This chapter is about health and welfare. Its first idea is that abortion is not health care. Much of the rest follows from that. It also wants the CDC split in two. It wants limits on health advice from the government. And it wants changes to Medicare and Medicaid.
The document says “must”Who acts: HHSHow: internal managementp. 450 in the PDF
What the document says
“Abortion and euthanasia are not health care.”
The chapter says the Secretary must ensure that all department programs and activities are rooted in respect for innocent human life from day one until natural death, and frames this as the first of five goals for the department. Much of the rest of the chapter follows from it.
What the document actually says
“Abortion and euthanasia are not health care.”
That sentence, in plain words
The book says abortion and euthanasia are not health care.
What this is about
This is the book's starting point for this chapter. It says abortion and ending life should not count as health care. Many of its other ideas follow from that.
EO 14182 sets a policy of ending the use of federal money to fund or promote elective abortion and revokes the two 2022 orders on abortion access. It acts on funding rather than on how health care is defined, it directs OMB guidance rather than reorienting HHS programs around the goal, and it does not mention euthanasia, which is half of what the passage asks.
In plain English
The order sets a policy of ending federal money for elective abortion. It also pulls two orders from 2022. It acts on money, not on how care is defined. It calls for budget guidance, not new health programs. And it says nothing about euthanasia, which is half of what the book asks.
Each of these names the order above in its own summary, preamble or filing. That is a fact about the document, not a finding that it carries out this proposal: it is one step further away than the order is, and what it does about the proposal is a reading nobody has made here.
The document says “should”Who acts: CongressHow: legislationp. 452 in the PDF
What the document says
“The CDC should be split into two separate entities housing its two distinct functions.”
The chapter proposes a national epidemiological agency responsible only for publishing data, required by law to publish everything gathered from states and other sources, and a separate public health agency with what it calls a severely confined ability to make policy recommendations, with a firewall between them.
What the document actually says
“The CDC should be split into two separate entities housing its two distinct functions.”
That sentence, in plain words
The CDC does two different jobs. It should be split into two agencies.
What this is about
The CDC gathers data on disease. It also gives health advice. The book says one body should not do both. It wants two separate agencies.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. Nothing indexed splits the CDC. EO 14407 acts on the recommendation side of the agency by directing a review and update of the childhood vaccine schedule, but it creates no separate epidemiological agency, imposes no duty to publish everything gathered from the states, and builds no firewall between data publication and policy recommendation. That is a record of a search, not a finding that nothing has happened: an act this site does not hold, or one that answers the proposal in words unlike its own, would not be caught by it.
The document says “must”Who acts: Congress, HHSHow: legislationp. 454 in the PDF
What the document says
“By statute or regulation, CDC guidance must be prohibited from taking on a prescriptive character.”
The chapter gives as its example that officials should never again be able to say in an official capacity that school children should be masked or vaccinated, and says such decisions should be left to parents and medical providers. It argues that when the agency says what people should do it readily becomes a must backed by severe punishments including criminal penalties, and that the agency should report on risks and effectiveness dispassionately and leave the policy calls to politically accountable parties.
What the document actually says
“By statute or regulation, CDC guidance must be prohibited from taking on a prescriptive character.”
That sentence, in plain words
The CDC gives advice. A law should stop that advice telling people what to do.
What this is about
The CDC tells people what it thinks they should do. The book says that advice becomes an order. It says the CDC should give facts only.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. EO 14407 tells CDC and its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices to review the childhood vaccine schedule and to consider maximum flexibility for parents and doctors on timing and sequencing. It changes what is recommended and leaves the power to recommend in place. The proposal asks for a statute or regulation barring CDC guidance from taking on a prescriptive character, and nothing indexed here does that. That is a record of a search, not a finding that nothing has happened: an act this site does not hold, or one that answers the proposal in words unlike its own, would not be caught by it.
The document says “should”Who acts: CDCHow: internal managementp. 456 in the PDF
What the document says
“The CDC should immediately end its collection of data on gender identity”
The chapter states that collecting the data legitimizes what it calls the unscientific notion that men can become women and vice versa, and encourages what it describes as ever-multiplying subjective identities.
What the document actually says
“The CDC should immediately end its collection of data on gender identity”
That sentence, in plain words
The CDC should stop collecting this data right away.
