Reproductive Health Travel Fund Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Rep. Strickland, Marilyn [D-WA-10]
- Committees
- Energy and Commerce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 30, 2025
Bottom line
This bill establishes a federal grant program to financially and logistically support individuals traveling to access abortion services, aiming to mitigate barriers created by post-Dobbs state-level abortion bans.
What it actually does
This bill authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to award grants to eligible nonprofit and community-based organizations. These grants would fund travel-related expenses and logistical support for individuals seeking abortion services, such as transportation, lodging, meals, childcare, and translation services. It explicitly prohibits using funds for the abortion procedure itself but allows up to 15% for organizational costs.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue the bill is a critical response to the increased barriers to abortion access following the Dobbs decision, particularly for marginalized communities. They contend it addresses the practical and financial burdens of interstate travel for care, ensuring that individuals can exercise their reproductive autonomy regardless of their state of residence or socioeconomic status.
Opponents contend
Opponents would likely argue that this bill uses federal funds to facilitate abortions, which they oppose on moral or religious grounds. They may also contend it undermines state sovereignty by circumventing state-level abortion restrictions and could be seen as an overreach of federal power into reproductive healthcare decisions.
The bill is relatively short and clearly written, making it accessible for an informed reader to understand its core provisions within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 1
Short Title
This section establishes the official short title of the Act, allowing it to be commonly referred to as the "Reproductive Health Travel Fund Act of 2025" for ease of reference and legislative identification.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that a clear and concise short title helps in public discourse and legislative tracking, making the bill's purpose immediately recognizable.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against the short title itself, though opposition to the bill's substance would implicitly reject its title.
Tradeoffs
None inherent in the title itself.
Section 2
Congressional Findings on Abortion Access Barriers
This section outlines Congress's findings regarding the impact of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision, detailing how it eliminated the constitutional right to abortion, increased travel burdens for individuals seeking care, and disproportionately affected marginalized communities. It highlights the role of abortion funds in providing support and the surge in demand for their services post-Dobbs.
Section 3, subsections (a) through (c)
Establishment of Reproductive Health Travel Fund Grant Program
This core provision authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to award grants to eligible entities. These grants are specifically for covering travel-related expenses and logistical support for individuals accessing abortion services, including round-trip travel, lodging, meals, childcare, translation, doula care, patient education, and lost wages. It explicitly states that funds cannot be used for the abortion procedure itself, but up to 15% can be used for organizational costs like outreach and staff training.
Section 3, subsections (d) and (e)
Grant Application Process and Prioritization Criteria
This section outlines that eligible entities must submit an application to the Secretary of the Treasury with required information. It also establishes priority criteria for grant selection, favoring entities that serve individuals in jurisdictions with abortion bans or severe restrictions, those who travel out-of-state for services, or those with existing or planned programs to help individuals access abortion services.
Section 3, subsection (f)
Reporting Requirements to Congress
This provision mandates that the Secretary of the Treasury submit an annual report to Congress on the grant program, starting 180 days after enactment. It explicitly states that these reports must not include any individually identifiable information to protect the privacy of individuals receiving support.
Section 3, subsection (g)
Federal Preemption and Non-Cooperation with Antiabortion Proceedings
This section states that the bill's provisions supersede any state, tribal, territorial, or local law that would prohibit the use of these federal funds. Crucially, it also prohibits any federal agency or official involved in carrying out this program from cooperating with any antiabortion investigation, prosecution, or civil lawsuit related to the program's activities or participants.
Section 3, subsection (h)
Definitions of "Eligible Entity" and "Nonprofit Organization"
This section defines "eligible entity" as a nonprofit or community-based organization that assists individuals seeking an abortion through unbiased, medically, and factually accurate programs, services, or activities. It explicitly excludes any entity that discourages individuals from seeking an abortion. "Nonprofit organization" is defined by reference to section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.
Section 3, subsection (i)
Authorization of Appropriations
This section authorizes the appropriation of $350,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2026 through 2030 to carry out the grant program. This means Congress *can* appropriate these funds, but this bill itself does not appropriate them.
States that the provisions of this section shall supersede any State, Tribal, territorial, or local law that would have the effect of prohibiting any use of funds provided for under this section.
Section 3(g)(1)
Why it matters:This is a standard legislative practice for asserting federal supremacy in areas where Congress intends to override conflicting state laws. It is not necessarily evasive, but it is a critical legal lever.
Case for: Proponents argue this clause is essential to ensure the federal program can operate effectively without being undermined by hostile state laws, protecting grant recipients and individuals from legal repercussions in states with abortion bans.
Case against: Opponents would argue this is a direct and aggressive federal overreach, explicitly nullifying state sovereignty and local control over abortion policy, potentially leading to significant legal battles.
Estimated impact: High, as it directly impacts the enforceability of state abortion laws in relation to federally funded travel support.
Prohibits any Federal agency or official engaged in carrying out the program from cooperating with any State, Tribal, territorial, or local antiabortion proceeding (investigation, prosecution, or civil lawsuit) related to the program's activities or participants.
Section 3(g)(2)
Why it matters:This is a robust protective measure, indicating a clear intent to shield federal actors and program beneficiaries from state legal actions. It's not buried to hide, but its full scope is significant.
Case for: Proponents argue this is a vital safeguard to protect federal personnel and grant recipients from harassment or legal action by states attempting to criminalize abortion access, ensuring the program can function without fear of reprisal.
Case against: Opponents would view this as an unprecedented and hostile directive, forcing federal agencies to actively obstruct state law enforcement and judicial processes, further eroding federal-state cooperation and state sovereignty.
Estimated impact: High, as it creates a direct conflict between federal and state legal systems regarding abortion-related investigations and prosecutions.
The definition of "eligible entity" explicitly "excludes any entity that discourages individuals from seeking an abortion."
Section 3(h)(1)(B)
Why it matters:This is a precise legislative carve-out to ensure the program's intent is met. It's not evasive, but its impact is substantial.
Case for: Proponents argue this ensures that federal funds are directed only to organizations that genuinely support individuals in accessing abortion services, preventing funds from being used by entities (like crisis pregnancy centers) that may provide misleading information or actively discourage abortion.
Case against: Opponents would argue this is discriminatory, excluding organizations with pro-life viewpoints from receiving federal support, and that it represents a biased use of taxpayer funds that should be available to all non-profits.
Estimated impact: Medium, as it significantly narrows the pool of potential grant recipients, directing funds exclusively to pro-choice or neutral support organizations.