Reproductive Health Travel Fund Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Sen. Baldwin, Tammy [D-WI]
- Committees
- Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 24, 2026
Bottom line
The bill establishes a federal grant program to financially support individuals' travel and practical needs when accessing abortion services, particularly in response to post-Dobbs restrictions.
What it actually does
This bill, the "Reproductive Health Travel Fund Act of 2026," authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to award grants to eligible nonprofit and community-based organizations. These grants are intended to cover travel-related expenses and practical support for individuals seeking abortion services, including lodging, meals, childcare, and lost wages. The bill explicitly prohibits the use of funds for the cost of abortion procedures themselves and includes a preemption clause to supersede conflicting state laws.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill is a critical response to the increased barriers to abortion access following the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision, which has forced millions to travel long distances for care. They contend it addresses the disproportionate impact on marginalized communities by providing essential financial and practical support, thereby upholding bodily autonomy and health equity. Supporters emphasize the vital role of community-based abortion funds, which this bill aims to bolster.
Opponents contend
Opponents contend that this bill represents an inappropriate use of federal taxpayer dollars to facilitate abortion, which they view as morally objectionable. They argue it infringes upon states' rights to regulate abortion within their borders and could undermine state laws designed to restrict abortion access. Critics may also raise concerns about the federal government's role in funding activities that are illegal in some states.
The bill is concise and clearly written, making it accessible for an informed reader to understand its provisions within a short timeframe.
Section 2
Congressional Findings on Abortion Access Post-Dobbs
This section outlines Congress's findings regarding the impact of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade. It details how the decision has led to widespread abortion bans and restrictions, increased travel distances for care, and disproportionately affected marginalized communities. The findings also highlight the critical role of abortion funds in providing practical support and the financial strain they face due to increased demand.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue these findings establish a clear and urgent need for federal intervention to mitigate the negative consequences of the Dobbs decision, demonstrating the bill's foundational rationale.
Critics contend
Opponents may dispute the characterization of the Dobbs decision's impact or the necessity of federal intervention, arguing that states have the right to regulate abortion as they see fit.
Tradeoffs
This section frames the bill as a response to a public health crisis, a framing that is highly contentious and reflects deep divisions over abortion rights and federal versus state authority.
Section 3(a) and (b)
Authorization of Grants for Travel and Practical Support
This provision authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to award grants to eligible entities. These grants are specifically designated to pay for travel-related expenses and practical support for individuals who need to access abortion services. The Secretary is required to begin soliciting applications for these grants no later than 30 days after the bill's enactment.
Section 3(c)
Permissible and Impermissible Uses of Grant Funds
This section details what the grant funds can and cannot be used for. Permissible uses include round-trip travel, lodging, meals, childcare, translation services, doula care, patient education, and lost wages. Additionally, up to 15 percent of the grant funds can be used for organizational costs like community outreach, infrastructure, website maintenance, and staff capacity. Crucially, the funds explicitly cannot be used for the cost of an abortion procedure itself.
Section 3(e)
Grant Priority Criteria
This provision establishes criteria for the Secretary of the Treasury to prioritize grant recipients. Preference will be given to eligible entities that serve individuals living in jurisdictions with abortion bans or severe restrictions, those who travel across state lines for services, or organizations with existing programs (or plans to establish programs) to help individuals access abortion services.
Section 3(g)
Preemption of State Laws and Prohibition on Federal Cooperation
This critical provision states that the bill's provisions supersede any State, Tribal, territorial, or local law that would prohibit the use of funds provided under this section. Furthermore, it explicitly prohibits any Federal agency or official involved in carrying out this program from cooperating with any anti-abortion proceeding (investigation, prosecution, or civil lawsuit) related to the program's activities or its beneficiaries.
Section 3(i)
Authorization of Appropriations
This section authorizes the appropriation of $350,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2027 through 2031 to carry out the grant program. This amounts to a total authorized funding of $1.75 billion over five fiscal years.
Allows eligible entities to use up to 15 percent of grant funds for organizational costs, including community outreach, physical infrastructure, website development, and increasing staff capacity and training.
Section 3(c)(2)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to include operational allowances within funding provisions, though the specific percentage and scope are important for organizational sustainability.
Case for: Proponents argue that allowing a portion of funds for organizational capacity is crucial for the long-term sustainability and effectiveness of abortion funds, enabling them to scale up services to meet increased demand and operate professionally.
Case against: Opponents might argue that any funds diverted from direct travel and practical support to organizational overhead are less impactful or could be seen as administrative bloat, though this is a common and necessary allowance for grant programs.
Estimated impact: Potentially up to $262.5 million over five years could be allocated to organizational costs, significantly impacting the capacity of recipient organizations.
The definition of an 'eligible entity' explicitly excludes 'any entity that discourages individuals from seeking an abortion.'
Section 3(h)(1)(B)
Why it matters:This is a deliberate legislative choice to ensure that federal funds are not inadvertently directed to organizations with a mission contrary to the bill's intent, but its placement in definitions can make it less conspicuous.
Case for: Proponents argue this exclusion is vital to ensure that federal funds are used solely to facilitate abortion access, consistent with the bill's purpose, and not to support organizations that actively work against that goal.
Case against: Opponents might argue this exclusion is discriminatory against organizations that offer alternatives to abortion or that it limits the scope of support available to individuals, even if those organizations provide other forms of practical assistance.
Estimated impact: Ensures that all $1.75 billion in authorized funds are directed exclusively to organizations that support abortion access, preventing any diversion to crisis pregnancy centers or similar entities.