Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
The Protecting Life on College Campus Act of 2025 would bar any institution of higher education from receiving Federal funds if it hosts or is affiliated with a campus-based clinic that provides abortion drugs or performs abortions for students or employees. Institutions must annually certify to the Secretaries of Education and HHS that no such campus clinic provides abortion drugs or abortions.
Progressives stress access and equity harms; conservatives emphasize protecting unborn life.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill sets a clear substantive funding condition and supplies useful definitions and a certification requirement, but it lacks many operational details expected for a broad, enforceable federal funding prohibition.
The Protecting Life on College Campus Act of 2025 would bar any institution of higher education from receiving Federal funds if it hosts or is affiliated with a campus-based clinic that provides abortion drugs or performs abortions for students or employees.
Institutions must annually certify to the Secretaries of Education and HHS that no such campus clinic provides abortion drugs or abortions.
The bill defines "abortion drug" broadly and defines covered "school-based service sites" to include campus clinics offering primary care, family planning, telehealth, or pharmaceutical services, but excludes hospitals.
Substantive, high-salience abortion restriction using federal funding conditions faces strong political and legal headwinds; passage depends heavily on chamber control and leadership priorities.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill sets a clear substantive funding condition and supplies useful definitions and a certification requirement, but it lacks many operational details expected for a broad, enforceable federal funding prohibition.
Progressives stress access and equity harms; conservatives emphasize protecting unborn life.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives stress access and equity harms; conservatives emphasize protecting unborn life.
Likely strongly opposed; views the bill as restricting reproductive healthcare access and penalizing institutions for providing student health services.
Concerns include reduced access for low-income and rural students and chilling effects on campus clinics and telehealth.
Mixed view: sympathetic to limiting use of federal funds for abortions, but concerned about broad definitions and unintended consequences.
Wants narrower scope, clear definitions, and protections for other campus health services.
Generally supportive; frames the bill as a reasonable condition on federal funding to prevent campus facilitation of abortions.
Values protecting unborn life and ensuring taxpayer dollars don't support abortion services on campus.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Substantive, high-salience abortion restriction using federal funding conditions faces strong political and legal headwinds; passage depends heavily on chamber control and leadership priorities.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives stress access and equity harms; conservatives emphasize protecting unborn life.
Substantive, high-salience abortion restriction using federal funding conditions faces strong political and legal headwinds; passage depend…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill sets a clear substantive funding condition and supplies useful definitions and a certification requirement, but it lacks many operational details expected for a broad…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.