Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
The SHINE for Autumn Act of 2025 directs the Department of Health and Human Services to support improved surveillance, data collection, and research on stillbirths by awarding grants to states, issuing guidance and educational materials, and consulting a range of stakeholders. It requires that collected data be deidentified and consistent with federal and state privacy laws, and authorizes $5 million per year for fiscal years 2026–2030 for surveillance grants and $1 million per year for guidance and materials over the same period.
Scope and size of federal involvement: liberals view federal guidance and funding as necessary to address disparities; conservatives worry about federal overreach.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a clear statutory authorization for HHS to fund state stillbirth surveillance and to develop guidance and educational materials, with multi‑year appropriation authorizations and a statutory placement in the Public Health Service Act.
The SHINE for Autumn Act of 2025 directs the Department of Health and Human Services to support improved surveillance, data collection, and research on stillbirths by awarding grants to states, issuing guidance and educational materials, and consulting a range of stakeholders.
It requires that collected data be deidentified and consistent with federal and state privacy laws, and authorizes $5 million per year for fiscal years 2026–2030 for surveillance grants and $1 million per year for guidance and materials over the same period.
The Secretary must issue guidelines to state health and vital statistics units on collecting stillbirth-related clinical and pathology information (with the woman’s consent) and publish a report with educational guidelines within five years of enactment.
Based solely on content and structure, this is a narrowly targeted, low-cost public health bill with clear implementation steps, privacy protections, and stakeholder consultation—features that typically increase chances of enactment. The principal uncertainties are whether authorizations will be funded in appropriations and whether committee/floor time will be allocated; those procedural and budgetary steps determine final enactment more than substantive controversy.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a clear statutory authorization for HHS to fund state stillbirth surveillance and to develop guidance and educational materials, with multi‑year appropriation authorizations and a statutory placement in the Public Health Service Act. It identifies responsible entities and includes basic privacy and consent language.
Scope and size of federal involvement: liberals view federal guidance and funding as necessary to address disparities; conservatives worry about federal overreach.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Scope and size of federal involvement: liberals view federal guidance and funding as necessary to address disparities; conservatives worry about federal overreach.
This persona would generally view the bill positively as a focused, evidence-building effort to address a significant maternal and perinatal health problem.
They would welcome federal investment in standardized data collection, survivor consultation in materials, and attention to clinical and placental pathology information (with consent) as tools to identify causes and disparities.
They would see it as a modest, targeted federal role that can improve prevention, bereavement care, and research.
A pragmatic centrist would likely view the bill as a modest, common-sense federal role to improve public health data and guidance on stillbirths, with reasonable stakeholder consultation and privacy conditions.
They would appreciate that the grant program is discretionary and that the bill focuses on technical improvements (surveillance, training, standardized reporting) rather than large new entitlement programs.
They would be cautious about implementation details, adequacy of funding, and whether the program creates undue administrative burden or duplication with existing state activities.
A mainstream conservative would view the bill as well-intentioned but would raise concerns about federal expansion into state vital statistics and public-health operations, ongoing federal spending authorizations, and potential privacy or regulatory burdens on providers.
They may appreciate that grants are permissive rather than mandatory, but worry the guidelines could become de facto mandates and that the program creates new federal bureaucratic responsibilities.
Many would prefer spending limits, clearer protections on data use, and stronger roles for states in setting priorities.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Based solely on content and structure, this is a narrowly targeted, low-cost public health bill with clear implementation steps, privacy protections, and stakeholder consultation—features that typically increase chances of enactment. The principal uncertainties are whether authorizations will be funded in appropriations and whether committee/floor time will be allocated; those procedural and budgetary steps determine final enactment more than substantive controversy.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Scope and size of federal involvement: liberals view federal guidance and funding as necessary to address disparities; conservatives worry…
Based solely on content and structure, this is a narrowly targeted, low-cost public health bill with clear implementation steps, privacy pr…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a clear statutory authorization for HHS to fund state stillbirth surveillance and to develop guidance and educational materials, with multi‑year appropria…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.