S. 186 (119th)Bill Overview

No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2025

Health|AbortionAppropriations
Cosponsors
Support
Republican
Introduced
Jan 22, 2025
Discussions
Bill Text
Current stageCommittee

Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.

Introduced
Committee
Floor
President
Law
Congressional Activities
01 · The brief
Plain-English summaryWhat this bill actually does

This bill prohibits the expenditure of federal funds for abortions and for health plans that include abortion coverage, and forbids federal facilities and employees from providing abortions. It preserves exceptions for rape, incest, and life‑threatening pregnancies, and allows separate abortion coverage paid entirely with non‑federal funds.

Why people may split

Progressives emphasize access loss for low‑income people

Watch point

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clearly drafted substantive policy change that sets forth specific statutory prohibitions, targeted amendments to the Internal Revenue Code and the Affordable Care Act, and a set of exceptions and constructions to address many foreseeable boundary issues.

This bill prohibits the expenditure of federal funds for abortions and for health plans that include abortion coverage, and forbids federal facilities and employees from providing abortions.

It preserves exceptions for rape, incest, and life‑threatening pregnancies, and allows separate abortion coverage paid entirely with non‑federal funds.

The bill amends the Internal Revenue Code and the Affordable Care Act to disallow premium tax credits, cost‑sharing reductions, and certain small employer credits for plans that include abortion, and requires clear disclosure of any abortion coverage and related premium surcharges.

Passage30/100

High ideological salience and cross‑code changes reduce bipartisan support; exceptions and carve‑outs help but are unlikely to overcome Senate obstacles without broad agreement.

CredibilityPartially aligned

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clearly drafted substantive policy change that sets forth specific statutory prohibitions, targeted amendments to the Internal Revenue Code and the Affordable Care Act, and a set of exceptions and constructions to address many foreseeable boundary issues.

Contention80/100

Progressives emphasize access loss for low‑income people

02 · What it does

Who stands to gain, and who may push back.

Likely benefits vs burdens50% / 50%
Federal agencies · ConsumersEmployers

These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.

Likely helped
  • Federal agenciesPrevents use of federal funds for abortion services, aligning federal spending with sponsors' stated objectives.
  • ConsumersRequires clear disclosure of abortion coverage and surcharges, increasing consumer transparency during enrollment.
  • Federal agenciesPermits private separate abortion coverage purchased without federal funds, maintaining an out‑of‑pocket market option.
Likely burdened
  • Potential burdenLikely reduces access for low‑income people who rely on subsidies to afford plans, increasing barriers to services.
  • Potential burdenMay raise out‑of‑pocket costs because enrollees would need to buy separate abortion coverage privately.
  • EmployersImposes compliance and administrative costs on insurers, Exchanges, and employers to segregate and disclose coverage.
03 · Why people split

Why the argument around this bill splits.

Progressives emphasize access loss for low‑income people
Progressive5%

Likely to oppose the bill as it restricts federally funded coverage and subsidy access for plans that include abortion.

They would note the rape, incest, and life exceptions but worry about resulting loss of affordable coverage for low‑income people.

They would welcome the disclosure requirement but see it as insufficient to mitigate access reductions.

Likely resistant
Centrist35%

Will view the bill as a straightforward federal policy to prevent taxpayer funding of abortion while maintaining narrow exceptions.

They will balance respect for prohibiting federal payment with concerns about affordability and implementation complexity in ACA marketplaces.

They will want clear administrative guidance to avoid subsidy disruption and to minimize unintended coverage gaps.

Likely resistant
Conservative90%

Likely to strongly support the bill as it bars taxpayer dollars from paying for abortions and prevents federal facilities from providing them.

They will view the ACA and tax code amendments as necessary to stop subsidies from being used for abortion coverage.

They will welcome the separation allowance for privately funded abortion plans and the required transparency.

Leans supportive
04 · Can it pass?

The path through Congress.

Introduced

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Committee

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Floor

Still ahead

President

Still ahead

Law

Still ahead

Passage likelihood30/100

High ideological salience and cross‑code changes reduce bipartisan support; exceptions and carve‑outs help but are unlikely to overcome Senate obstacles without broad agreement.

Scope and complexity
86%
Scopesweeping
52%
Complexitymedium
Why this could stall
  • Absent formal Congressional cost estimate in bill text
  • How courts would interpret conflicts with existing statutes
05 · Recent votes

Recent votes on the bill.

No vote history yet

The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.

06 · Go deeper

Go deeper than the headline read.

Included on this page

Progressives emphasize access loss for low‑income people

High ideological salience and cross‑code changes reduce bipartisan support; exceptions and carve‑outs help but are unlikely to overcome Sen…

Unlocked analysis

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clearly drafted substantive policy change that sets forth specific statutory prohibitions, targeted amendments to the Internal Revenue Code and the Affordable Ca…

Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.

Perspective breakdownsPassage barriersLegislative design reviewStakeholder impact map
Open full analysis