community resources available to help pregnant students carry a baby to term and care for the baby after birth. 3. Inform students about the process of filing complaints with the Department of Education or the institution if they believe their rights under Title IX have been violated.

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

1. Institutions of higher education participating in federal programs under the Higher Education Act. 2. Pregnant students and students who may become pregnant while enrolled at these institutions. 3. Campus resources, such as student health and counseling centers, that will be required to provide information and support services.

**Potential Impact & Implications** The bill's impact is likely to be significant for pregnant students, as it aims to ensure they have access to necessary resources and support systems. However, the bill may also have implications for institutions of higher education, which may need to allocate additional resources to comply with the new requirements.

From a monied interest perspective, this bill appears to be driven by social conservative interests, particularly those advocating for pro-life policies. The bill's sponsors, including Senators Moody, Blackburn, and Hyde-Smith, have received significant funding from PACs and organizations aligned with these interests. For example, Senator Moody has received contributions from the National Right to Life Committee and the Susan B. Anthony List.

While there is no direct industry lobby group influence evident in this bill, it's worth noting that some of the bill's provisions may benefit organizations providing pregnancy-related services, such as crisis pregnancy centers. However, these interests are not explicitly represented in the bill's language or sponsorship.

Overall, the Pregnant Students' Rights Act appears to be a socially driven bill with limited direct industry influence. Nevertheless, its impact on institutions of higher education and pregnant students will likely be significant, and its passage may have broader implications for reproductive rights and access to education.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

No campaign finance data available for Sen. Moody, Ashley [R-FL]

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 10 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Sen. Blackburn, Marsha [R-TN]

ID: B001243

Top Contributors

FRIENDS OF COMMUNITY ONCOLOGY PAC

PACVIRGINIA BEACH, VA

$5,000

Apr 12, 2023

THE COGGIN GROUP

OrganizationMURFREESBORO, TN

$2,900

Mar 9, 2023

THE COGGIN GROUP

OrganizationMURFREESBORO, TN

$2,500

Mar 9, 2023

DOSS BROTHERS FARM

OrganizationLAWRENCEBURG, TN

$1,000

Apr 17, 2024

DOSS BROTHERS FARM

OrganizationLAWRENCEBURG, TN

$1,000

Mar 18, 2024

BL PARTNERS GROUP LLC

OrganizationARLINGTON, VA

$500

Mar 17, 2023

KING, RODNEY W.

SELF-EMPLOYED • ATTORNEY

IndividualGERMANTOWN, TN

$13,200

Apr 4, 2024

BEAN, BILL G.

HANNING & BEAN ENTERPRISES INC. • REAL ESTATE INVESTOR

IndividualCOLUMBIA CITY, IN

$10,000

May 1, 2024

SMITH, THOMAS

PRESCOTT INVESTORS INC. • INVESTOR

IndividualBOCA RATON, FL

$10,000

May 13, 2024

GAMBLE, KATHRYN

UNAKA CO • BUSINESS EXECUTIVE

IndividualDALLAS, TX

$9,900

Jul 15, 2024

Sen. Budd, Ted [R-NC]

ID: B001305

Top Contributors

MACFARLANE, RON

IndividualBUFFALO GROVE, IL

$13,068

Apr 10, 2024

HEGYI, ALBERT P MR.

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$6,600

Dec 31, 2024

NAZIROV, ATABEK

UZDIF • CEO

IndividualCHARLOTTE, NC

$6,600

Sep 14, 2023

NAZIROV, ATABEK

IndividualCHARLOTTE, NC

$6,600

Sep 26, 2023

FROST, BRANT IV

SELF-EMPLOYED • FINANCIAL SERVICES

IndividualNEWNAN, GA

$3,300

Dec 31, 2024

FROST, KRISTA

HOMEMAKER • HOMEMAKER

IndividualNEWNAN, GA

$3,300

Dec 31, 2024

TAYLOR, WILLIAM MR.

VETERANS GUARDIAN VA CLAIM CONSULTING • BUSINESS OWNER

IndividualPINEHURST, NC

$3,300

Dec 7, 2023

TAYLOR, WILLIAM MR.

VETERANS GUARDIAN VA CLAIM CONSULTING • BUSINESS OWNER

IndividualPINEHURST, NC

$3,300

Dec 7, 2023

GREENBLATT, SCOTT MR.

