Reproductive Health Care Training Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Sen. Baldwin, Tammy [D-WI]
- Committees
- Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 24, 2026
Bottom line
This bill seeks to address perceived shortages of abortion care providers by federally funding training programs in states where abortion care training is legally permissible.
What it actually does
This bill establishes a new grant program within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to expand education and training for health care students, residents, and advanced practice clinicians in abortion care. The program aims to increase the number of abortion providers, particularly in medically underserved communities, by funding clinical training, program development, strategic partnerships, recruitment efforts, and scholarships in states where comprehensive abortion care training is legally permissible. It authorizes $25 million annually for fiscal years 2027 through 2031.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this bill is crucial for ensuring access to comprehensive reproductive healthcare, especially in the wake of increasing restrictions on abortion access in many states. They contend that expanding training opportunities will address provider shortages, improve health outcomes for underserved communities, and ensure that future healthcare professionals are adequately prepared to offer a full spectrum of care, including abortion.
Opponents contend
Opponents would likely argue that this bill uses federal funds to promote and expand abortion, which they view as morally objectionable and a violation of taxpayer conscience. They may also contend that it infringes on states' rights to regulate abortion and that federal resources should not be allocated to services that are restricted or banned in many jurisdictions.
The bill is very short and straightforward, making it highly accessible for any reader to understand its core provisions quickly.
Section 2(a)
Establishment of Abortion Care Training Grant Program
This section directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services, acting through the Administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), to establish a program. This program will award grants or contracts to eligible entities to expand education for students, residents, and advanced practice clinicians in abortion care within states where such training is permitted. The overarching goal is to prepare and encourage these trainees to serve as abortion providers after completing their training.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision is essential to build a robust workforce capable of providing comprehensive reproductive healthcare, addressing current and future provider shortages, particularly in areas with limited access.
Critics contend
Opponents would argue that this provision uses federal funds to directly support and expand abortion services, which they oppose on moral and ethical grounds, and that it circumvents state-level restrictions on abortion.
Tradeoffs
The tension lies between the federal government's role in promoting public health and access to care, and states' rights to regulate abortion, as well as differing moral viewpoints on abortion itself.
Section 2(c) and 2(d)
Defining Eligible Entities and Grant Priorities
This section specifies which organizations are eligible to receive grants, including accredited health professions schools, academic health centers, and other public or private nonprofit health care safety net providers, such as sexual and reproductive health providers. It also outlines priority criteria for grant awards: entities located in 'covered States' where comprehensive abortion care training is permitted, those that support training for students from states where such training is limited, and minority-serving institutions or those that increase underrepresented minority health professions.
Section 2(e)
Permitted Activities for Grant Funds
Grant funds made available under this program can be used for a variety of activities. These include supporting or expanding clinical training in abortion care; developing and operating programs to train health care students, residents, and advanced practice clinicians in abortion care (including defining training activities, addressing access challenges, supporting telehealth, integrating training into health care education, and promoting interprofessional training); developing strategic partnerships with community health organizations; improving recruitment and retention of clinicians from medically underserved communities; training instructors; preparing clinicians for transition into clinical practice; and providing scholarships or stipends for those pursuing abortion care training, with a focus on medically underserved communities.
Section 2(i)
Funding Authorization
This section authorizes the appropriation of $25,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2027 through 2031 to carry out the grant program. This means Congress is permitted to appropriate this amount, but it does not guarantee that the funds will actually be provided in annual appropriations bills.
This subsection defines the term '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:While it is standard legislative practice to define terms in a dedicated section, this definition is particularly consequential as it dictates the geographic scope and applicability of the entire grant program, effectively limiting its reach to jurisdictions that legally permit abortion training.
Case for: Supporters would argue this definition is necessary to ensure federal funds are directed only to jurisdictions where such training is legally viable, avoiding conflicts with existing state laws and ensuring the program can be implemented without immediate legal challenges.
Case against: Opponents might argue that this definition implicitly acknowledges and works around state-level restrictions, further highlighting the bill's intent to expand abortion access where possible, rather than seeking to change laws in restrictive states.
Estimated impact: This definition significantly limits the geographic reach of the program, excluding states and territories that have enacted restrictions or bans on abortion care training, thereby concentrating resources in jurisdictions with more permissive laws.