Federal Workforce Reproductive Rights Protection Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Walkinshaw, James R. [D-VA-11]
- Committees
- Oversight and Government Reform Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 24, 2026
Bottom line
The bill establishes a comprehensive framework to protect federal employees' access to reproductive healthcare, particularly abortion, in the context of varying state laws, by imposing restrictions on agency operations and offering employee benefits related to travel and privacy.
What it actually does
This bill, the "Federal Workforce Reproductive Rights Protection Act," aims to safeguard access to reproductive healthcare, including abortion, for federal employees and their eligible dependents. It does so by restricting the relocation of federal agencies to states with restrictive abortion laws, limiting the use of federal funds in such states, allowing employees to decline assignments to these states, and providing travel allowances and administrative leave for obtaining out-of-state reproductive healthcare. Additionally, it prohibits the consideration of abortion-related information in security clearance and personnel actions.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this bill is essential to ensure that federal employees, who serve the nation, are not disadvantaged or denied access to critical healthcare services based on their geographic location or the restrictive laws of certain states. They contend it upholds bodily autonomy, promotes equity within the federal workforce, and ensures the government can recruit and retain talent without employees fearing loss of healthcare access. Supporters emphasize the privacy protections as crucial for maintaining trust and preventing discrimination.
Opponents contend
Opponents may argue that this bill oversteps federal authority by attempting to circumvent state laws on abortion, potentially infringing on states' rights to regulate healthcare within their borders. They might also raise concerns about the fiscal implications of providing travel allowances and administrative leave for abortion services, viewing it as an inappropriate use of taxpayer funds. Critics could also contend that the bill creates a special class of citizens (federal employees) with different healthcare access rights than other residents of a state, leading to perceived unfairness.
The bill is relatively short and clearly structured, making it accessible for an informed reader to understand its core provisions within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 2
Restrictions on Agency Relocation to States with Restrictive Reproductive Rights Laws
This provision prohibits federal Executive agencies from moving their headquarters or a significant portion of their operations to states or territories that have enacted or enforced laws restricting or prohibiting abortion care since June 24, 2022. The Comptroller General is tasked with creating and regularly updating a list of such restrictive locations.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision ensures that federal operations are not inadvertently supporting or complicit with state laws that restrict fundamental healthcare access for employees. It provides a clear signal that the federal government prioritizes its employees' reproductive rights and aims to create a consistent standard of care access across the workforce.
Critics contend
Opponents might argue this provision interferes with efficient government operations by limiting choices for agency relocation, potentially leading to higher costs or less optimal locations. They may also view it as an overreach of federal power into state legislative matters, using federal agency placement as a tool to influence state policy.
Tradeoffs
Balances federal employee welfare and reproductive rights against state sovereignty and potential operational efficiencies in agency location planning.
Section 3
Limit on Use of Funds in Designated States
This section restricts Executive agencies from using federal funds to move, lease, purchase, or construct new facilities in states identified by the Comptroller General as having restrictive abortion laws. Exceptions are made for maintaining existing facilities, renewing existing leases, or facilities solely providing in-person public services.
Section 4
Limits on Assignment to Restrictive States
Federal employees are granted the right to decline temporary or permanent assignments to states with restrictive abortion laws if the relocation is for medical, reproductive, family planning, or personal health considerations for themselves or an eligible dependent. Furthermore, appointments or promotions cannot mandate relocation to such states unless this requirement is waived for the aforementioned health reasons.
Section 5
Travel Costs for Reproductive Health Care Access
Executive agencies are required to provide travel and transportation allowances to federal employees and their eligible dependents for costs incurred traveling out-of-state to obtain lawful reproductive healthcare services (including abortion) that are not accessible in their state of residence. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) must issue regulations within 90 days, mirroring those for the Armed Forces, with strict privacy protections for employees.
Section 6
Administrative Leave for Abortion-Related Travel
Federal employees are entitled to up to 21 days of paid administrative leave to travel for and obtain abortion services for themselves or an eligible dependent if such services are unavailable in their state of residence or primary duty station. This leave is without loss of pay or other benefits.
Section 7
Protection of Privacy in Investigating and Adjudicating Security Clearances and Personnel Actions
This section amends the National Security Act of 1947 to prohibit the request, investigation, or consideration of whether an individual used, traveled for, or provided material support for abortion services when determining security clearances. It also applies this prohibition to Executive agency personnel actions, with a narrow exception for investigating misuse of the new travel allowances or administrative leave. The President and OPM are directed to revise guidelines accordingly.
Section 8
Retaliation Prohibited
This section explicitly prohibits Executive agencies from taking or threatening adverse personnel actions against federal employees or applicants for employment because they exercise their rights under this Act, such as declining assignments to restrictive states, requesting travel allowances, or using administrative leave for abortion-related travel.
The definition of "Federal employee" for the purposes of this Act explicitly excludes "political appointees" and "members of the Senior Executive Service." "Political appointee" and "political position" are also defined, encompassing Executive Schedule positions and Schedule C positions.
Section 11(5) and 11(8)-(9)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to define terms, but the exclusion of specific high-level employees is a substantive carve-out that might be missed.
Case for: Proponents might argue that political appointees and SES members, by the nature of their roles, have different employment terms and expectations, and their positions often involve greater mobility or political considerations that make these specific protections less applicable or administratively complex.
Case against: Critics could argue that excluding these groups creates a two-tiered system of rights within the federal workforce, potentially leaving high-level employees vulnerable to political pressure or discrimination based on their reproductive health decisions, undermining the bill's stated goal of ensuring accessibility for the "Federal Workforce."
Estimated impact: Limits the scope of the bill's protections to a significant portion of the federal workforce, but not all.
Defines "significant portion" of an Executive agency as either "not less than 5 percent of the employees of such Executive agency" or "components or elements... that, in the aggregate, implicate not less than 10 percent of the annual discretionary budget of such Executive agency."
Section 11(10)
Why it matters:Technical definition, but crucial for understanding the practical scope of Sections 2 and 3 regarding agency relocation and fund use.
Case for: Proponents would argue this provides a clear, measurable threshold for what constitutes a "significant portion," preventing agencies from circumventing the intent of the law by moving smaller, but still substantial, parts of their operations.
Case against: Critics might argue that these thresholds are arbitrary or could still allow for strategic fragmentation of agencies to avoid the restrictions, or conversely, that they are too broad and overly restrict agency flexibility.
Estimated impact: Determines the practical applicability of agency relocation and funding restrictions.