Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for…
This resolution is a nonbinding statement expressing support for recognizing September 26, 2025 as World Contraception Day and sets out the House's view on improving access to contraception at home and abroad. It does not create or change law but urges Congress and the administration to take certain actions and policies. If adopted as a concurrent resolution, it would reflect the official position of both chambers without going to the President.
Concurrent resolutions must be approved by both the House and the Senate to reflect a joint position, but they are not presented to the President and do not have the force of law. This text, as a concurrent resolution, is therefore a nonbinding expression of Congress's views.
This concurrent resolution expresses the House’s support for recognizing September 26, 2025, as World Contraception Day and states the sense of Congress about expanding and protecting access to contraception domestically and globally.
It cites international and U.S. legal and public-health authorities, documents disparities and past coercion in reproductive health care, and urges Congress and the Trump administration to take steps to ensure universal, affordable access to a broad definition of contraception, expand training and sex education, support related foreign assistance (including safe abortion services and postabortion care), protect funding for programs such as Title X, Medicaid, IHS, TRICARE, and to expand over-the-counter access and coverage without cost sharing.
The resolution is non-binding and expresses policy preferences rather than enacting statutory requirements or appropriations.
As a sense of Congress concurrent resolution it does not create binding law, which lowers the legislative bar compared with substantive statutory proposals, but the resolution tackles divisive reproductive-health topics and includes explicit policy prescriptions (coverage, funding support, abortion-related foreign assistance). Those elements raise political opposition potential and reduce the chance both chambers would unanimously approve it. Historically, symbolic resolutions on charged social topics often pass one chamber but stall or are amended in the other; therefore the likelihood is modest but uncertain.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this concurrent resolution is a well-argued and detailed statement of purpose and concerns about contraception access and related disparities, but remains declarative and nonbinding with limited implementation detail.
Inclusion of 'safe abortion services' in foreign and domestic assistance: liberals largely support; conservatives strongly oppose.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Inclusion of 'safe abortion services' in foreign and domestic assistance: liberals largely support; conservatives strongly oppose.
A mainstream liberal would view this resolution positively as a strong, values-based statement that affirms reproductive rights, supports removing barriers to contraception, and calls for equity-focused policies.
They would welcome the emphasis on reproductive justice, addressing historical medical racism and coercion, and expanding access via OTC options and insurance coverage.
The inclusion of global assistance and protection of Title X and Medicaid aligns with priorities on public health and international aid.
A centrist would see this resolution as a broadly pro–public-health, symbolic statement that highlights important problems (contraceptive deserts, disparities) and endorses evidence-based solutions, but would also note potential political and fiscal implications of some recommendations.
They would appreciate the emphasis on training, access, and reducing disparities, while being cautious about calls that could be interpreted as federal mandates for coverage or funding.
They would treat the resolution as a useful policy signal but want more detail, cost estimates, and respect for state roles and conscience considerations before supporting specific statutory changes.
A mainstream conservative would likely oppose or be skeptical of this resolution because it explicitly supports including safe abortion services in foreign assistance, advocates for coverage of contraception without cost sharing, promotes gender-inclusive sex education, and calls for federal involvement to expand access.
They would view several provisions as expanding federal authority and potentially compelling private actors or insurers, and they would be particularly concerned about the abortion and sex-education components.
Conservatives would note the resolution is non-binding but worry it signals intent for future policy that they would oppose.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
As a sense of Congress concurrent resolution it does not create binding law, which lowers the legislative bar compared with substantive statutory proposals, but the resolution tackles divisive reproductive-health topics and includes explicit policy prescriptions (coverage, funding support, abortion-related foreign assistance). Those elements raise political opposition potential and reduce the chance both chambers would unanimously approve it. Historically, symbolic resolutions on charged social topics often pass one chamber but stall or are amended in the other; therefore the likelihood is modest but uncertain.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Inclusion of 'safe abortion services' in foreign and domestic assistance: liberals largely support; conservatives strongly oppose.
As a sense of Congress concurrent resolution it does not create binding law, which lowers the legislative bar compared with substantive sta…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this concurrent resolution is a well-argued and detailed statement of purpose and concerns about contraception access and related disparities, but remains declarative and nonbi…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.