H.R.7, known as the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2025, is a proposed law that aims to permanently stop federal money from being used to pay for abortions, except in certain cases. This bill would make existing temporary restrictions permanent and apply them across all federal funds.
What This Bill Does
H.R.7 seeks to ensure that no federal funds are used to pay for abortions or health insurance plans that cover abortions, except in cases of rape, incest, or when the mother's life is in danger. This means that federal money, including trust funds like Social Security and Medicare, cannot be used for these purposes. The bill also extends these restrictions to federal facilities and employees, meaning that abortions cannot be performed in places like military or veterans' hospitals, nor by federal employees during their work hours.
Additionally, the bill affects health insurance plans under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). It prevents ACA premium tax credits and cost-sharing reductions from subsidizing plans that cover abortions, unless the coverage is paid for entirely with non-federal funds. This means that people who want abortion coverage would need to buy it separately with their own money.
The bill also impacts the tax code by making elective abortions non-deductible, aligning with pro-life values. It applies these restrictions to the budget of the District of Columbia as well, meaning local funds in D.C. cannot be used for abortions. Importantly, while the bill restricts federal funding, it allows for non-federal funds to be used for abortion coverage or separate plans, and it does not override other federal laws or restrict private providers using non-federal funds.
Why It Matters
This bill could have a significant impact on various groups of people. Low-income women who rely on federal programs like Medicaid or ACA subsidies might find it harder to access abortion services, as they would have to pay out of pocket. This could disproportionately affect women in rural or minority communities who already face barriers to healthcare.
For federal employees and military personnel, the bill means that their health plans would not cover abortions, and they would need to seek services outside federal facilities. This could lead to additional travel and healthcare costs for those affected. On the other hand, supporters argue that the bill respects the conscience of taxpayers who do not want their money used for abortions, aligning with the views of many Americans who oppose taxpayer-funded abortions.
Key Facts
- Cost/budget impact: No official cost estimate is available, but the bill is expected to have minimal direct costs, with potential savings from reduced funding for abortions.
- Timeline for implementation: If passed, most provisions would take effect immediately, with ACA changes tied to tax years.
- Number of people affected: The bill could impact millions, including low-income women on federal programs, federal employees, military personnel, and D.C. residents.
- Key dates: The bill was introduced on January 22, 2025, and is currently pending in committee.
- Historical context: The bill builds on the Hyde Amendment, which has been in place since 1976, and comes in the wake of the Roe v. Wade overturn in 2022.
- Public opinion: Supporters claim that a majority of Americans oppose taxpayer-funded abortions, citing historical polling data.
- Separate coverage allowed: The bill permits separate abortion coverage as long as it is paid for with non-federal funds.
Arguments in Support
- Protects taxpayer conscience: Supporters argue that the bill ensures taxpayer money is not used for abortions, aligning with the beliefs of those who oppose abortion.
- Protects unborn lives: The bill is seen as a way to protect the lives of unborn children by reducing the number of abortions funded by federal money.
- Ensures fiscal responsibility: By making the Hyde Amendment permanent, the bill aims to provide stability and end annual debates over abortion funding.
- Applies consistent policy: The bill extends existing restrictions to all federal funds and facilities, ensuring a uniform approach.
- Respects public opinion: Proponents claim that a majority of Americans support the principles behind the Hyde Amendment.
Arguments in Opposition
- Limits access for low-income women: Critics argue that the bill makes it harder for low-income women to access abortion services, as they would have to pay out of pocket.
- Expands beyond existing restrictions: The bill applies to all federal funds, which could have a chilling effect on private insurance coverage.
- Interferes with ACA: By restricting ACA subsidies, the bill reduces the number of plans available to people who want abortion coverage.
- Overreaches into local policy: The bill overrides local policies in places like D.C., limiting their ability to use local funds for abortions.
- Diverts focus from maternal health: Opponents argue that the bill does not address broader maternal health issues and stigmatizes abortion as elective.