Access to Reproductive Care for Servicemembers Act
- Bill Number
- H.R. 1742
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Armed Forces and National Security
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2026-02-11: ASSUMING FIRST SPONSORSHIP - Ms. Houlahan asked unanimous consent that she may hereafter be considered as the first sponsor of H.R. 1742, a bill originally introduced by Representative Sherrill, for the purpose of adding cosponsors and requesting reprintings pursuant to clause 7 of rule XII. Agreed to without objection.
- Last Updated
- 2026-05-14T08:08:47Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose of the Legislation
The "Access to Reproductive Care for Servicemembers Act" (H.R. 1742) aims to ensure that members of the U.S. Armed Forces and their dependents can access non-covered reproductive health care—such as abortions not allowed under current military rules and fertility treatments—without facing barriers like restricted leave, travel costs, or privacy invasions. It addresses challenges created by state-level abortion bans and restrictions on fertility care, emphasizing timely, private, and affordable access to support service members' health, well-being, and military retention.
Key Provisions
- Findings (Section 2): The bill outlines 15 congressional findings highlighting the impacts of abortion bans (post-Supreme Court decision overturning federal abortion rights), barriers to fertility care, and risks to military personnel's health and readiness. These include how state restrictions delay care, increase costs, and disproportionately affect low-income, minority, and junior enlisted members; the time-sensitive nature of procedures; and links between military service (e.g., combat injuries, sexual assault, toxic exposures) and infertility.
- Leave Policies for Non-Covered Reproductive Health Care (Section 3):
- Requires the relevant military secretary (e.g., for Army, Navy) to treat non-covered reproductive care as "time-sensitive" and automatically approve leave for it, without needing details from the service member or dependent.
- Defines "non-covered reproductive health care" as:
- Abortions beyond those already permitted under federal military law (10 U.S.C. § 1093, which generally limits funding and provision except in cases of life endangerment, rape, or incest).
- Assisted reproductive technologies, including egg/sperm retrieval, intrauterine insemination, in vitro fertilization (IVF) and its variants (e.g., frozen embryo transfer), and related medications/procedures.
- Mandates reimbursement for travel-related costs if care is unavailable nearby, covering:
- Meals (including taxes and tips).
- Lodging (including taxes, tips, and service charges).
- Round-trip transportation.
- Travel allowances for one or more necessary escorts/attendants if requested.
- Protects privacy by requiring health providers and commanding officers to safeguard information about leave requests and returns to duty.
- Prohibits any punishment, retaliation, or adverse actions (e.g., demotions, negative evaluations) against members for requesting, taking, or approving such leave.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
- Introduces mandatory approval of leave for reproductive care, removing commander discretion that could previously delay or deny it based on personal views or unit needs—shifting from case-by-case judgments to a standardized, rights-based policy.
- Adds new federal reimbursement requirements for travel to access care outside local areas, which were not previously required for non-covered services.
- Expands protections against discrimination and retaliation specifically for reproductive health decisions, building on but strengthening existing military anti-harassment rules.
- Clarifies that privacy must be maximized in handling these requests, potentially overriding informal practices where details might be shared in the chain of command.
- These changes apply to both abortions (limited under current law) and fertility treatments (previously underinsured or inaccessible for many), addressing gaps exposed by recent state laws restricting abortion access.
Potential Impacts
- On Government Agencies: The Department of Defense (DoD) and military branches must update leave, reimbursement, and privacy policies, potentially increasing administrative costs for processing claims and training commanders on objectivity and non-discrimination. It could improve recruitment and retention by addressing health barriers, but may strain resources in high-deployment areas or overseas bases where care is limited, indirectly supporting overall military readiness.
- On Citizens: Military members (especially women, junior enlisted, and those in underserved groups) and their dependents gain easier, cost-free access to time-sensitive care, reducing financial burdens, health risks from delays, and emotional stress. This could enhance family planning and economic stability for service families, though it does not cover the procedures themselves (only leave and travel).
- On International Relations: Minimal direct impact, but could benefit U.S. troops stationed abroad by easing access to care in countries with varying reproductive laws, potentially reducing morale issues in international deployments. It reinforces U.S. military commitments to personnel welfare without altering foreign policy.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- Primary Beneficiaries: Active-duty members of the Armed Forces (over 1.3 million, including disproportionate impacts on women, junior enlisted, racial/ethnic minorities, LGBTQ+ individuals, and those with disabilities or in rural/overseas postings) and their dependents, who face barriers to abortion and fertility care.
- Military Leadership: Commanding officers and approval authorities, who must approve leave without discretion and avoid reprisals, shifting their role toward enforcing privacy and compassion.
