“If the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) were a separate country, its approximately $1.6 trillion budget would rank as the world’s fifth-largest national budget. (Project 2025, Section 3.5: Department of Health and Human Services, Roger Severino, page 481, paragraph 1.) 

Is this true? More or less. The HHS budget is slightly higher now. [Source for the country rankings]¹

“Under President Trump, HHS was dedicated to serving “all Americans from conception to natural death, including those individuals and families who face…economic and social well-being challenges.” (Project 2025, Section 3.5: Department of Health and Human Services, Roger Severino, page 481, paragraph 1.)

WOW. The ellipsis is his, by the way, not mine. “We even cared about the poors!” The notion that the Trump administration cared about any Americans’ health and well-being is not supported by any evidence. There is, however, an abundance of evidence to the contrary. Under Trump:

• More than 450,000 Americans are dead from COVID-19, in part because of his lying and mishandling of it. COVID-19 mortality in the U.S. was 40% higher than the average of the other wealthy nations in the G7.
• Life expectancy fell by 1.13 years, the biggest decrease since World War II.
• Regulatory rollbacks resulted in 22,000 excess deaths from such hazards in 2019 alone.
• Trump pushed through a $1.9 trillion tax cut for the wealthy, creating a budget hole that he then used to justify cutting food and housing assistance for the needy.
• He tried, but failed, to repeal the ACA, then made every effort to undermine it, pushing up the number of uninsured Americans by 2.3 million.
• He denied entry to refugees fleeing violence, abused immigrant detainees, and penalized immigrants for accessing basic social services.

Source: Scientific American²

Don’t forget how badly unemployment skyrocketed under Trump during the pandemic – because it was handled MUCH worse compared with other nations:

“Had the United States unemployment rate followed the same trajectory as those of its peers, millions more Americans would still be employed. Based on the percent changes in unemployment rates, between 17 and 18 million more Americans would still have their jobs if the United States had experienced changes in unemployment rate similar to those of Australia, Germany, or South Korea. And even if the United States had followed a slightly worse trajectory, like that of Canada, at least 11 million fewer people would be unemployed.” [Source]³

This research paper abstract by the Lancet Commission doesn’t mince words:

“Trump exploited low and middle-income white people’s anger over their deteriorating life prospects to mobilize racial animus and xenophobia and enlist their support for policies that benefit high-income people and corporations and threaten health. His signature legislative achievement, a trillion-dollar tax cut for corporations and high-income individuals, opened a budget hole that he used to justify cutting food subsidies and health care. His appeals to racism, nativism, and religious bigotry have emboldened white nationalists and vigilantes, and encouraged police violence and, at the end of his term in office, insurrection.” [Source]⁴

Need more?

“The Trump administration dismantled economic, health and social safety nets, making it harder for people to obtain health insurance. In 2019, over 34,000 U.S. deaths were associated with lack of health coverage, the commission estimated.

When the pandemic escalated in 2020, Trump mocked masking, spread disinformation and undermined science. He also blocked public health measures that would have helped protect people from the disease and forced states to compete for safety supplies for health workers.” [Source]⁵

And this is to say nothing of the additional terrible public health policies under Trump. I haven’t even touched on overturning Roe v. Wade, which has had catastrophic repercussions for women’s health⁶. Among the items listed proving that the Trump administration not only didn’t care about the health and well-being of the American people, but actively tried to make things worse for them?

• Rolled back Obama-era efforts to serve nutritious foods to students, putting kids’ health at risk.
• Removed protections for trans students.
• Did nothing about gun violence. Gun violence is now the leading cause of death⁴⁹ in US children and teens.
• Repealed educational standards.
• Signed a tax bill that shafted low-income families.
• Eliminated two federal programs that prevent lead-related brain damage in children.
• Refused to ban a pesticide that causes brain damage.
• Dialed back protections for people who live near chemical plants.
• Deleted warnings about climate change from government websites.
• Cut funding for teen pregnancy prevention.
• Allowed health insurance companies to sell junk health care plans that lacked coverage for essentials like prescriptions and maternity care.

[Source]⁷

That’s a partial list. Trump rolled back environmental regulations. He sabotaged the Affordable Care Act. He strengthened the ability of healthcare providers to claim religious exemptions¹⁵ from providing all kinds of medical care, from abortion to birth control to vasectomies to gender-affirming care. He was, in short, a complete nightmare for public health and well-being. But by all means, DO go on, Mr. Severino. He does:

“Under President Biden, the mission has shifted to “promoting equity in everything we do” for the sake of “populations sharing a particular characteristic” including race, sexuality, gender identification, ethnicity, and a host of other categories.” (Project 2025, Section 3.5: Department of Health and Human Services, Roger Severino, page 481, paragraph 1.)