What this is about
The CDC asks people about gender identity in surveys. The book says that should stop at once.
Addresses the chapter's subject. The chapter asked specifically that the Centers for Disease Control end its collection of gender identity data; this order sets a government-wide policy on recognizing two sexes and on federal funds rather than naming that data collection.
In plain English
The book asked a health agency to drop one kind of data. The order never names that agency or that data. It sets a broad rule on two sexes and on federal funds. The rule reaches every agency.
Each of these names the order above in its own summary, preamble or filing. That is a fact about the document, not a finding that it carries out this proposal: it is one step further away than the order is, and what it does about the proposal is a reading nobody has made here.
The document says “should”Who acts: FDAHow: regulationp. 458 in the PDF
What the document says
“As an interim step, the FDA should immediately restore the REMS by removing the in-person dispensing requirement to eliminate dangerous tele-abortion and abortion-by-mail distribution.”
The Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy formerly required mifepristone to be dispensed in person. The chapter calls this an interim step, and asks separately for reporting of complications through the adverse event system and for transparency about inspections of the manufacturers.
What the document actually says
“As an interim step, the FDA should immediately restore the REMS by removing the in-person dispensing requirement to eliminate dangerous tele-abortion and abortion-by-mail distribution.”
That sentence, in plain words
For now, the FDA should bring back the rule. It required the pill to be handed over in person.
What this is about
One pill is used to end a pregnancy. It used to be handed over in person. Now it can be sent by mail. The book says the old rule should come back.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. Nothing indexed restores the in-person dispensing requirement in the mifepristone risk evaluation and mitigation strategy, and no FDA action on that strategy appears in the record indexed here. The nearest candidate by wording, memo-2025-01907, tells federal employees to return to in-person work, which matched on the phrase alone. That is a record of a search, not a finding that nothing has happened: an act this site does not hold, or one that answers the proposal in words unlike its own, would not be caught by it.
The document says “should”Who acts: Congress, HHSHow: legislationp. 471 in the PDF
What the document says
“Policymakers should end taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood and all other abortion providers”
The chapter says the funding should be redirected to health centers that provide what it calls real health care for women, that most such federal funding comes through Medicaid, and asks Congress to pass the Protecting Life and Taxpayers Act. It also asks the agency to resolve pending waivers from Idaho, South Carolina and Tennessee seeking to bar abortion providers from state Medicaid programs.
What the document actually says
“Policymakers should end taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood and all other abortion providers”
That sentence, in plain words
Stop tax money going to Planned Parenthood. Stop it to other abortion clinics too.
What this is about
Planned Parenthood runs health clinics. Some of them do abortions. It gets federal money for other care. The book says that money should stop.
Section 71113 of Public Law 119-21 bars federal Medicaid money from paying a prohibited entity for one year, defined as a tax exempt essential community provider mainly engaged in family planning that provides abortions outside cases of rape, incest or danger to the woman's life and whose Medicaid spending topped $800,000 in fiscal year 2023. That uses the Medicaid channel the chapter names. The bar lasts one year rather than ending the funding, it reaches only entities meeting all four tests rather than all abortion providers, it redirects nothing to other health centers, it is not the Protecting Life and Taxpayers Act, and the Idaho, South Carolina and Tennessee waivers are left unresolved. EO 14182, the top candidate, ends federal funding of elective abortion but leaves payments to providers for other services untouched.
In plain English
The 2025 law blocks federal Medicaid money to some abortion providers for one year. A group must meet four tests to be covered by the ban. That uses the Medicaid route the chapter named. But the ban lasts a year rather than ending the money, and it does not reach all abortion providers.
The document says “should”Who acts: HHS, CMSHow: regulationp. 472 in the PDF
What the document says
“HHS/CMS should withdraw appropriated funding, up to and including 10 percent of Medicaid funds, from states that require abortion insurance coverage.”
The chapter asks that the Justice Department commit to litigating the defense of those funding decisions promptly to the Supreme Court, in order to maximize the department's ability to withdraw funds from entities it says violate the Weldon Amendment, which bars discrimination against health entities that decline to provide abortion.
What the document actually says
“HHS/CMS should withdraw appropriated funding, up to and including 10 percent of Medicaid funds, from states that require abortion insurance coverage.”
