Protecting Life and Integrity in Research Act of 2025
- Bill Number
- H.R. 2075
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Health
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2025-03-11: Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
- Last Updated
- 2026-03-17T08:05:49Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose
The Protecting Life and Integrity in Research Act of 2025 aims to ban the U.S. federal government from conducting or funding any research using human fetal tissue obtained from induced abortions (procedures to end a pregnancy). It also prohibits the federal government from soliciting or knowingly accepting donations of such tissue. The law seeks to limit fetal tissue research to tissue from natural pregnancy losses, like miscarriages or stillbirths, while encouraging ethical alternatives for medical advancements, such as new cell lines for vaccines.
Key Provisions
- Ban on Research Using Tissue from Induced Abortions: No federal department, agency, or office (e.g., National Institutes of Health or NIH) may conduct, fund, approve, or support research involving human fetal tissue from induced abortions.
- Exceptions for Ethical Alternatives: Federal entities can develop or support new, high-efficiency cell lines (groups of cells grown in labs for research) for purposes like vaccine production, as long as they are not derived from tissue obtained via induced abortion.
- Permitted Research on Natural Losses: Research on fetal tissue from miscarriages (involuntary loss before 20 weeks of pregnancy) or stillbirths (involuntary loss at 20 weeks or more) is allowed, but must follow existing rules under Section 498A of the Public Health Service Act (PHSA), a federal law governing health research.
- Prohibition on Solicitation and Acquisition: It is illegal for federal entities to solicit (actively seek) or knowingly acquire, receive, or accept donations of fetal tissue if they know it came from an induced abortion or if a pregnancy was started specifically to provide such tissue. This excludes transfers for autopsies or burials.
- Definitions: The bill defines key terms, such as "human fetal tissue" (tissue or cells from a deceased unborn child from abortion, miscarriage, or stillbirth), "unborn child" (as per federal criminal law), and the distinctions between miscarriage and stillbirth.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
- Amendments to PHSA Section 498A:
- Updates the section heading from "transplantation of fetal tissue" to "human fetal tissue obtained after a miscarriage or stillbirth."
- Limits the Secretary of Health and Human Services' authority to conduct or support research only to tissue from miscarriages or stillbirths, removing references to induced abortions.
- Modifies consent and certification rules to apply only to tissue for transplantation from natural losses, and strikes out provisions allowing broader uses of abortion-related tissue.
- Amendments to PHSA Section 498B:
- Expands prohibitions on prohibited activities to explicitly include tissue from induced abortions.
- Removes subsections that previously allowed certain uses of fetal tissue from abortions under strict conditions, and adjusts cross-references accordingly.
- Repeal of 1993 Law: Fully repeals Section 113 of the National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act of 1993, which had permitted fetal tissue research from abortions with safeguards like donor consent and no profit motives. This eliminates a key prior authorization for such research.
These changes narrow the scope of federal fetal tissue research, shifting it away from any involvement with induced abortions.
Potential Impacts
- On Government Agencies: Agencies like the NIH and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) will face restrictions on funding and conducting certain biomedical research, potentially redirecting resources to alternatives like cell lines from non-abortion sources. This could slow some projects but encourage innovation in ethical methods.
- On Citizens: May limit advancements in treatments for diseases (e.g., via tissue-based studies), affecting public health outcomes, though it promotes research on miscarriage/stillbirth tissue and new cell technologies. Pregnant individuals and families experiencing natural losses could see continued research benefits, while abortion access remains unaffected directly.
- On International Relations: Could strain collaborations with foreign researchers or institutions that use abortion-derived tissue, potentially isolating U.S. science from global efforts unless partners adapt to U.S. rules for joint projects.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- Federal Agencies and Researchers: NIH, HHS, and scientists funded by them, who must comply with new limits on tissue sources and may need to pivot to alternative methods.
- Medical and Biotech Community: Developers of vaccines, therapies, and genetic tools, who rely on fetal tissue for some research but can use permitted alternatives.
- Pro-Life and Advocacy Groups: Organizations supporting restrictions on abortion-related research, who may view this as a win for ethical standards.
- Reproductive Rights Groups: Those opposing the bill, arguing it hinders scientific progress without addressing abortion rights directly.
- Patients and Families: Individuals affected by conditions targeted by fetal tissue research (e.g., neurological disorders) and families dealing with pregnancy losses.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal Implications: Strengthens enforcement against misuse of federal funds for abortion-related tissue, with potential civil or criminal penalties under PHSA for violations (e.g., fines or bans on receiving grants). It builds on existing laws like the 1993 Act but reverses parts of it, possibly leading to lawsuits over research disruptions.
- Constitutional Implications: Relies on Congress's power to control federal spending (under the Spending Clause of the Constitution), which allows conditions on grants. However, it could face challenges claiming interference with scientific freedom (under the First Amendment's free speech protections) or equal protection issues if seen as targeting specific pregnancy outcomes, though courts have upheld similar restrictions in the past.
- Political Implications: Reflects ongoing debates over abortion and bioethics in U.S. policy, introduced by Republican lawmakers in a divided Congress. Passage could intensify partisan divides, influencing future health funding bills, while failure might highlight tensions in science policy.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Cosponsors (33)
Rep. Smith, Christopher H. [R-NJ-4], Rep. Latta, Robert E. [R-OH-5], Rep. Kelly, Trent [R-MS-1], Rep. Miller, Mary E. [R-IL-15], Rep. Harris, Andy [R-MD-1], Rep. Green, Mark E. [R-TN-7], Rep. LaMalfa, Doug [R-CA-1], Rep. Grothman, Glenn [R-WI-6], Rep. Cloud, Michael [R-TX-27], Rep. Self, Keith [R-TX-3], Rep. Weber, Randy K. Sr. [R-TX-14], Rep. Stauber, Pete [R-MN-8], Rep. Ellzey, Jake [R-TX-6], Rep. Ezell, Mike [R-MS-4], Rep. Guest, Michael [R-MS-3], Rep. Burchett, Tim [R-TN-2], Rep. Crane, Elijah [R-AZ-2], Rep. Fallon, Pat [R-TX-4], Rep. Biggs, Sheri [R-SC-3], Rep. Palmer, Gary J. [R-AL-6], Rep. Biggs, Andy [R-AZ-5], Rep. Greene, Marjorie Taylor [R-GA-14], Rep. Fleischmann, Charles J. "Chuck" [R-TN-3], Rep. Gosar, Paul A. [R-AZ-9], Rep. McCormick, Richard [R-GA-7], Rep. Harrigan, Pat [R-NC-10], Rep. Cammack, Kat [R-FL-3], Rep. Gill, Brandon [R-TX-26], Rep. Babin, Brian [R-TX-36], Rep. Feenstra, Randy [R-IA-4], Rep. Bost, Mike [R-IL-12], Rep. Williams, Roger [R-TX-25], Rep. Schmidt, Derek [R-KS-2]
Recent Actions
- 2025-03-11: Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
- 2025-03-11: Introduced in House
- 2025-03-11: Introduced in House
Bill Versions
- Protecting Life and Integrity in Research Act of 2025 — issued 2025-03-11 — PDF (6 pages)