Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Requires HHS, within six months of enactment, to issue a final rule identical or materially equivalent to 45 C.F.R. part 88 as it existed July 22, 2019, regarding protection of statutory conscience rights in health care, and to state that the rule supersedes any contrary rule. The bill defines “Federal conscience and anti-discrimination laws” by reference to that former rule.
Whether reinstating the 2019 rule prioritizes conscience over patient access
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise operational directive requiring the Secretary of HHS to promulgate a specified prior rule within a fixed timeframe and to have that rule supersede contrary rules.
Requires HHS, within six months of enactment, to issue a final rule identical or materially equivalent to 45 C.F.R. part 88 as it existed July 22, 2019, regarding protection of statutory conscience rights in health care, and to state that the rule supersedes any contrary rule.
The bill defines “Federal conscience and anti-discrimination laws” by reference to that former rule.
Simple statutory instruction but on a polarizing topic; may pass a partisan House yet stall in the Senate and face litigation.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise operational directive requiring the Secretary of HHS to promulgate a specified prior rule within a fixed timeframe and to have that rule supersede contrary rules. The bill is clear about the action, authority, and timeline but relies on reinstating external regulatory text rather than reproducing substantive provisions in full.
Whether reinstating the 2019 rule prioritizes conscience over patient access
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Whether reinstating the 2019 rule prioritizes conscience over patient access
Likely views the bill skeptically because reinstating the 2019 conscience rule is seen as expanding providers' ability to refuse care.
Concern focuses on impacts to reproductive, LGBTQ, and other vulnerable patients' access to care.
Mixed reaction: supports protecting sincere conscience rights but worries about patient access and legal conflicts.
Would look for clear limits, emergency obligations, and enforcement clarity to balance rights and care continuity.
Generally supportive: sees the bill as restoring a prior rule that protects providers from being compelled to participate in procedures against conscience, reinforcing religious liberty and free exercise protections.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Simple statutory instruction but on a polarizing topic; may pass a partisan House yet stall in the Senate and face litigation.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Whether reinstating the 2019 rule prioritizes conscience over patient access
Simple statutory instruction but on a polarizing topic; may pass a partisan House yet stall in the Senate and face litigation.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise operational directive requiring the Secretary of HHS to promulgate a specified prior rule within a fixed timeframe and to have that rule supersede contra…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.