Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
The RESTORE Act directs HHS to expand research, data collection, training, and coding related to reproductive health conditions and infertility, emphasizing “restorative reproductive medicine,” NaProTechnology, and fertility awareness-based methods. It requires periodic literature reviews and reports, proposes updates to medical coding and reimbursement for restorative procedures, authorizes Title X grant eligibility for restorative medicine providers, mandates training within Title X programs, creates protections for health care providers who decline participation in assisted reproductive technology, and directs HHS to develop male infertility education and related research.
Progressives worry about patient access and Title X fund diversion
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive policy change that combines statutory protections and programmatic directives with extensive reporting and administrative tasks, offering clear problem definition and named responsible entities but insufficient fiscal, enforcement, and operational detail for some of its more ambitious reforms.
The RESTORE Act directs HHS to expand research, data collection, training, and coding related to reproductive health conditions and infertility, emphasizing “restorative reproductive medicine,” NaProTechnology, and fertility awareness-based methods.
It requires periodic literature reviews and reports, proposes updates to medical coding and reimbursement for restorative procedures, authorizes Title X grant eligibility for restorative medicine providers, mandates training within Title X programs, creates protections for health care providers who decline participation in assisted reproductive technology, and directs HHS to develop male infertility education and related research.
Technocratic research elements help, but high ideological content (provider refusal, promotion of NaPro/FA methods) and possible spending/reimbursement effects reduce bipartisan prospects.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive policy change that combines statutory protections and programmatic directives with extensive reporting and administrative tasks, offering clear problem definition and named responsible entities but insufficient fiscal, enforcement, and operational detail for some of its more ambitious reforms.
Progressives worry about patient access and Title X fund diversion
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives worry about patient access and Title X fund diversion
Recognizes benefits from increased research on endometriosis, fibroids, and male infertility, and from improved diagnostic coding.
However, is concerned the bill elevates NaProTechnology and fertility-awareness approaches while inserting conscience protections and Title X eligibility that could reduce access to assisted reproductive technologies, contraception, and comprehensive reproductive care.
Sees practical advantages in better data, coding modernization, clinician training, and male infertility initiatives.
Worries about unintended consequences from conscience protections and Title X eligibility changes, and about cost and implementation complexity.
Would support the bill with explicit patient-access safeguards and evidence-based funding requirements.
Welcomes stronger research and support for restorative reproductive medicine, NaProTechnology, and fertility-awareness programs.
Strongly supports conscience protections preventing federal penalties for providers declining ART participation.
Views Title X eligibility for restorative providers and coding/reimbursement changes as correctives to favor natural restorative care over ART-centric approaches.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Technocratic research elements help, but high ideological content (provider refusal, promotion of NaPro/FA methods) and possible spending/reimbursement effects reduce bipartisan prospects.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives worry about patient access and Title X fund diversion
Technocratic research elements help, but high ideological content (provider refusal, promotion of NaPro/FA methods) and possible spending/r…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive policy change that combines statutory protections and programmatic directives with extensive reporting and administrative tasks, offering clear probl…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.