That sentence, in plain words
Some states make plans cover abortion. Take back some of their health money.
What this is about
Medicaid pays for health care for poor people. Some states make insurance cover abortion. The book says those states should lose part of that money.
Section 507(d) of Public Law 119-75 provides that none of the funds made available in the act may be made available to a federal agency or program, or to a state or local government, if that agency, program or government subjects any institutional or individual health care entity to discrimination on the basis that the entity does not provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions, and defines health care entity to include a health insurance plan. That is the provision the chapter builds its proposal on, and it makes loss of federal money the consequence for a state. The fit breaks down in that it is a condition carried in an appropriations act rather than a decision by the department to withdraw funds, it reaches the funds made available in that act rather than Medicaid by name and sets no 10 percent figure, it turns on discrimination against a health care entity rather than on a state requiring abortion coverage as such, and nothing indexed here applies it to any state.
In plain English
A 2026 spending law cuts off its funds to a state that punishes a health provider. The provider must have refused to take part in abortions. That makes lost federal money the price for a state. But it is a term in a spending law, it does not name Medicaid, and no state has faced it.
The document says “should”Who acts: HHS, NIH, CongressHow: legislationp. 460 in the PDF
What the document says
“Research using human embryonic stem cells also involves the destruction of human life and should not be subsidized with taxpayer dollars.”
The chapter says research using fetal tissue from elective abortions is immoral and obsolete, asks that the ethics advisory committee overseeing it be restored and that Congress prohibit such research altogether, and that intramural projects using tissue from aborted children end along with the human embryonic stem cell registry. It separately asks that three-parent embryo creation and human cloning research be banned.
What the document actually says
“Research using human embryonic stem cells also involves the destruction of human life and should not be subsidized with taxpayer dollars.”
That sentence, in plain words
This research destroys human life. Taxpayers should not pay for it.
What this is about
Some research uses cells from very early embryos. Getting them destroys the embryo. The book says public money should not pay for it.
Section 508 of Public Law 119-75, enacted February 3, 2026, provides that none of the funds made available in the act may be used for the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research purposes, or for research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death greater than that allowed for research on fetuses in utero, and defines human embryo to include any organism derived by fertilization, parthenogenesis, cloning or any other means from human gametes or human diploid cells. That reaches the destruction the passage objects to and, through the definition, the cloning research the chapter separately asks be barred. The fit breaks down in that the section does not end funding for research using human embryonic stem cell lines already derived or close the registry the chapter names, says nothing about fetal tissue from elective abortions or the ethics advisory committee, bars the use of funds rather than the research itself, and reaches only the money made available in that one act.
In plain English
A law of February 3, 2026 bars its funds from making human embryos for research. It also bars work that destroys them or puts them at risk. Its wide meaning of embryo covers cloning too. But it does not end funding for cell lines already made, and it binds only that law's money.
The document says “should”Who acts: HHS, CongressHow: legislationp. 452 in the PDF
What the document says
“Regulators should have a long “cooling off period” on their contracts (15 years would not be too long)”
The chapter says the revolving door between government and pharmaceutical companies should be shut and locked, that executives should likewise be restricted from moving into regulatory agencies, and that regulators at the health agencies should be entirely free from private biopharmaceutical funding, which it calls agency capture and a thin veneer for corporatism. It cites a finding that more than two-thirds of FDA reviewers later joined companies whose products they had reviewed.
What the document actually says
“Regulators should have a long “cooling off period” on their contracts (15 years would not be too long)”
That sentence, in plain words
Regulators should have to wait a long time. Fifteen years would not be too long.
What this is about
People who regulate drug firms often go to work for them later. The book says that is a problem. It says they should have to wait many years.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. Nothing indexed imposes a cooling off period on officials who regulate drugs, or restricts industry executives moving into the health agencies. The nearest candidate by wording, rule-2026-06947, bars bank regulators from using reputation risk in supervision, which has nothing to do with the revolving door the passage describes. That is a record of a search, not a finding that nothing has happened: an act this site does not hold, or one that answers the proposal in words unlike its own, would not be caught by it.
