Reproductive Health Care Training Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Bera, Ami [D-CA-6]
- Committees
- Energy and Commerce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 24, 2026
Bottom line
The bill seeks to increase the number of trained abortion providers and expand access to abortion care, particularly in medically underserved areas, by funding educational programs and clinical training.
What it actually does
This bill establishes a federal grant program through the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to expand education and training in comprehensive abortion care for health care students, residents, and advanced practice clinicians. It prioritizes eligible entities located in states where such training is permitted or comprehensively taught, and those that support medically underserved communities or minority populations. Funds can be used for clinical training, curriculum development, strategic partnerships, recruitment, instructor support, and scholarships.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this bill addresses a critical shortage of abortion care providers, especially in rural and underserved communities, by investing in comprehensive medical training. They contend that expanding access to training will improve reproductive health outcomes, ensure equitable access to care, and integrate abortion care more fully into standard medical education, thereby strengthening the healthcare workforce.
Opponents contend
Opponents argue that this bill uses federal funds to promote and expand abortion services, which they fundamentally oppose. They contend that it diverts resources from other healthcare priorities and forces taxpayers to subsidize training for procedures they consider morally objectionable. Critics may also argue that it infringes on states' rights by encouraging abortion training in specific states, even if those states permit it.
The bill is short and clearly written, making it accessible for a quick read and easy evaluation.
Section 2(a)
Establishment of Education Program for Abortion Care Training
This section directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services, through the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), to create a program that awards grants or contracts. These awards will go to eligible entities to expand and support education for students, residents, and advanced practice clinicians in comprehensive abortion care within states where such training is permitted. The program aims to prepare and encourage these trainees to become abortion providers after completing their education.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that this program is essential to address the declining number of abortion providers and ensure that future healthcare professionals receive comprehensive training in all aspects of reproductive health, including abortion care, which is a standard medical procedure.
Critics contend
Opponents contend that this program uses federal funds to actively promote and expand abortion, which they view as morally objectionable. They argue it is an inappropriate use of taxpayer money to support a procedure they believe should be restricted or banned.
Tradeoffs
The bill balances the goal of expanding access to a specific healthcare service with concerns about federal funding for a procedure that remains highly contentious. It aims to address provider shortages but faces opposition from those who object to abortion itself.
Section 2(d)
Grant Priority for Underserved Areas and States with Limited Training
This provision directs the Secretary to prioritize grant applications from eligible entities that are located in "covered States" where abortion care training is permitted or comprehensively taught. It also prioritizes entities that support training for students from states where abortion training is limited, and those that are minority-serving institutions or train underrepresented minority health professionals. This ensures the program targets areas and populations most in need of expanded access and diverse providers.
Section 2(e)
Permitted Uses of Grant Funds
This section outlines various ways grant funds can be used, including supporting and expanding clinical training, developing programs that define specific training activities (including for diverse populations), addressing access challenges, promoting telehealth, integrating abortion training into broader health education, and fostering interprofessional training. Funds can also support strategic partnerships, improve recruitment and retention of providers for underserved communities, train instructors, prepare trainees for practice, and provide scholarships or stipends, all with a focus on medically underserved communities.
Defines "covered State" as a State, Puerto Rico, and a territory or possession of the United States in which comprehensive training for abortion care is permissible.
Section 2(h)(1)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to define terms at the end of a bill. However, its placement means a reader might miss the crucial geographic limitation on where the grant program can operate.
Case for: Supporters argue this definition is necessary to ensure federal funds are directed to jurisdictions where such training is legally viable and can be effectively implemented, respecting existing state laws.
Case against: Opponents might argue that this definition implicitly acknowledges and supports states that permit abortion training, thereby indirectly undermining states with more restrictive laws, even if funds are not directly sent there.
Estimated impact: This definition critically limits the direct application of the grant program to states and territories that legally allow comprehensive abortion care training, shaping where federal funds can be deployed.