VETERANS GUARDIAN • CEO

IndividualPINEHURST, NC

$3,300

Dec 8, 2023

GREENBLATT, SCOTT MR.

VETERANS GUARDIAN • CEO

IndividualPINEHURST, NC

$3,300

Dec 8, 2023

Sen. Hyde-Smith, Cindy [R-MS]

ID: H001079

Top Contributors

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$2,900

Feb 28, 2023

MS BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS

OrganizationCHOCTAW, MS

$1,500

May 31, 2023

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,000

Jun 20, 2024

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$250

Mar 11, 2024

LUROS, HILARY

HOUSEWIFE • HOUSEWIFE

IndividualSUGAR LAND, TX

$6,600

Oct 21, 2024

LUROS, HILARY

HOUSEWIFE • HOUSEWIFE

IndividualSUGAR LAND, TX

$6,600

Oct 21, 2024

BESSENT, SCOTT

KEY SQUARE GROUP • INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT

IndividualCHARLESTON, SC

$6,600

Dec 31, 2024

FREEMAN, JOHN

HIGH PLAINS ACRES LLP • ATTORNEY/AGRICULTURE

IndividualCHARLESTON, SC

$6,600

Dec 31, 2024

CASTLE, JOHN

CASTLE HARLAN • MERCHANT BANKER

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$6,600

Mar 26, 2024

SEEMANN, WILLIAM III

SEEMANN COMPOSITES • CHAIRMAN

IndividualPASS CHRISTIAN, MS

$6,600

Jun 20, 2024

Sen. Lankford, James [R-OK]

ID: L000575

Top Contributors

MUSCOGEE CREEK NATION

OrganizationOKMULGEE, OK

$1,000

Oct 29, 2024

HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP

OrganizationRICHMOND, VA

$1,000

Aug 4, 2023

SAMPLES, RYAN

SAMPLES GROUP • MANAGEMENT

IndividualOKLAHOMA CITY, OK

$6,600

Aug 30, 2023

KAY, ALISON

KIDS CAPITAL • HEDGE FUND MANAGER

IndividualBEVERLY HILLS, CA

$6,600

Jun 20, 2023

KANADY, CHRISTIAN

ECHO INVESTMENT CAPITAL, LLC • CEO

IndividualNICHOLS HILLS, OK

$6,600

Jun 10, 2024

MANDELBLATT, DANIELLE

RETIRED

IndividualASPEN, CO

$6,600

Jul 31, 2024

MANDELBLATT, ERIC

SOROBAN CAPITAL PARTNERS LP • MANAGING PARTNER

IndividualASPEN, CO

$6,600

Jul 31, 2024

ROWAN, CAROLYN

CAROLYN ROWAN COLLECTION • OWNER

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$6,600

Sep 30, 2024

ROWAN, MARC J.

APOLLO GLOBAL MANAGEMENT • CEO

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$6,600

Sep 30, 2024

ARMSTRONG, SINCLAIR WALKER JR.

ARMSTRONG BANK • CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD

IndividualVIAN, OK

$6,600

Aug 30, 2023

Sen. Cassidy, Bill [R-LA]

ID: C001075

Top Contributors

YAWITZ, JESS B. MR.

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualSAINT LOUIS, MO

$14,000

Jun 11, 2024

MANDELBLATT, DANIELLE

DMM PROPRIETA MANAGEMENT • MANAGER

IndividualASPEN, CO

$9,900

Nov 2, 2023

MANDELBLATT, ERIC

SOROBAN CAPITAL PARTNERS LP • MANAGING PARTNER

IndividualASPEN, CO

$9,900

Nov 2, 2023

JAYASINGHE, SAMAN K. DR.

SELF-EMPLOYED • PHYSICIAN

IndividualBATON ROUGE, LA

$9,900

Jun 13, 2024

KARP, ALEXANDER C.

PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES • CEO

IndividualBEDFORD, NH

$9,900

Apr 16, 2024

OBERNDORF, SUSAN

HOMEMAKER • HOMEMAKER

IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA

$9,900

Jun 5, 2024

OBERNDORF, WILLIAM

OBERNDORF ENTERPRISES • OWNER

IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA

$9,900

Jun 5, 2024

YAWITZ, ALICE G.

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualST. LOUIS, MO

$9,900

Jun 18, 2024

GRIGSBY, BOBBI F. MRS.

