Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
This bill requires HHS to create a federal website, pregnancy.gov, as a ZIP-code searchable clearinghouse of pregnancy- and parenting-related resources. States are invited to supply vetted resource lists; certain entities that perform, refer for, or counsel in favor of abortions are barred from being listed or receiving grants.
Progressives emphasize censorship risks and Title X fund diversion
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill provides a reasonably well-specified statutory framework to establish a national pregnancy resource website and a state-supported aggregation/grant mechanism.
This bill requires HHS to create a federal website, pregnancy.gov, as a ZIP-code searchable clearinghouse of pregnancy- and parenting-related resources.
States are invited to supply vetted resource lists; certain entities that perform, refer for, or counsel in favor of abortions are barred from being listed or receiving grants.
The law would authorize up to $50 million from specified programs for state grants (FY2026–2030), require reporting to Congress, and mandate multilingual access and centralized Office of the Secretary oversight.
Technically narrow but ideologically loaded; controversy over excluding abortion providers, funding sources, and potential legal challenges reduce overall prospects.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill provides a reasonably well-specified statutory framework to establish a national pregnancy resource website and a state-supported aggregation/grant mechanism. It includes concrete website requirements, timelines, funding authorities and limits, definitions, and a reporting requirement.
Progressives emphasize censorship risks and Title X fund diversion
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize censorship risks and Title X fund diversion
Views the centralized resource idea as potentially useful but is likely to oppose key provisions.
The explicit ban on listing or funding entities that provide or refer for abortions, use of Title X and PREP funds, and mandated content (e.g., abortion risks, abortion-pill reversal) raise concerns about restricting access to comprehensive reproductive healthcare and inserting ideological content.
Sees practical value in a single, accessible portal of pregnancy resources but has reservations about implementation and neutrality.
Concerns focus on the exclusionary definition of prohibited entities, potential repurposing of existing public-health funds, and ensuring medically accurate, nonpartisan content.
Likely supportive because the bill directs federal resources toward pregnancy support, explicitly excludes abortion providers, and promotes alternatives to abortion.
Centralized oversight and grants to states align with goals to expand non‑abortion pregnancy services and outreach.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Technically narrow but ideologically loaded; controversy over excluding abortion providers, funding sources, and potential legal challenges reduce overall prospects.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize censorship risks and Title X fund diversion
Technically narrow but ideologically loaded; controversy over excluding abortion providers, funding sources, and potential legal challenges…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill provides a reasonably well-specified statutory framework to establish a national pregnancy resource website and a state-supported aggregation/grant mechanism. It incl…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.