The document says “should”Who acts: Congress, HHSHow: legislationp. 462 in the PDF
What the document says
“Term limits should be imposed on top career leaders at the NIH, and Congress should consider block granting NIH’s grants budget to states”
The chapter says research funding should not be controlled by what it calls a small group of highly paid and unaccountable insiders, many of whom stay in power for decades, and that the monopoly on directing research should be broken. It notes that states could partner to co-fund larger projects and that state funding would not preclude more modest federal funding.
What the document actually says
“Term limits should be imposed on top career leaders at the NIH, and Congress should consider block granting NIH’s grants budget to states”
That sentence, in plain words
Limit how long the top people at NIH can serve. Congress could also send the research money to states.
What this is about
The NIH funds most medical research. The same people run it for decades. The book says there should be time limits. It says states could hand out the money instead.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. Nothing indexed imposes term limits on NIH career leadership or block grants any part of the NIH grants budget to the states. None of the candidates concerns NIH: two are law firm cases, and the three laws cover veterans' life insurance, an energy conservation disapproval and the small business research programs. That is a record of a search, not a finding that nothing has happened: an act this site does not hold, or one that answers the proposal in words unlike its own, would not be caught by it.
The document says “should”Who acts: NIHHow: internal managementp. 462 in the PDF
What the document says
“the NIH Office of Equity,”
The full passage asks that the Office of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion be abolished, and that the practice of refusing to sponsor scientific conferences without a certain number of women panelists be ended, which the chapter says violates federal civil rights law against sex discrimination.
What the document actually says
“the NIH Office of Equity,”
That sentence, in plain words
One office at the NIH works on fairness and diversity.
What this is about
The NIH has an office for fairness and diversity. The book says it pushes unlawful rules. It wants the office closed.
EO 14151 orders every agency head, within 60 days, to terminate all DEI and DEIA offices and positions, which covers the NIH Office of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion. The order never names NIH or that office, leaves each closure to the agency to the maximum extent allowed by law, and says nothing about the conference sponsorship practice the passage also asks to end. The candidate the search ranked first, EO 14185, ends DEI programs inside the Armed Forces only.
In plain English
The order gives each agency 60 days to end all DEI offices, as far as the law allows. That covers the health office the book named. But the order names neither that office nor its agency. Each agency judges how far to go. The book also asked for an end to funds for some meetings, which is not covered.
Each of these names the order above in its own summary, preamble or filing. That is a fact about the document, not a finding that it carries out this proposal: it is one step further away than the order is, and what it does about the proposal is a reading nobody has made here.
The document says “should”Who acts: NIHHow: internal managementp. 462 in the PDF
What the document says
“it should fund studies into the short-term and long-term negative effects of crosssex interventions”
The chapter names affirmation, puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgeries, and asks for study of the likelihood of desistence if young people are given counseling that does not include medical or social interventions. It says the agency has been at the forefront of pushing what it calls junk gender science.
What the document actually says
“it should fund studies into the short-term and long-term negative effects of crosssex interventions”
That sentence, in plain words
The NIH should pay for studies on the harms of this care. Both short term and long term.
What this is about
Some young people get medical care to change how their body looks. The book wants studies into harm from that care. It also wants studies of counseling instead.
Section 3 of EO 14187 orders HHS to publish, within 90 days, a review of the existing literature on best practices for promoting the health of children who assert gender dysphoria, and to use all available methods to improve the quality of data guiding their care. That reaches the study half of the proposal by a different route: it commissions a literature review and better data rather than funding studies of the short and long term negative effects of the interventions, and it does not mention studying desistance among young people given counseling without medical or social intervention.
In plain English
The order tells the health agency to review what has been written on care for these children. It also tells the agency to improve its data. The chapter asked for new studies of harm from the treatments. A review of old work is not the same thing.
Each of these names the order above in its own summary, preamble or filing. That is a fact about the document, not a finding that it carries out this proposal: it is one step further away than the order is, and what it does about the proposal is a reading nobody has made here.
The document says “should”Who acts: CMS, StatesHow: regulationp. 468 in the PDF
What the document says
“Add work requirements and match Medicaid benefits to beneficiary needs.”
The chapter proposes that states be allowed to run what it calls a personal option letting families use Medicaid dollars to buy coverage outside the program, that private insurance options and health savings account style arrangements be allowed, that benefit mandates exceeding the private market be removed for able-bodied recipients, and that eligibility determinations and asset tests be strengthened.