HOMEMAKER • HOMEMAKER

IndividualBATON ROUGE, LA

$6,600

Dec 23, 2024

GRIGSBY, L. LANE MR.

CAJUN INDUSTRIES LLC • CHAIRMAN EMERITUS

IndividualBATON ROUGE, LA

$6,600

Dec 23, 2024

Sen. Banks, Jim [R-IN]

ID: B001299

Top Contributors

STOCKAMP FOUNDATION

OrganizationCOLUMBIA CITY, IN

$100

Feb 26, 2024

NEAL, ROLLIE

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualCLARKSBURG, WV

$13,068

Mar 12, 2023

NEAL, ROLLIE

IndividualCLARKSBURG, WV

$13,068

Mar 21, 2023

SALAMONE, CHRISTOPHER J

IndividualFAIRPORT, NY

$12,000

Feb 8, 2024

BARKLEY, JOSH

BARKLEY BUILDERS INC • GENERAL CONTRACTOR

IndividualOSSIAN, IN

$6,700

Apr 3, 2023

THRIFT, PAUL

THOMPSON THRIFT • CEO

IndividualTERRE HAUTE, IN

$6,700

Feb 28, 2023

MUSELMAN, ROGER C.

DRG HOLDINGS, LLC • CHAIRMAN

IndividualBERNE, IN

$6,700

Mar 28, 2023

WALTERS, KENNETH

JAYCO • PRESIDENT AND CEO

IndividualGRANGER, IN

$6,700

Sep 1, 2023

DUMEZICH, DANA A.

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualMARCO ISLAND, FL

$6,600

Jun 15, 2023

RAMSEY, JASON

IndividualBREVARD, NC

$6,600

May 8, 2023

Sen. Daines, Steve [R-MT]

ID: D000618

Top Contributors

CONFEDERATED SALISH AND KOOTENAI TRIBES OF THE FLATHEAD NATI

OrganizationPABLO, MT

$6,600

Mar 30, 2023

BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLAKESIDE, CA

$5,000

Jun 18, 2024

BLUECHIP FINANCIAL

OrganizationBELCOURT, ND

$3,300

Jun 20, 2024

HPUL PROJECT OPERATION

OrganizationUPPER LAKE, CA

$3,300

Jun 20, 2024

EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS

OrganizationCHEROKEE, NC

$3,300

Nov 5, 2024

SUQUAMISH INDIAN TRIBE

OrganizationSUQUAMISH, WA

$3,300

Sep 20, 2024

ALABAMA-COUSHATTA TRIBE

OrganizationLIVINGSTON, TX

$2,500

Oct 31, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,000

Jun 5, 2024

MUSCOGEE CREEK NATION

OrganizationOKMULGEE, OK

$1,000

Jun 20, 2024

CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

OrganizationDURANT, OK

$765

Oct 17, 2023

Sen. Scott, Rick [R-FL]

ID: S001217

Top Contributors

SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA

OrganizationHOLLYWOOD, FL

$3,300

Aug 22, 2023

SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA

OrganizationHOLLYWOOD, FL

$3,300

Aug 12, 2024

SCOTT, RICK SENATOR

US SENATE • US SENATOR

IndividualTAMPA, FL

$90,795

May 31, 2024

SCOTT, RICK SEN

US SENATE • US SENATOR

IndividualWASHINGTON, DC

$77,714

May 31, 2023

SCOTT, RICK SENATOR

US SENATE • US SENATOR

IndividualTAMPA, FL

$69,607

Apr 30, 2024

SCOTT, RICK SENATOR

US SENATE • US SENATOR

IndividualTAMPA, FL

$68,538

Aug 31, 2023

SCOTT, RICK SENATOR

US SENATE • US SENATOR

IndividualTAMPA, FL

$53,187

Sep 30, 2023

SCOTT, RICK SEN

US SENATE • US SENATOR

IndividualWASHINGTON, DC

$49,992

Jun 30, 2023

SCOTT, RICK SENATOR

US SENATE • US SENATOR

IndividualTAMPA, FL

$39,695

Jun 30, 2024

SCOTT, RICK

US SENATE • US SENATOR

IndividualWASHINGTON, DC

$34,494

Jan 31, 2023

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. Wicker, Roger F. [R-MS]

ID: W000437

Top Contributors

EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS

OrganizationCHEROKEE, NC

$25,000

Sep 13, 2024

MISSISSIPPI BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS

OrganizationCHOCTAW, MS

$15,000

Nov 5, 2024

WT CONSULTANTS LLC

OrganizationJACKSON, MS

$2,500

Jan 12, 2023

WAYPOINT CONSULTING, LLC

OrganizationWASHINGTON, DC

$1,000

Mar 26, 2024

HEDERMAN BROTHERS, LLC

OrganizationMADISON, MS

$1,000

Oct 9, 2024

CHOUEST, GARY

EDISON CHOUEST OFFSHORE, LLC • CEO

IndividualGALLIANO, LA

$100,000

Dec 1, 2023

HALE, ROBERT T. JR.

