A Democratic bill with 25 Democratic cosponsors · See all 25 cosponsors
Last activity — Star Print ordered on the bill.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
The Access to Birth Control Act seeks to amend the Public Health Service Act to establish specific duties for pharmacies regarding contraception. It requires pharmacies that receive FDA-approved contraceptives in interstate commerce to provide these products to customers without delay if they are in stock. If a product is not in stock, the pharmacy must offer options such as transferring a prescription to another pharmacy or placing an expedited order. The bill also mandates that pharmacies maintain an environment free from intimidation, harassment, or deception by employees. Additionally, the Act establishes civil penalties and a private right of action for pharmacies that violate these requirements.
Yes· 3 of 18
- Scored +9
Would women be better off under this?
The bill is fundamentally designed to protect and ensure women's access to reproductive healthcare.
- Scored +8
Does this make health care easier to get in general?
The bill improves healthcare access by requiring pharmacies to provide contraceptives without delay and offering options for out-of-stock items.
- Scored +7
Does this narrow the gap between how men and women are treated?
The bill supports reproductive autonomy and reduces barriers to essential healthcare for women.
The opposite
- Scored -4
Would business owners be better off under this?
Pharmacies may face increased operational requirements and potential civil penalties or lawsuits.
- Scored -3
Does this protect the freedom to practise a religion?
The bill explicitly limits the use of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act as a defense against these pharmacy requirements.
- Scored -2
Does this leave more decisions to the states?
The bill limits the ability of individual states or religious exemptions to restrict these pharmacy duties.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Improved Access to Contraception: Pharmacies must provide contraceptives or related medications without delay if they are in stock, ensuring customers receive their requested products promptly (Section 3, subsection a, clause 1).
-
Support for Out-of-Stock Requests: If a pharmacy stocks contraception but does not have a specific item on hand, they must offer to locate a preferred pharmacy, transfer the prescription, or place an expedited order for the customer (Section 3, subsection a, clause 2).
-
Protection of Customer Environment and Privacy: The bill prohibits pharmacies from operating environments where customers are intimidated or harassed, and it prevents employees from breaching medical confidentiality or deceiving customers about medication (Section 3, subsection a, clause 3).
-
Accountability for Refusals: The bill creates a system of accountability through civil penalties of up to $1,000 per day and a private right of action that allows aggrieved individuals to seek relief, including actual and punitive damages (Section 3, subsection f).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Restrictions on Professional Judgment: A pharmacy may still refuse to provide contraception if an employee makes a refusal based on a professional clinical judgment in accordance with prevailing medical standards (Section 3, subsection c, clause 3).
-
Financial Barriers Remain: The bill does not prevent a pharmacy from refusing to provide a contraceptive if the customer is unable to pay for it (Section 3, subsection c, clause 2).
-
Prescription Requirements: Pharmacies are still permitted to refuse to dispense a contraceptive if the customer does not present a valid, lawful prescription (Section 3, subsection c, clause 1).
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would women be better off under this? — The bill is fundamentally designed to protect and ensure women's access to reproductive healthcare. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — The bill directly addresses barriers noted in the findings regarding Hispanic women's access to contraception. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — The bill addresses healthcare disparities that often affect Black communities. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — Improved access helps mitigate challenges reported by Asian American individuals in accessing contraception. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — The bill benefits women in their reproductive years, including those in the middle-aged bracket. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — The bill addresses systemic inequities that impact Native American access to healthcare. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Young adults are a major demographic for contraceptive use and will benefit from improved access. Would immigrants be better off under this? — Improved access and reduced barriers help immigrants navigate the healthcare system more effectively. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Increased pharmacy accountability helps ensure reliable access for those who may face barriers. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Access to medication without delay benefits middle-class families managing healthcare needs. Would students be better off under this? — Students often rely on accessible pharmacy services for reproductive health. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — The mandate for pharmacies to assist with transfers or expedited orders specifically benefits those in areas with limited options. Would business owners be better off under this? — Pharmacies may face increased operational requirements and potential civil penalties or lawsuits.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this protect people from being watched or searched? — The bill explicitly protects medical confidentiality regarding contraceptive requests. Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill expands federal oversight of pharmacy practices regarding the provision of contraception. Does this leave more decisions to the states? — The bill limits the ability of individual states or religious exemptions to restrict these pharmacy duties.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this narrow the gap between how men and women are treated? — The bill supports reproductive autonomy and reduces barriers to essential healthcare for women. Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — The bill addresses systemic inequities by ensuring easier access to contraception, which the findings suggest disproportionately affects communities of color. Does this protect the freedom to practise a religion? — The bill explicitly limits the use of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act as a defense against these pharmacy requirements.
- Healthcare
- Does this make health care easier to get in general? — The bill improves healthcare access by requiring pharmacies to provide contraceptives without delay and offering options for out-of-stock items.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — The bill enhances consumer protection by establishing duties for pharmacies to provide contraception and creating a private right of action for violations.
- 1/28/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 8/1/2025
- Star Print ordered on the bill.
- 7/28/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 7/21/2025
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 7/16/2025
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
- 21 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in Senate
2 bills Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Angela AlsobrooksDemocrat · Maryland
Tammy BaldwinDemocrat · Wisconsin
Richard BlumenthalDemocrat · Connecticut
Christopher CoonsDemocrat · Delaware
Tammy DuckworthDemocrat · Illinois
Kirsten GillibrandDemocrat · New York
Mazie HironoDemocrat · Hawaii
Martin HeinrichDemocrat · New Mexico
Amy KlobucharDemocrat · Minnesota
Timothy KaineDemocrat · Virginia
Andy KimDemocrat · New Jersey
Edward MarkeyDemocrat · Massachusetts
Patty MurrayDemocrat · Washington
Christopher MurphyDemocrat · Connecticut
Jeff MerkleyDemocrat · Oregon
Alex PadillaDemocrat · California
Jacky RosenDemocrat · Nevada
Adam SchiffDemocrat · California
Jeanne ShaheenDemocrat · New Hampshire
Tina SmithDemocrat · Minnesota
Chris Van HollenDemocrat · Maryland
Ron WydenDemocrat · Oregon
Sheldon WhitehouseDemocrat · Rhode Island
Mark WarnerDemocrat · Virginia
Elizabeth WarrenDemocrat · Massachusetts