- Federal agenciesPrevents federal regulations that would require employers to fund or accommodate abortion coverage or services.
- Federal agenciesReduces potential compliance and administrative costs for employers and insurers related to federal abortion-related ru…
- EmployersProtects employers' ability to decline abortion coverage consistent with religious or moral objections.
Love Them Both Act of 2025
Referred to the Committee on Education and Workforce, and in addition to the Committee on House Administration, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each…
This bill ("Love Them Both Act of 2025") prohibits the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights Board from finalizing, implementing, or enforcing any regulation under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act that applies to abortion or to coverage of abortion or abortion-related services.
It is a narrow statutory restriction on agency regulatory action concerning abortion in the context of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.
Very narrow statutory restriction but on a high-salience, polarizing topic; low fiscal incentives and few compromise features reduce chances.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrow operational restriction that clearly identifies the agencies and the specific regulatory actions it prohibits but provides limited implementation detail beyond that prohibition.
Progressives emphasize harm to worker healthcare access and equity.
Who stands to gain, and who may push back.
- WorkersMay reduce pregnant workers' access to employer-provided abortion coverage or accommodations.
- EmployersCreates potential inconsistency in protections and benefits across employers and states.
- Targeted stakeholdersCould increase out-of-pocket healthcare costs for employees seeking abortion-related care.
Why the argument around this bill splits.
Progressives emphasize harm to worker healthcare access and equity.
Likely views the bill as a targeted rollback of worker protections and healthcare access.
Concerned it removes agency authority to address workplace needs tied to abortion or pregnancy-related healthcare.
Sees a narrow statutory limit but worries about unintended consequences and legal ambiguity.
Would look for clearer definitions and safeguards for medical exceptions.
Likely supportive as it prevents federal agencies from issuing PWFA regulations that mandate abortion coverage or related accommodations.
Viewed as protecting employers' conscience and limiting regulatory scope.
The path through Congress.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Very narrow statutory restriction but on a high-salience, polarizing topic; low fiscal incentives and few compromise features reduce chances.
- How courts would interpret "applies to abortion or coverage"
- No cost estimate or administrative impact analysis included
Recent votes on the bill.
No vote history yet
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Go deeper than the headline read.
Progressives emphasize harm to worker healthcare access and equity.
Very narrow statutory restriction but on a high-salience, polarizing topic; low fiscal incentives and few compromise features reduce chance…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrow operational restriction that clearly identifies the agencies and the specific regulatory actions it prohibits but provides limited implementation detail b…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.