GRANITE TELECOM • CEO

IndividualBOSTON, MA

$100,000

Jun 28, 2023

BLUE, J. NEAL

GENERAL ATOMICS • CEO

IndividualLA JOLLA, CA

$50,000

Dec 21, 2023

HALE, ROBERT T. JR.

GRANITE TELECOM • CEO

IndividualBOSTON, MA

$50,000

Apr 12, 2024

DUFF, THOMAS M.

SOUTHERN TIRE MART • PRESIDENT

IndividualHATTIESBURG, MS

$50,000

Sep 30, 2024

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 1 harmed.

−For-Profit Education & Student Loansconfidence 0.80
Section 2 of the bill requires institutions of higher education to disseminate information on rights and resources for pregnant students, which may lead to increased regulatory burden on for-profit education institutions.

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: 67%

Pages: 533-535AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill supports pregnant students in higher education by ensuring access to information about rights, accommodations, and resources, which aligns with Project 2025's broader emphasis on supporting life-affirming policies and reproductive health initiatives, though it operates in an educational rather than healthcare context."

Key themes:pregnant student supportreproductive healthaccess to resourcesnondiscriminationfamily support

— 501 — Department of Health and Human Services 54. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Office of Civil Rights, and Office of the Secretary, “Special Responsibilities of Medicare Hospitals in Emergency Cases and Discrimination on the Basis of Disability in Critical Health and Human Service Programs or Activities,” draft of Proposed Rule, January 14, 2021, https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/infants-nprm.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 55. H.R. 26, Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, 118th Congress, introduced January 9, 2023, https:// www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr26/BILLS-118hr26pcs.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 56. H.R. 7, No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2023, 118th Congress, introduced January 9, 2023, https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr7/BILLS-118hr7ih.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 57. S. 401, Conscience Protection Act of 2021, 117th Congress, introduced February 24, 2021, https://www.congress. gov/117/bills/s401/BILLS-117s401is.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 58. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and Office of the Secretary, “Nondiscrimination in Health Programs and Activities,” Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; Notice of Tribal Consultation, Federal Register, Vol. 87, No. 149 (August 4, 2022), pp. 47824–47920, https://www.govinfo. gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-08-04/pdf/2022-16217.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 59. Ibid., p. 47916. 60. The regulation was not finalized before the end of the Administration. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Services, “Revision of Categorical Eligibility in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP),” Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 142 (July 24, 2019), pp. 35570–55581, https:// www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/07/24/2019-15670/revision-of-categorical-eligibility-in-the- supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap (accessed March 17, 2023). 61. 45 Code of Federal Regulations § 75.300(c) and (d), https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-45/subtitle-A/ subchapter-A/part-75/subpart-D/subject-group-ECFR911e5e1a30bfbcb/section-75.300 (accessed March 17, 2023). 62. H.R. 1750, Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act of 2021, 117th Congress, introduced March 10, 2021, https:// www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr1750/BILLS-117hr1750ih.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023), and S. 656, Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act of 2021, 117th Congress, introduced March 10, 2021, https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/ s656/BILLS-117s656is.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 63. S. 3949, Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2022, Public Law No. 117-348, 117th Congress, January 25, 2023, https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ348/PLAW-117publ348.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 64. Kelsey Y. Santamaria, “Child Migrants at the Border: The Flores Settlement Agreement and Other Legal Developments,” Congressional Research Service In Focus No. IF11799, April 1, 2021, https://crsreports.congress. gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11799 (accessed March 17, 2023). 65. Report, Building a Happy Home: Marriage Education as a Tool to Strengthen Families, Social Capital Project Report No. 1-22, March 2022, p. 17, https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/3d102525-6f0d-48ed- 92f4-d71edd468ad6/building-a-happy-home.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). The cover of the report reflects that the Social Capital Project is “[a] project of the Joint Economic Committee – Republicans.” 66. See, for example, Alan J. Hawkins, “Are Federally Supported Relationship Education Programs for Lower-Income Individuals and Couples Working? A Review of Evaluation Research,” American Enterprise Institute, September 2019, https://www. congress.gov/117/plaws/publ228/PLAW-117publ228.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 67. H.R. 8404, Respect for Marriage Act, Public Law No. 117-228, 117th Congress, December 13, 2022, https://www. congress.gov/117/plaws/publ228/PLAW-117publ228.