No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Rep. Smith, Christopher H. [R-NJ-4]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jan 22, 2025
Bottom line
H.R. 7 seeks to codify and expand existing restrictions on federal funding for abortion, impacting federal programs, facilities, employees, and health insurance plans offered under the ACA.
What it actually does
This bill establishes a permanent, government-wide prohibition on federal funding for abortions and for health benefits plans that cover abortions, with exceptions for cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. It also amends the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to disallow premium tax credits and small employer health insurance expense credits for plans that cover abortions (outside of the specified exceptions) and revises notice requirements for health plans regarding abortion coverage and associated surcharges.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this bill ensures that no taxpayer dollars are used to fund abortions, aligning federal spending with the moral convictions of a significant portion of the population. They contend it promotes the sanctity of life and increases transparency in health insurance plans regarding abortion coverage.
Opponents contend
Opponents argue that this bill restricts access to essential healthcare services, particularly for low-income individuals and those in federal programs, by limiting coverage options. They contend it infringes on reproductive rights and could disproportionately affect women, especially those in vulnerable situations.
The bill is relatively short and its core provisions are clear, making it accessible for a reader to understand its primary impacts within a reasonable timeframe.
Title I, Sec. 101, new Sec. 301 of Title 1, U.S. Code.
General Prohibition on Federal Funding for Abortions
This section broadly prohibits any money from the federal government, including funds from federal trust funds, from being used to pay for abortions. This applies across all federal programs and agencies.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision upholds the principle that taxpayers should not be compelled to fund procedures they morally oppose, ensuring federal money is not used for abortions.
Critics contend
Opponents contend this provision limits access to abortion, particularly for low-income individuals who rely on federal programs for healthcare, potentially forcing them to carry unwanted pregnancies to term.
Tradeoffs
Balances the moral objections of taxpayers to funding abortions against the desire to ensure access to reproductive healthcare for all individuals, regardless of income.
Title I, Sec. 101, new Sec. 302 of Title 1, U.S. Code.
Prohibition on Federal Funding for Health Plans Covering Abortion
This section prohibits federal funds from being used to pay for health insurance plans that include coverage for abortion services. This means federal subsidies, grants, or direct payments cannot support such plans.
Title I, Sec. 101, new Sec. 303 of Title 1, U.S. Code.
Prohibition on Abortions in Federal Facilities and by Federal Employees
This section explicitly prohibits abortions from being performed in healthcare facilities owned or operated by the federal government, or by any physician or healthcare individual employed by the federal government within the scope of their employment.
Title I, Sec. 101, new Sec. 308 of Title 1, U.S. Code.
Exceptions for Rape, Incest, and Life of the Mother
This section creates specific exceptions to the general prohibitions on federal funding and services for abortion. Federal funds can be used, and federal facilities/employees can provide abortions, in cases where the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest, or when a physician determines the mother's life is at risk without the abortion.
Title II, Sec. 201(a)(1), amending IRC Sec. 36B(c)(3)(A) and adding (C).
No ACA Premium Credits for Plans Covering Abortions
This provision modifies the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to prevent individuals from using federal premium tax credits or cost-sharing reductions to purchase health insurance plans that cover abortions, except in cases of rape, incest, or to save the mother's life, or for treating complications. Individuals could still purchase separate abortion coverage, but without federal subsidies.
Title II, Sec. 201(a)(2), amending IRC Sec. 45R(h).
No Small Employer Tax Credit for Plans Covering Abortions
This provision amends the Internal Revenue Code to prohibit small employers from receiving tax credits for offering health insurance plans that cover abortions, except for the specified exceptions (rape, incest, life of mother, complications). Employers could still purchase separate abortion coverage for employees, but without the tax credit.
Title II, Sec. 201(a)(3), amending 42 U.S.C. 18023(b).
Repeal of Existing ACA Abortion Coverage Rules
This section repeals existing provisions within the Affordable Care Act that currently govern how abortion coverage is handled in qualified health plans, specifically those requiring separate payments for abortion services and related disclosure rules. This effectively replaces the current ACA framework with the new prohibitions established by this bill.
Title II, Sec. 201(b), amending 42 U.S.C. 18054(a)(6).
Multi-State Plans Must Comply with Abortion Funding Ban
This provision specifically mandates that multi-state health plans offered on the Affordable Care Act exchanges cannot provide health benefits coverage that includes abortions, consistent with the new federal funding prohibitions established in Title I of this bill.
Title II, Sec. 202(a), amending 42 U.S.C. 18023(b)(3).
Enhanced Disclosure of Abortion Coverage and Surcharges
This provision revises the disclosure rules for health plans, requiring that any abortion coverage (or lack thereof) be prominently displayed in all marketing materials, comparison tools, and summaries of benefits. If a plan does cover abortions and has a separate premium surcharge for it, that surcharge must also be clearly disclosed and identified separately.
These sections clarify that while federal funds are prohibited, non-federal entities can still offer or purchase abortion coverage using entirely non-federal funds, explicitly excluding federal matching funds for programs like Medicaid.
Title I, Sec. 101, new Sec. 304 and 305 of Title 1, U.S. Code.
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to clarify the scope and limitations of a new prohibition, ensuring it doesn't inadvertently restrict purely private or state-funded activities. The detail about matching funds is a technical but important carve-out.
Case for: Proponents would argue these clauses demonstrate the bill's intent is not to ban abortion outright, but specifically to prevent federal taxpayer funding, allowing states and private entities flexibility with their own funds.
Case against: Opponents might argue that by explicitly prohibiting the use of federal matching funds, the bill still indirectly restricts state and local options, especially for programs like Medicaid which are heavily reliant on federal matching.
Estimated impact: Significant impact on states and localities that might have previously used federal matching funds for broader health coverage that included abortion, now requiring them to find entirely separate, non-federal funding sources.
This section ensures that federal funds can still be used to treat medical complications arising from an abortion, even if the abortion itself was not federally funded or was performed outside of the bill's exceptions.
Title I, Sec. 101, new Sec. 307 of Title 1, U.S. Code.
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to prevent unintended negative health consequences and to ensure that individuals can receive necessary medical care for complications, regardless of the circumstances of the initial procedure.
Case for: Proponents would argue this provision demonstrates the bill's focus is on preventing abortion, not on denying necessary medical care for women facing health crises.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against this provision, as it addresses a humanitarian concern.
Estimated impact: Ensures continued access to emergency and follow-up care for abortion complications, preventing a potential public health crisis.
Specifies when the various provisions of Title II (ACA amendments) will take effect. The core ACA subsidy changes are delayed until plan years beginning after December 31, 2025, while disclosure changes are sooner.
Title II, Sec. 201(c) and Sec. 202(b).
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to allow time for agencies, insurers, and individuals to adjust to new regulations and plan cycles.
Case for: Proponents would argue that these staggered effective dates provide a reasonable transition period for the healthcare industry and consumers to adapt to the new rules.
Case against: Opponents might argue that delaying the implementation of some provisions prolongs the period of uncertainty or that the disclosure requirements should take effect immediately.
Estimated impact: Provides a grace period for health plans and individuals to adjust to the new subsidy rules, mitigating immediate disruption.