What the document actually says
“Add work requirements and match Medicaid benefits to beneficiary needs.”
That sentence, in plain words
Make some people work to get Medicaid. Match what they get to what they need.
What this is about
Medicaid pays for health care for poor people. The book says some should have to work to get it. It also wants benefits matched to need.
This interim final rule implements the Medicaid community engagement requirement enacted as section 71119 of Public Law 119-21. It sets which applicants and beneficiaries must show qualifying work, study or service, the exceptions and exclusions, how states verify activity, what happens on noncompliance, and a January 1, 2027 deadline for states. That answers the work requirement half of the proposal. It does nothing about the rest, which asks for a personal option to buy coverage outside Medicaid, health savings account style arrangements, removal of benefit mandates for able-bodied recipients, or stronger eligibility and asset tests. None of the documents the search offered for this proposal is about work requirements.
In plain English
This rule sets up the Medicaid work rule passed in the 2025 law. It says who must show work, study, or service, how states check it, and what happens if a person does not. States have until January 1, 2027. That covers the work half of the ask and none of the rest, such as savings accounts or looser benefit rules.
The document says “should”Who acts: CongressHow: legislationp. 465 in the PDF
What the document says
“This “negotiation” program should be repealed”
The program, created by the Inflation Reduction Act, lets Medicare set prices for selected drugs. The chapter puts the word negotiation in quotation marks, and says that if the act is not repealed an Administration required to implement it must do so prudently, minimizing the harmful effects of the law's policies.
What the document actually says
“This “negotiation” program should be repealed”
That sentence, in plain words
This program should be repealed. The book puts the word negotiation in quote marks.
What this is about
Medicare can now bargain over some drug prices. The book says that is not real bargaining. It wants the program ended.
EO 14273 keeps the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program and directs the Secretary to propose guidance for initial price applicability year 2028 that improves transparency, prioritizes drugs with high costs to Medicare, and minimizes negative effects of the maximum fair price on innovation, and to work with Congress to align small molecule drugs with biologics. That matches the chapter's fallback, implementing the program prudently and minimizing its harmful effects. It is not the first ask: the program stands, and only Congress can repeal it.
In plain English
The order keeps the drug price program in place. It tells the agency to run it with more care and openness. That was the chapter's second choice. Its first choice was to end the program, and only Congress can do that.
The document says “should”Who acts: HHS, CDCHow: regulationp. 455 in the PDF
What the document says
“HHS should use every available tool, including the cutting of funds, to ensure that every state reports exactly how many abortions take place within its borders”
The chapter asks that reports cover gestational age, reason, the mother's state of residence and method, separated by category, and that complications and every instance of a child born alive after an abortion be monitored and reported. It says abortion should be defined only as procedures that intentionally end an unborn child's life, and that miscarriage management and standard ectopic pregnancy treatment should never be conflated with abortion.
What the document actually says
“HHS should use every available tool, including the cutting of funds, to ensure that every state reports exactly how many abortions take place within its borders”
That sentence, in plain words
Make every state report its abortion numbers. Cut their funding if they will not.
What this is about
States are not all required to report abortions. The book says every state should have to. It says money should be cut off if they refuse.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. No indexed action requires a state to report how many abortions take place within its borders. EO 14182, the nearest on subject, ends federal funding of elective abortion; it conditions no funds on state reporting and says nothing about gestational age, method, complications or children born alive. The other candidates, the Mexico City Policy memorandum and the State Department award term implementing it, govern foreign assistance. That is a record of a search, not a finding that nothing has happened: an act this site does not hold, or one that answers the proposal in words unlike its own, would not be caught by it.
The document says “should”Who acts: HHSHow: internal managementp. 451 in the PDF
What the document says
“These policies should be repealed and replaced by policies that support the formation of stable, married, nuclear families.”
The chapter says current policies focus on LGBTQ+ equity, subsidizing single motherhood, disincentivizing work and penalizing marriage. It asks that the department prioritize married father engagement in its messaging, health and welfare policies, and says that in reproductive technology policy the desires of adults should never be placed over the right of children to be raised by the biological parents who conceive them.