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 68. Madison Marino, “Over 1,000 Safety Violations Mar Head Start. Children Deserve Better,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, November 10, 2022, https://www.heritage.org/education/commentary/over-1000-safety- violations-mar-head-start-children-deserve-better. 69. American Hospital Association v. Becerra, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), https://www.supremecourt.gov/ opinions/21pdf/20-1114_09m1.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 70. U.S. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service; U.S. Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration; and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, “Coverage of Certain Preventive Services Under the Affordable Care Act,” Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Federal Register, Vol. 88, No. 22 (February 2, 2023), pp. 7236–7281, https://www. govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2023-02-02/pdf/2023-01981.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). — 502 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 71. 42 U.S. Code § 238n, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/238n (accessed March 17, 2023). 72. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, “Early Childhood Health,” last reviewed October 2022, https://mchb.hrsa.gov/programs-impact/focus-areas/early- childhood-health (accessed March 17, 2023). 73. American Pregnancy Association, “Having a Doula—What Are the Benefits?” https://americanpregnancy. org/healthy-pregnancy/labor-and-birth/having-a-doula/#:~:text=Other%20studies%20have%20shown%20 that%20having%20a%20doula,massage%20to%20reduce%20stress%20and%20anxiety%20during%20labor (accessed March 17, 2023). 74. S. 2372, VA MISSION [Maintaining Internal Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks] Act of 2018, Public Law No. 115-182, 115th Congress, June 6, 2018, https://www.congress.gov/115/plaws/publ182/ PLAW-115publ182.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 75. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Securing Updated and Necessary Statutory Evaluations Timely,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 11 (January 19, 2021), pp. 5694–5764, https://www.govinfo. gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-01-19/pdf/2021-00597.pdf (accessed March 22, 2023). 76. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, “Compliance with Statutory Program Integrity Requirements,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 42 (March 4, 2029), pp. 7714–7791, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-03-04/pdf/2019-03461.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 77. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, “Ensuring Access to Equitable, Affordable, Client-Centered, Quality Family Planning Services,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 192 (October 7, 2021), pp. 56144–56180, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/ pkg/FR-2021-10-07/pdf/2021-21542.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 78. S. 624, Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act, 118th Congress, introduced March 2, 2023, https://www. congress.gov/118/bills/s624/BILLS-118s624is.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 79. 50 U.S. Code Chapter 55, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/chapter-55 (accessed March 22, 2023). 80. 18 U.S. Code § 13, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/13 (accessed March 18, 2023). 81. Bowen v. American Hospital Association, 476 U.S. 610 (1986), https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/ usrep/usrep476/usrep476610/usrep476610.pdf (accessed 22, 2023). 82. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, “Notification of Interpretation and Enforcement of Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972,” Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 99 (May 25, 2021), pp. 27984–27985, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR- 2021-05-25/pdf/2021-10477.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 83. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights, “HHS Notice and Guidance on Gender Affirming Care, Civil Rights, and Patient Privacy,” March 2, 2022, https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/hhs- ocr-notice-and-guidance-gender-affirming-care.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 84. Heckler v. Chaney, 420 U.S. 821 (1985), https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/470/821.html (accessed March 18, 2022). 85. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights, “Guidance to Nation’s Retail Pharmacies: Obligations Under Federal Civil Rights Laws to Ensure Access to Comprehensive Reproductive Health Care Services,” content last reviewed July 14, 2022, https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/ special-topics/reproductive-healthcare/pharmacies-guidance/index.html (accessed March 18, 2023). 86. H.R. 3103, “Health Insurance and Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, Public Law No. 104-191, 104th Congress, August 21, 1996, https://www.congress.gov/104/plaws/publ191/PLAW-104publ191.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 87. U.S. Department of Human Services, “HIPAA Privacy Rule and Disclosures of Information Relating to Reproductive Health Care,” content last reviewed June 29, 2022, (accessed March 18, 2023). See also “Protecting the Privacy and Security of Your Health Information When Using Your Personal Cell Phone or Tablet,” content last reviewed June 29, 2022, https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/privacy/guidance/ cell-phone-hipaa/index.html (accessed March 18, 2023).

