Federal funding for reproductive health research comes with conscience exemption for ART

What it does

This bill expands federal research, training, and funding for reproductive health conditions (endometriosis, adenomyosis, PCOS, fibroids, blocked fallopian tubes) and 'restorative reproductive medicine'—an approach emphasizing diagnosis and treatment of underlying causes rather than assisted reproductive technology (ART). It directs HHS to conduct literature reviews, expand data collection, train medical professionals, update medical coding for better reimbursement, and open Title X family planning grants to entities specializing in restorative medicine and fertility awareness-based methods. It also prohibits discrimination against healthcare providers who decline to participate in ART on religious or moral grounds.

Why we flagged it

The bill's primary mechanism is expanding research, training, and funding for reproductive health conditions and 'restorative' medicine approaches. However, Section 4 introduces a significant conscience-based exemption for healthcare providers declining ART participation, which is ideologically freighted and substantively distinct from the research/training core.

• Section 4 prohibits federal discrimination against providers declining ART on religious/moral grounds. Unrelated to research/training mandate; appears to embed abortion/contraception-adjacent policy.

What the text implies

• Section 4's conscience exemption may create access gaps in underserved areas where few providers offer ART, leaving patients without local options if the sole provider declines on religious grounds.
• The bill's emphasis on 'restorative' medicine and fertility awareness methods, combined with the ART conscience clause, may signal a preference for non-contraceptive, non-suppressive approaches aligned with certain religious frameworks, potentially steering federal funding toward ideologically compatible providers.
• Title X funding expansion (Section 8) to restorative medicine entities may redirect family planning dollars toward providers who do not offer contraception or ART, fragmenting the family planning safety net.
• Medical coding updates (Section 12) could improve reimbursement for restorative procedures, but the bundled payment model may incentivize longer diagnostic/treatment cycles before ART referral, delaying access for patients who ultimately need it.
• The bill defines 'infertility' after 12 months of unprotected intercourse (or 6 months for women 35+), but does not mandate insurance coverage of the newly coded restorative treatments, leaving coverage gaps.

Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.

Who it affects

The bill's core research, training, and data-collection provisions serve a genuine public health interest—reproductive health conditions are under-researched and under-diagnosed, and expanding evidence-based care options benefits patients. However, Section 4's broad conscience-based exemption for healthcare providers may reduce access to ART services in underserved areas, and the bill's framing of 'restorative' medicine as an alternative to ART, combined with the conscience clause, suggests an i

Who stands to gain

• providers specializing in restorative reproductive medicine
• fertility awareness-based method educators and trainers
• medical device/diagnostic companies serving reproductive health (ultrasound, hormone testing)
• entities receiving expanded Title X grants for restorative medicine services

Named in the bill

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H), American Medical Association (AMA), Reproductive Health National Training Center, Office of Population Affairs, Office on Women's Health, Title X (Public Health Service Act), Teen Pregnancy Prevention program — and 1 more

Where it stands

5 cosponsors: 5 Republicans.

• May 23, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
• May 23, 2025 — Referred to House Committee on Energy and Commerce · Congress.gov: “Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce”

Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.

Money around this bill

2 lobbying clients named this bill on 3 disclosure filings across 2 quarters, Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $90,000 in lobbying spend. A filing names 16 bills on average, so that figure is what each filing reported, not a share belonging to this bill.

More lobbying clients named this bill than 41% of bills with at least one filing.

Diana Harshbarger, the sponsor, reported $727,520 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.

• Inventors Defense Alliance — $50,000 on 1 filing
• American Society for Reproductive Medicine — $40,000 on 2 filings

Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 19, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.