What the document actually says
“These policies should be repealed and replaced by policies that support the formation of stable, married, nuclear families.”
That sentence, in plain words
These rules should be repealed. New ones should back married families instead.
What this is about
The book says current rules help single parents. It says they discourage marriage. It wants rules that support married couples raising children.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. EO 14216 is the nearest document on family formation: it declares a policy of reliable access to in vitro fertilization and asks the Domestic Policy Council for recommendations to cut its out of pocket and health plan costs. It repeals none of the policies the passage names, says nothing about marriage or father engagement, and takes its own direction on reproductive technology rather than applying the chapter's principle about children being raised by the parents who conceive them. That is a record of a search, not a finding that nothing has happened: an act this site does not hold, or one that answers the proposal in words unlike its own, would not be caught by it.
The document says “needs to”Who acts: HHSHow: regulationp. 464 in the PDF
What the document says
“HHS needs to restore and enhance conscience protection regulations”
The chapter says the regulations should allow medical practitioners to take part in federal health care programs without being compelled to provide sex changes or similar services.
What the document actually says
“HHS needs to restore and enhance conscience protection regulations”
That sentence, in plain words
Bring back the rules that protect conscience. Make them stronger.
What this is about
Some doctors object to certain treatments on moral grounds. Rules once let them opt out. The book wants those rules back.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. EO 14291 establishes a Religious Liberty Commission whose report is to consider conscience protections in the health care field and concerning vaccine mandates. It studies and advises rather than restoring or enhancing any regulation, and no HHS conscience rule appears in the record indexed here. The candidate rule, rule-2025-11606, revises Marketplace eligibility and bars sex-trait modification procedures as an essential health benefit, which is not a conscience protection for practitioners. That is a record of a search, not a finding that nothing has happened: an act this site does not hold, or one that answers the proposal in words unlike its own, would not be caught by it.
The document says “should”Who acts: CMSHow: regulationp. 464 in the PDF
What the document says
“regulations should advance site neutrality by eliminating the inpatient-only list”
The chapter says Medicare generally pays more for procedures performed as hospital inpatient care and less for the same procedure done as an outpatient, and that payment should be the same whether the service is delivered in a physician's office, a clinic or a hospital. It says this would level the playing field and remove financial disabilities for practitioners competing with hospital systems.
What the document actually says
“regulations should advance site neutrality by eliminating the inpatient-only list”
That sentence, in plain words
Pay the same wherever care happens. Start by scrapping the inpatient-only list.
What this is about
The same treatment can cost more in a hospital. Medicare pays more there too. The book says the price should be the same everywhere.
The calendar year 2026 outpatient payment rule finalizes phasing out the inpatient only list over three years, beginning with the removal of 285 mostly musculoskeletal services for 2026, and adds 271 of those codes to the ambulatory surgical center covered procedures list. That is the step the passage names. The elimination is phased rather than immediate, and taking a service off the list changes where Medicare will pay for it rather than making the payment the same in a physician's office, a clinic and a hospital, which is the wider site neutrality the proposal asks for.
In plain English
The 2026 rule phases out the inpatient only list over three years. It drops 285 services in 2026 and adds most to a surgery center list. That is the step the passage names. But the change is phased, and it shifts where Medicare pays rather than making prices match.
Roger Severino, “Department of Health and Human Services,” in Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, edited by Paul Dans and Steven Groves (The Heritage Foundation, 2023), pp. 449-502. https://static.heritage.org/project2025/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf
This page
“Department of Health and Human Services,” Project 2025, chapter 14. Read the Mandate, https://readthemandate.org/project-2025/chapter-14/ (retrieved October 7, 2026).
Cite the document when the claim is about what the document says. Cite this page when the indexing, the wording or the record of what has happened is what is being relied on.
What This Page Covers, and What It Leaves Out
Recommendations across the chapter's five stated goals, the Centers for Disease Control, the Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health, Medicare, Medicaid, insurance markets, abortion funding and bioethics.
The chapter's detailed treatment of clinical laboratory regulation, drug shortages and generic competition, the Administration for Children and Families, Head Start, and many technical payment and waiver items.
This is the longest chapter in the book and contains far more recommendations than are indexed here. Its proposals concerning abortion appear across many of its sections, and are recorded where they are made rather than gathered into one entry.