Department of Labor and Related Agencies

Moderate

Vector: 64%

Pages: 618-620AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill supports pregnant students in higher education by ensuring access to information about rights, accommodations, and resources, which aligns with Project 2025's goal of promoting pro-life measures and supporting mothers. However, the bill focuses on educational accommodations rather than workplace policies or direct pro-life benefits like those emphasized in the Project 2025 policy."

Key themes:pregnant studentsaccommodationspro-life supportTitle IXhigher education

— 585 — Department of Labor and Related Agencies l Direct agencies to refocus enforcement of sex discrimination laws. The President should direct agencies to focus their enforcement of sex discrimination laws on the biological binary meaning of “sex.” PRO-LIFE MEASURES l Promote pro-life workplace accommodations for mothers. Federal law should protect life and promote pro-family policies. Current law, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act,3 provides nondiscrimination protections in the workplace for pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA)4 requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for women “to the known limitations related to the pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions,” unless “the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the [employer’s] business.” The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) also provides nondiscrimination and accommodation protections in the workplace for certain pregnancy-related disability.5 None of these laws requires an employer provide health insurance benefits for elective abortion. l Pass a law requiring equal (or greater) benefits for pro-life support for mothers and clarifying abortion exclusions. Congress should pass a law requiring that to the extent an employer provides employee benefits for abortion, it must provide equal or greater benefits for pregnancy, childbirth, maternity, and adoption. That law should also clarify that no employer is required to provide any accommodations or benefits for abortion. l Keep anti-life “benefits” out of benefit plans. Some benefits attorneys and pro-choice advocates have argued since the Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision6 that the longstanding doctrine of Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA)7 preemption should block individual states’ efforts to prohibit employers from helping employees procure abortions via offering various kinds of coverage under employee-sponsored benefit plans. ERISA should not be allowed to trump states’ ability to protect innocent human life in the womb. Congress and DOL should clarify that ERISA does not preempt states’ power to restrict abortion, surrogacy, or other anti-life “benefits.” RELIGION l Provide robust protections for religious employers. America’s religious diversity means that workplaces include people of many faiths and that many employers are faith-based. Nevertheless, the Biden Administration has been hostile to people of faith, especially those with traditional beliefs — 586 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise about marriage, gender, and sexuality. The new Administration should enact policies with robust respect for religious exercise in the workplace, including under the First Amendment, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA),8 Title VII, and federal conscience protection laws. l Issue an executive order protecting religious employers and employees. The President should make clear via executive order that religious employers are free to run their businesses according to their religious beliefs, general nondiscrimination laws notwithstanding, and support participation of religious employees and employers as federal contractors and in federal activities and programs. l Clarify Title VII’s religious organization exemptions. Congress should clarify Title VII’s religious organization exemptions to make it more explicit that those employers may make employment decisions based on religion regardless of nondiscrimination laws. l Provide Robust Accommodations for Religious Employees. Title VII requires reasonable accommodations for an employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs, observances, or practices unless it poses an undue hardship on the employer’s business. These accommodation protections also apply to issues related to marriage, gender, and sexuality. Unless the Supreme Court overrules its bad precedent, Congress should clarify that undue hardship means “significant difficulty or expenses,” not “more than a de minimis cost” as the Court has previously held. General EEOC Reforms. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commis- sion (EEOC) does not have rulemaking authority under Title VII and other laws it enforces, yet it issues “guidance,” “technical assistance,” and other documents, including some that push new policy positions. EEOC should disclaim its regulatory pretensions and abide by the guidance reforms dis- cussed below. l EEOC should disclaim its regulatory pretensions. l Affirm decision-making via majority vote of Commissioners. EEOC should affirm as policy the Title VII requirement that it exercise substantive power via majority vote of Commissioners, not by unilateral Chair action or by delegation to staff.

Department of Health and Human Services

Moderate

Vector: 64%

Pages: 518-520AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill supports pregnant students in carrying pregnancies to term and accessing postpartum resources, aligning with Project 2025's emphasis on maternal health, family planning alternatives, and support for mother-child relationships. However, it does not directly address fertility awareness-based methods, contraceptive mandates, or abortion-related restrictions central to the cited HHS section."

