Right to Contraception Act
- Bill Number
- H.R. 999
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Health
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2025-02-05: Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
- Last Updated
- 2026-06-30T08:06:32Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose
The Right to Contraception Act (H.R. 999) aims to establish a federal statutory right to access and use contraceptives, ensuring individuals can make personal decisions about their reproductive health without government interference. It seeks to protect health care providers' ability to offer related services and information, promoting equality in economic and social participation. The bill emphasizes contraception as essential health care, rooted in constitutional precedents like Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), and addresses historical barriers, especially for marginalized groups.
Key Provisions
- Definitions:
- Contraception includes actions to prevent pregnancy, such as using contraceptives, fertility-awareness methods, or sterilization.
- Contraceptive refers to FDA-approved or authorized drugs, devices, or biological products for preventing pregnancy.
- Broad definitions of government (federal, state, local) and health care provider (doctors, nurses, pharmacists, etc., licensed by states).
- State encompasses all U.S. states, territories, D.C., and local governments.
- Statutory Rights (Section 5): Individuals have a right to obtain and use contraceptives voluntarily, free from coercion. Health care providers have a right to supply contraceptives, related information, referrals, and services. Restrictions are prohibited if they single out or impede access to these rights, unless proven by clear and convincing evidence to advance access without less restrictive alternatives.
- Preemption and Applicability (Section 6): The Act overrides conflicting federal or state laws (existing or future) that restrict sales, provision, use, or aiding in obtaining contraceptives. It applies nationwide and supersedes the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), but does not mandate specific insurance coverage under laws like the Affordable Care Act or Medicaid.
- Enforcement (Section 8):
- The U.S. Attorney General can sue states or officials violating the Act.
- Private lawsuits allowed by affected individuals, providers (on behalf of themselves, staff, or patients), or entities, with courts able to issue injunctions (court orders to stop violations) and award costs/attorney fees to prevailing plaintiffs.
- Federal courts have jurisdiction; no exhaustion of other remedies required; states and officials lose immunity from suits.
- Rules of Construction (Section 7): Courts must interpret the Act broadly to achieve its goals. It prohibits government interference in consensual care and requires informed consent for sterilizations. Enforcers of violations are treated as government officials.
- Severability (Section 9): If any part is ruled unconstitutional, the rest remains in effect.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
- Codifies Supreme Court rulings (Griswold, Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972), Carey v. Population Services International (1977)) into federal statute, making the right to contraception explicit and enforceable beyond constitutional challenges.
- Preempts state laws or policies that restrict access (e.g., funding bans in states like Arkansas or provider refusals in 12 states), including attempts to classify contraceptives as abortions or limit emergency contraception.
- Overrides RFRA, preventing religious objections from blocking access, unlike some prior exemptions in health laws.
- Introduces strict scrutiny for restrictions (must prove they advance access without alternatives), shifting the burden from individuals/providers to governments.
- Does not alter insurance mandates under the Affordable Care Act or Medicaid family planning rules, preserving existing coverage requirements.
Potential Impacts
- On Citizens: Enhances nationwide access to contraceptives, reducing barriers for underserved groups (e.g., low-income, rural, or minority populations), potentially lowering unintended pregnancies, maternal/infant health risks, and supporting economic equality. Could prevent coercion or discrimination in reproductive choices.
- On Government Agencies: Empowers the Department of Justice (via Attorney General) to challenge restrictive state laws, increasing federal oversight of state health policies. State and local governments may face lawsuits and injunctions, requiring policy revisions.
- On Health Care Providers: Protects against refusals based on personal beliefs, enabling freer provision of services, though it maintains FDA authority over approvals.
- On International Relations: Reinforces U.S. alignment with global standards (e.g., UN and WHO recognitions of contraception as a human right), potentially strengthening diplomatic efforts on women's health and equality, but no direct foreign policy changes.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- Individuals: All U.S. residents seeking contraceptives, with emphasis on historically marginalized groups (e.g., Black, Indigenous, people of color; immigrants; LGBTQ+; disabled; low-wage workers; rural residents) facing inequities.
- Health Care Providers: Physicians, nurses, pharmacists, and clinics that offer or could be restricted from providing contraception services.