- Government Entities: DoD, Defense Health Agency (responsible for privacy protections), and congressional Armed Services Committee (overseeing implementation).
- Broader Groups: Military families, healthcare providers on bases, and advocacy organizations focused on reproductive rights, as the bill promotes equity in access.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal: Establishes a federal safeguard against state abortion bans for military personnel, potentially preempting conflicting state laws via uniform federal military policy (under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, granting Congress power over armed forces). It enforces existing limits on abortion funding (10 U.S.C. § 1093) while expanding access logistics, which could face challenges if seen as circumventing Hyde Amendment restrictions on federal abortion funding.
- Constitutional: Supports principles of bodily autonomy, equal protection (14th Amendment), and non-discrimination by ensuring care access regardless of location or command views, addressing disparities for protected groups. However, it may invite debates on military readiness versus individual rights, without directly challenging the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision (which returned abortion regulation to states).
- Political: Introduced by a bipartisan but largely Democratic group of 50+ House members in the 119th Congress (2025), it reflects partisan divides on reproductive rights post-Dobbs. Referred to the House Armed Services Committee, passage could signal congressional intent to mitigate Supreme Court impacts on federal employees, influencing future military policy debates on health equity and retention amid recruitment challenges.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Rep. Sherrill, Mikie [D-NJ-11]
Cosponsors (79)
Rep. Houlahan, Chrissy [D-PA-6], Rep. Escobar, Veronica [D-TX-16], Rep. Crow, Jason [D-CO-6], Rep. Sewell, Terri A. [D-AL-7], Rep. Carbajal, Salud O. [D-CA-24], Rep. Carter, Troy A. [D-LA-2], Rep. Trahan, Lori [D-MA-3], Rep. Cherfilus-McCormick, Sheila [D-FL-20], Rep. McClellan, Jennifer L. [D-VA-4], Rep. Tokuda, Jill N. [D-HI-2], Del. Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC-At Large], Rep. McCollum, Betty [D-MN-4], Rep. Johnson, Henry C. "Hank" [D-GA-4], Rep. Moulton, Seth [D-MA-6], Rep. Ryan, Patrick [D-NY-18], Rep. DeGette, Diana [D-CO-1], Rep. Grijalva, Raúl M. [D-AZ-7], Rep. Connolly, Gerald E. [D-VA-11], Rep. Carson, André [D-IN-7], Rep. Moore, Gwen [D-WI-4], Rep. Scanlon, Mary Gay [D-PA-5], Rep. Dingell, Debbie [D-MI-6], Rep. Panetta, Jimmy [D-CA-19], Rep. Brownley, Julia [D-CA-26], Rep. Elfreth, Sarah [D-MD-3], Rep. McGovern, James P. [D-MA-2], Rep. Nadler, Jerrold [D-NY-12], Rep. Garcia, Sylvia R. [D-TX-29], Rep. Swalwell, Eric [D-CA-14], Rep. Horsford, Steven [D-NV-4], Rep. Norcross, Donald [D-NJ-1], Rep. Garcia, Robert [D-CA-42], Rep. Salinas, Andrea [D-OR-6], Rep. Soto, Darren [D-FL-9], Rep. Davis, Danny K. [D-IL-7], Rep. Ansari, Yassamin [D-AZ-3], Rep. Khanna, Ro [D-CA-17], Rep. Wilson, Frederica S. [D-FL-24], Rep. Tran, Derek [D-CA-45], Rep. Sorensen, Eric [D-IL-17], Rep. Hayes, Jahana [D-CT-5], Rep. Titus, Dina [D-NV-1], Rep. Gottheimer, Josh [D-NJ-5], Rep. McBride, Sarah [D-DE-At Large], Rep. Deluzio, Christopher R. [D-PA-17], Rep. Larson, John B. [D-CT-1], Rep. Mullin, Kevin [D-CA-15], Rep. Courtney, Joe [D-CT-2], Rep. Crockett, Jasmine [D-TX-30], Rep. Budzinski, Nikki [D-IL-13] and 29 more
Recent Actions
- 2026-02-11: ASSUMING FIRST SPONSORSHIP - Ms. Houlahan asked unanimous consent that she may hereafter be considered as the first sponsor of H.R. 1742, a bill originally introduced by Representative Sherrill, for the purpose of adding cosponsors and requesting reprintings pursuant to clause 7 of rule XII. Agreed to without objection.
- 2025-02-27: Referred to the House Committee on Armed Services.
- 2025-02-27: Introduced in House
- 2025-02-27: Introduced in House
Bill Versions
- Access to Reproductive Care for Servicemembers Act — issued 2025-02-27 — PDF (8 pages)