Protects health care entities that decline to take part in abortion‑related activities by barring the federal government and any recipient of federal funds from penalizing or discriminating against them for refusing to provide, refer for, pay for, or otherwise support abortions or abortion coverage. It defines key terms, preserves voluntary participation, and creates new enforcement tools — an HHS complaint and investigation process, potential termination of federal funds and Attorney General referral, and a private and government civil‑action remedy with injunctive, declaratory, and monetary relief plus attorneys’ fees. Also adds authority for HHS to issue regulations implementing conscience‑and‑religious‑freedom laws and includes a severability clause so other provisions remain effective if part of the law is struck down.
Quoting Thomas Jefferson, the section states a founding principle that protects rights of conscience from government action.
Congress has enacted more than two dozen Federal statutory provisions to protect conscience rights in health care, and those provisions also protect States’ ability to follow similar laws. The findings list examples of these provisions, including the Church Amendments (subsections (b)–(e) of section 401 of the Health Programs Extension Act of 1973), the Coats-Snowe Amendment (section 245 of the Public Health Service Act), the Weldon Amendment (including section 507(d) of the Departments of Labor, HHS, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2023 (Public Law 117–328)), and additional conscience protections referenced in the HHS final rule (84 Fed. Reg. 23170; May 21, 2019).
Courts have held that certain conscience protection statutes do not provide a private right of action for individuals or entities who were discriminated against, leaving victims unable to defend their conscience rights in court; administrative enforcement by HHS Office for Civil Rights has been inconsistent and some cases have languished or enforcement measures have been abandoned or reversed.
Some States and state agencies have taken actions contrary to the Weldon Amendment, including the California Department of Managed Health Care mandating elective abortion coverage; other States (New York, Illinois, Washington) have taken or considered similar actions, and some States have required hospitals to provide or facilitate abortions. The Office for Civil Rights (HHS) in 2016 concluded California’s decision did not violate the Weldon Amendment, and the findings state at least 28,000 individuals and families lost abortion-free health plans due to that mandate.
On January 24, 2020, the Office for Civil Rights (HHS) issued a notice of violation of the Weldon Amendment to California; after continued noncompliance, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services announced on December 16, 2020 that it would disallow $200,000,000 per quarter in Federal funds to California beginning in the first quarter of 2021.
Who is affected and how:
Health care entities (hospitals, clinics, individual providers, insurers, and other covered health organizations): Gain stronger federal protection to refuse participation in abortion‑related services without fear of federal penalties or loss of federal funding; they also receive a private enforcement mechanism to challenge adverse government or funding‑recipient actions.
Hospitals and public/nonprofit health centers that receive federal financial assistance: May invoke the statute to resist mandates, contractual obligations, or funding conditions that would compel participation in abortion‑related services; some institutions may revise policies or benefit designs to rely on the protections.
Patients and pregnant persons: May experience changes in access depending on how many local providers or institutions choose to decline participation; in areas with few providers, refusal rights could reduce available abortion services, referrals, or coverage options.
Federal agencies and HHS Office for Civil Rights: Will take on added regulatory and enforcement responsibilities, including rulemaking, complaint processing, investigations, and potential funding‑termination proceedings and referrals to DOJ, increasing administrative workload and potential litigation.
State governments and private funders: States with laws or programs that condition funding or licensing on participation in reproductive services could face legal challenges or need to reconcile state requirements with the federal protections; private payers and employers may reassess benefits and coverage policies.
Courts and litigants: The private right of action and administrative enforcement routes are likely to produce litigation over statutory scope, definitions, interplay with state law, and the limits of federal authority, creating new case law on conscience protections.
Net effect: The bill strengthens legal protections for health care entities that object to abortion on conscience or religious grounds and creates new enforcement tools, while potentially constraining abortion access in some communities and prompting additional administrative and judicial activity.
Last progress May 14, 2025 (8 months ago)
Introduced on May 14, 2025 by August Pfluger
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Updated 2 hours ago
Last progress May 14, 2025 (8 months ago)