Key themes:maternal healthpregnancy supportmother-child relationshipstudent resourcesfamily planning

— 485 — Department of Health and Human Services 2022, a federal court blocked this attempt to eliminate health insurance coverage for fertility awareness–based methods of family planning from requirements that cover at least 58 million women, and the judge made his ruling permanent in December 2022. HRSA should promulgate regulations consistent with this order. HHS should more thoroughly ensure that fertility awareness–based methods of family planning are part of women’s preventive services under the ACA. FABMs often involve costs for materials and supplies, and HHS should make clear that coverage of those items is also required. FABMs are highly effective and allow women to make family planning choices in a manner that meets their needs and reflects their values. l Eliminate men’s preventive services from the women’s preventive services mandate. In December 2021, HRSA updated its women’s preventive services guidelines to include male condoms after claiming for years that it had no authority to do so because Congress explicitly limited the mandate to “women’s” preventive care and screenings. HRSA should not incorporate exclusively male contraceptive methods into guidelines that specify they encompass only women’s services. l Eliminate the week-after-pill from the contraceptive mandate as a potential abortifacient. One of the emergency contraceptives covered under the HRSA preventive services guidelines is Ella (ulipristal acetate). Like its close cousin, the abortion pill mifepristone, Ella is a progesterone blocker and can prevent a recently fertilized embryo from implanting in a woman’s uterus. HRSA should eliminate this potential abortifacient from the contraceptive mandate. l Withdraw Ryan White guidance allowing funds to pay for cross-sex transition support. HRSA should withdraw all guidance encouraging Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program service providers to provide controversial “gender transition” procedures or “gender-affirming care,” which cause irreversible physical and mental harm to those who receive them. l Ensure that training for medical professionals (doctors, nurses, etc.) and doulas is not being used for abortion training. HHS should ensure that training programs for medical professionals—including doctors, nurses, and doulas—are in full compliance with restrictions on abortion funding and conscience-protection laws. In addition, HHS should: — 486 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 1. Investigate state medical school compliance with the Coats–Snowe Amendment,71 which prohibits discrimination against health care entities that do not provide or undergo training for abortion. 2. Ensure that the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) complies with all relevant conscience statutes and regulations and that states have taken the affirmative steps (for example, by issuing regulations) to assure compliance with Coats–Snowe. 3. Communicate to medical schools that any abortion-related training must be on an opt-in rather than opt-out basis. 4. Require states that receive HHS funds to issue regulations or enter into arrangements with accrediting bodies to comply with the Coats–Snowe Amendment’s prohibition of mandatory abortion training by individuals or institutions. The Coats–Snowe Amendment specifically requires such state regulations or arrangements. l Prioritize funding for home-based childcare, not universal day care. As HRSA’s Early Childhood Health page outlines, “Currently, only about half of U.S. preschoolers are on-track with their development and ready for school. And more than one in four of children (28%) who experience abuse or neglect are under 3 years old.”72 Concurrently, children who spend significant time in day care experience higher rates of anxiety, depression, and neglect as well as poor educational and developmental outcomes. Instead of providing universal day care, funding should go to parents either to offset the cost of staying home with a child or to pay for familial, in-home childcare. l Provide education and resources on early childhood health. By partnering with new organizations like the Center on Child and Family Poverty, HRSA should provide resources and information on the importance of the mother–child relationship in child well-being. This should include relationship education curricula that equip mothers and caregivers to connect with and improve their understanding of their infants, toddlers, and young children. Maternal and Child Health. Currently, the HRSA Maternal and Child Health program is collecting data on the benefits of doulas in improving the health, safety, and emotional well-being of mothers at birth. Doulas provide a patient-focused, nonmedical support system for single or married mothers that “decreases the

Department of Labor and Related Agencies

Moderate

Vector: 63%

Pages: 618-620AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill aligns with Project 2025's pro-life measures by promoting accommodations and resources for pregnant individuals to carry pregnancies to term, and it touches on Title IX sex‑discrimination enforcement, though it focuses on higher education rather than employment and lacks explicit abortion‑benefit restrictions or religious‑employer protections."