- Governments: Federal (e.g., DOJ, HHS/FDA), state, and local entities enacting or enforcing health laws; officials implementing restrictions.
- Insurers and Programs: Entities under Medicaid, Affordable Care Act, or Title X family planning, indirectly affected by preserved coverage rules.
- Advocacy Groups: Organizations focused on reproductive rights, public health, or civil liberties, who may litigate or benefit from enforcement.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal: Creates a private right of action and equitable remedies, facilitating challenges to restrictions without relying solely on constitutional claims. Liberal judicial construction favors broad protection, but the high evidentiary bar for exceptions could lead to frequent litigation.
- Constitutional: Invokes Congress's Commerce Clause authority (interstate travel/commerce in services), Section 5 of the 14th Amendment (enforcing equal protection/due process), and Necessary and Proper Clause. Addresses Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022) concerns by statutorily safeguarding rights Justice Thomas suggested revisiting. Abrogates state sovereign immunity, potentially sparking federalism debates.
- Political: Bipartisan sponsorship (over 200 House members) signals broad support, but could polarize on reproductive rights post-Dobbs. May influence state-federal tensions, especially in conservative states with restrictions, and bolster federal responses to evolving abortion/contraception overlaps without directly addressing abortion.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Rep. Fletcher, Lizzie [D-TX-7]
Cosponsors (210)
Rep. Williams, Nikema [D-GA-5], Rep. Craig, Angie [D-MN-2], Rep. Jacobs, Sara [D-CA-51], Rep. Adams, Alma S. [D-NC-12], Rep. Aguilar, Pete [D-CA-33], Rep. Amo, Gabe [D-RI-1], Rep. Ansari, Yassamin [D-AZ-3], Rep. Auchincloss, Jake [D-MA-4], Rep. Balint, Becca [D-VT-At Large], Rep. Barragán, Nanette Diaz [D-CA-44], Rep. Beatty, Joyce [D-OH-3], Rep. Bell, Wesley [D-MO-1], Rep. Bera, Ami [D-CA-6], Rep. Beyer, Donald S. [D-VA-8], Rep. Bonamici, Suzanne [D-OR-1], Rep. Boyle, Brendan F. [D-PA-2], Rep. Brown, Shontel M. [D-OH-11], Rep. Brownley, Julia [D-CA-26], Rep. Budzinski, Nikki [D-IL-13], Rep. Bynum, Janelle [D-OR-5], Rep. Carbajal, Salud O. [D-CA-24], Rep. Carson, André [D-IN-7], Rep. Carter, Troy A. [D-LA-2], Rep. Casar, Greg [D-TX-35], Rep. Case, Ed [D-HI-1], Rep. Casten, Sean [D-IL-6], Rep. Castor, Kathy [D-FL-14], Rep. Castro, Joaquin [D-TX-20], Rep. Cherfilus-McCormick, Sheila [D-FL-20], Rep. Chu, Judy [D-CA-28], Rep. Cisneros, Gilbert Ray, Jr. [D-CA-31], Rep. Clark, Katherine M. [D-MA-5], Rep. Clarke, Yvette D. [D-NY-9], Rep. Cleaver, Emanuel [D-MO-5], Rep. Clyburn, James E. [D-SC-6], Rep. Cohen, Steve [D-TN-9], Rep. Conaway, Herbert [D-NJ-3], Rep. Connolly, Gerald E. [D-VA-11], Rep. Correa, J. Luis [D-CA-46], Rep. Costa, Jim [D-CA-21], Rep. Crockett, Jasmine [D-TX-30], Rep. Crow, Jason [D-CO-6], Rep. Davids, Sharice [D-KS-3], Rep. Davis, Danny K. [D-IL-7], Rep. Dean, Madeleine [D-PA-4], Rep. DeGette, Diana [D-CO-1], Rep. DeLauro, Rosa L. [D-CT-3], Rep. DelBene, Suzan K. [D-WA-1], Rep. Deluzio, Christopher R. [D-PA-17], Rep. DeSaulnier, Mark [D-CA-10] and 160 more
Recent Actions
- 2025-02-05: Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
- 2025-02-05: Introduced in House
- 2025-02-05: Introduced in House
Bill Versions
- Right to Contraception Act — issued 2025-02-05 — PDF (17 pages)