Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
The Stillbirth Health Improvement and Education for Autumn (SHINE for Autumn) Act of 2025 directs the HHS Secretary to support improved surveillance, data collection, guidance, and public education on stillbirth. It authorizes grants to states to collect and standardize stillbirth data (with required deidentification and conformity with privacy laws) and to build public health capacity; $5 million per year is authorized for fiscal years 2026–2030 for those grants.
Level and scope of federal funding: liberals want more; conservatives prefer limited spending or state-led solutions.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a discrete federal program to improve stillbirth surveillance and to produce guidance and educational materials, with explicit, modest appropriations and a statutory home in the Public Health Service Act.
The Stillbirth Health Improvement and Education for Autumn (SHINE for Autumn) Act of 2025 directs the HHS Secretary to support improved surveillance, data collection, guidance, and public education on stillbirth.
It authorizes grants to states to collect and standardize stillbirth data (with required deidentification and conformity with privacy laws) and to build public health capacity; $5 million per year is authorized for fiscal years 2026–2030 for those grants.
The Secretary must also issue guidelines to state health and vital statistics units on collecting stillbirth-related clinical information (with the consent of the woman who experienced the stillbirth), develop educational awareness materials, and may consult a broad set of clinicians, bereavement organizations, statisticians, and affected individuals; $1 million per year is authorized for fiscal years 2026–2030 for these activities.
Content is narrow, technical, and non-ideological with modest authorized funding and clear implementation steps—characteristics that favor enactment. However, authorization does not guarantee appropriation, and passage still depends on legislative scheduling and competing priorities; therefore the bill has a reasonable chance but is not assured to become law without follow‑on appropriations or inclusion in a larger vehicle.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a discrete federal program to improve stillbirth surveillance and to produce guidance and educational materials, with explicit, modest appropriations and a statutory home in the Public Health Service Act. It provides clear purpose and some operational anchors (Secretary authority, deidentification requirement, consultation list), but leaves numerous implementation details to the Secretary without prescribing grant administration, data standards, performance measures, or reporting requirements for grantees.
Level and scope of federal funding: liberals want more; conservatives prefer limited spending or state-led solutions.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Level and scope of federal funding: liberals want more; conservatives prefer limited spending or state-led solutions.
This persona would likely view the bill positively as a focused effort to improve public health data and support families affected by stillbirth.
They would see improved surveillance and standardized data as tools to reveal disparities (by race, socioeconomic status, and geography) and to guide prevention and resource allocation.
They may argue the funding levels are modest relative to needs and want stronger provisions ensuring data captures social determinants and is used to expand services, bereavement care, and equitable interventions.
A centrist would likely regard the bill as a targeted, practical public-health measure that uses modest federal resources to improve data and guidance on a relatively narrow problem.
They would appreciate the emphasis on deidentification and consent, and the inclusion of professional and family stakeholders in developing materials.
They would want clarity on how success will be measured, how funds will be allocated and monitored, and whether the modest authorizations will achieve meaningful improvements.
A mainstream conservative would likely be cautiously receptive to the bill’s narrow public-health goals but concerned about federal spending, potential federal overreach into state vital records, and data privacy implications.
They may appreciate that the bill is grant-based (not a federal mandate) and requires deidentification and the woman’s consent for clinical data, which limits federal intrusion.
However, they could push back on even modest new appropriations or prefer that states lead these efforts without added federal conditions.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Content is narrow, technical, and non-ideological with modest authorized funding and clear implementation steps—characteristics that favor enactment. However, authorization does not guarantee appropriation, and passage still depends on legislative scheduling and competing priorities; therefore the bill has a reasonable chance but is not assured to become law without follow‑on appropriations or inclusion in a larger vehicle.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Level and scope of federal funding: liberals want more; conservatives prefer limited spending or state-led solutions.
Content is narrow, technical, and non-ideological with modest authorized funding and clear implementation steps—characteristics that favor…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a discrete federal program to improve stillbirth surveillance and to produce guidance and educational materials, with explicit, modest appropriations and…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.