Key themes:pregnancy accommodationspro-life supportTitle IX enforcementsex discriminationresource dissemination

Department of Education

Weak

Vector: 63%

Pages: 383-385AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 section involve the Department of Education and higher education, but the bill’s focus on pregnant student support and information dissemination shares little substantive overlap with Project 2025’s priorities of school choice, accreditation reform, and state opt-out from federal programs."

Key themes:Department of EducationHigher EducationFederal oversight

— 351 — Department of Education as the Educational Choice for Children Act. This bill would create a federal scholarship tax credit that would incentivize donors to contribute to nonprofit scholarship granting organizations (SGOs). Eligible families could then use that funding from the SGOs for their children’s education expenses including private school tuition, tutoring, and instructional materials. ADDITIONAL K–12 REFORMS Allowing States to Opt Out of Federal Education Programs. States should be able to opt out of federal education programs such as the Academic Partnerships Lead Us to Success (APLUS) Act. Much of the red tape and regulations that hinder local school districts are handed down from Washington. This regulatory burden far exceeds the federal government’s less than 10 percent financing share of K–12 education. In the most recent fiscal year (FY 2022), states and localities financed 93 percent of K–12 education costs, and the federal government just 7 percent. That 7 percent share should not allow the federal government to dictate state and local education policy. l To restore state and local control of education and reduce the bureaucratic and compliance burden, Congress should allow states to opt out of the dozens of federal K–12 education programs authorized under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and instead allow states to put their share of federal funding toward any lawful education purpose under state law. This policy has been advanced over the years via a proposal known as the Academic Partnerships Lead Us to Success (APLUS) Act. HIGHER EDUCATION REFORM HEA: Accreditation Reform Congress established two primary responsibilities for the U.S. Department of Education in the HEA: 1) to ensure the “administrative capacity and financial responsibility” of colleges and universities that accept Title IV funds; and 2) to ensure the quality of those institutions. Congress did not endow the Department of Education with the authority to involve itself in academic quality issues relating to colleges and universities that participate in the Title IV student aid program; the HEA allows the agency only to recognize accreditors, which are then supposed to provide quality assurance measures. Unfortunately, the Biden Administration has followed closely in the footsteps of the Obama Administration by engaging in a politically motivated and incon- sistent administration of the accrediting agency recognition process. As a result, accreditors have transformed into de facto government agents. Despite claims by — 352 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise the department and accreditation agencies that accreditation is voluntary, the fact that Americans are denied access to an otherwise widely available entitle- ment benefit if the institution “elects” to not be accredited makes accreditation anything but voluntary. Today, accreditation determines whether Americans can access federal student aid benefits, transfer academic credits, enroll in higher-level degree programs, and even qualify for federal employment. Unnecessarily focused on schools in a specific geographic region, institutional accreditation reviews have also become wildly expensive audits by academic “peers” that stifle innovation and discourage new institutions of higher education. Of par- ticular concern are efforts by many accreditation agencies to leverage their Title IV (student loans and grants) gatekeeper roles to force institutions to adopt policies that have nothing to do with academic quality assurance and student outcomes. One egregious example of this is the extent to which accreditors have forced col- leges and universities, many of them faith-based institutions, to adopt diversity, equity, and inclusion policies that conflict with federal civil rights laws, state laws, and the institutional mission and culture of the schools. Perhaps more distress- ingly, accreditors, while professing support for academic freedom and campus free speech, have presided over a precipitous decline in both over the past decade. Despite maintaining criteria that demand such policies, accreditors have done nothing to dampen the illiberal chill that has swept across American campuses over the past decade. The current system is not working. A radical overhaul of the HEA’s accreditation requirements is thus in order. The next Administration should work with Congress to amend the HEA and should consider the following reforms: l Prohibit accreditation agencies from leveraging their Title IV gatekeeper role to mandate that educational institutions adopt diversity, equity, and inclusion policies. l Protect the sovereignty of states to decide governance and leadership issues for their state-supported colleges and universities by prohibiting accreditation agencies from intruding upon the governance of state-supported educational institutions. l Protect faith-based institutions by prohibiting accreditation agencies from: 1. Requiring standards and criteria that undermine the religious beliefs of, or require policies or conduct that conflict with, the religious mission or religious beliefs of the institution; and

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. Moody, Ashley

American Shores Protection Act of 2025

119/s/3082

Drone Espionage Act

119/s/1809

Charlotte Woodward Organ Transplant Discrimination Prevention Act

119/s/1782

Back to All Bills