Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
The bill amends the Internal Revenue Code to exclude most abortions from being treated as qualified medical expenses for HSAs, Archer MSAs, FSAs, HRAs, and certain retiree health accounts. Exceptions are preserved for abortions resulting from rape or incest, and those necessary to save the woman's life as certified by a physician.
Progressives emphasize access and equity harms to women and low-income people.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a straightforward substantive amendment to the Internal Revenue Code that is precise in statutory drafting and well-integrated into existing code sections.
The bill amends the Internal Revenue Code to exclude most abortions from being treated as qualified medical expenses for HSAs, Archer MSAs, FSAs, HRAs, and certain retiree health accounts.
Exceptions are preserved for abortions resulting from rape or incest, and those necessary to save the woman's life as certified by a physician.
The changes take effect for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2025, with reimbursements rule applying to expenses incurred after that date.
Very narrow but ideologically charged; limited fiscal impact helps, yet contentious subject and Senate hurdles lower overall chances.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a straightforward substantive amendment to the Internal Revenue Code that is precise in statutory drafting and well-integrated into existing code sections. It clearly defines the legal effect and exception language and applies across the relevant tax-advantaged account categories with specific effective dates.
Progressives emphasize access and equity harms to women and low-income people.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize access and equity harms to women and low-income people.
Likely views the bill as a restriction on reproductive health access and a rollback of coverage via tax-advantaged accounts.
Sees the policy as shifting costs onto women, especially low-income people, and as a politically motivated limitation on abortion financing.
Views the bill as a targeted restriction with built-in narrow exceptions, but worries about practical administration and unintended coverage gaps.
Sees some legitimacy in limiting tax-advantaged funding while wanting clarity and minimal disruption to healthcare access and privacy.
Likely supports the bill as a reasonable limitation preventing tax-advantaged accounts from financing most abortions while preserving narrow life, rape, and incest exceptions.
Views the change as aligned with pro-life principles and taxpayer neutrality.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Very narrow but ideologically charged; limited fiscal impact helps, yet contentious subject and Senate hurdles lower overall chances.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize access and equity harms to women and low-income people.
Very narrow but ideologically charged; limited fiscal impact helps, yet contentious subject and Senate hurdles lower overall chances.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a straightforward substantive amendment to the Internal Revenue Code that is precise in statutory drafting and well-integrated into existing code sections. It clea…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.