In this context, “equity” means ensuring fair access to health care and social services for underserved populations. This was the goal of the Biden Administration’s efforts, which appears to offend Severino. The focus on equity aims to reduce disparities in health outcomes based on factors such as race, gender, income, and geographic location. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the administration emphasized equitable vaccine distribution to communities of color and rural areas that were disproportionately affected.

By “populations sharing a particular characteristic”, he’s talking about the focus on specific populations that have historically faced disparities in health outcomes, including racial and ethnic minorities, LGBTQ+ individuals, and others. The goal is to address these issues by improving access to care, combating discrimination in healthcare settings, and ensuring that public health initiatives are inclusive of all communities. This approach includes efforts to improve maternal health for women of color, address mental health and provide addiction services in underserved areas, and support LGBTQ+ health initiatives.

The phrase “for the sake of” implies that equity efforts are purely political or symbolic, rather than addressing real and documented health disparities. However, there is significant evidence that certain groups – such as racial minorities and LGBTQ+ individuals – face worse health outcomes⁵⁰ due to factors like discrimination, lower access to healthcare, and higher rates of chronic conditions.

So, we can conclude here that Severino is completely ignoring the facts in favor of an ineffectual “colorblind” strategy that does nothing to reduce bad health outcomes for minorities.

“As a result of HHS’s having lost its way, U.S. life expectancy, instead of returning to normal after the COVID-19 pandemic, continued to drop precipitously to levels not seen since 1996 with white populations alone losing 7 percent of their expected life span in just one year.” (Project 2025, Section 3.5: Department of Health and Human Services, Roger Severino, page 481, paragraph 2.)

This is misleading with the facts, and false with the blame.

It is true that U.S. life expectancy has dropped significantly during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)⁸, life expectancy in the U.S. fell by 1.8 years in 2020, largely due to COVID-19. By 2021, it had dropped further by nearly 2.7 years, marking the sharpest two-year decline since 1921-1923, when the Spanish flu was still affecting the population. (But that still doesn’t represent a 7% drop, as Severino claims.)

COVID-19 was a major contributor, but so were other factors, including increases in drug overdoses⁹ (especially opioid-related deaths), higher rates of homicide, and chronic diseases like heart disease and diabetes.

Life expectancy drops in 2020 were even more pronounced for racial minorities¹⁰, especially Black and Hispanic Americans.

Severino’s statement implies that the HHS is responsible for the decline in life expectancy, but this is misleading. The primary causes of the decline – COVID-19, the opioid crisis, and other public health crises – are multifactorial and cannot be blamed solely on the HHS or government policy.

The U.S. health system’s longstanding issues, such as inequities in access to healthcare, rising chronic disease rates, and the opioid epidemic, have all contributed to this life expectancy decline. Many of these problems predate both the COVID-19 pandemic and the Biden administration.

More reasons that life expectancy hasn’t “returned to normal”?

• Long-term effects of COVID-19 (a.k.a. “long COVID”¹¹)
• Health care disruptions during the pandemic, which led to delays in treatments and diagnoses for other conditions
• The continuing opioid crisis, which contributed to over 107,000 overdose deaths¹² in 2021 alone
• Economic and social stressors that worsened mental health and contributed to rising suicide rates

“One of the most dramatic drops in life expectancy in 2021 was among American Indian and Alaska Native people. Between 2019 and 2021, the life expectancy for this population fell by 6.6 years, to 65.2.

“That’s horrific,” Woolf says. “The losses in the Native American population have been terrible during the COVID-19 pandemic. And it reflects a lot of barriers that tribal communities face in getting access to care,” he says.”[Source]¹³

That sounds like a problem that might have been helped by equity programs, doesn’t it? By the way, U.S. life expectancy has risen every single year of the Biden administration¹⁴, and opioid overdoses have dropped precipitously.⁵¹

“From the moment of conception, every human being possesses inherent dignity and worth, and our humanity does not depend on our age, stage of development, race, or abilities. The Secretary must ensure that all HHS programs and activities are rooted in a deep respect for innocent human life from day one until natural death: Abortion and euthanasia are not health care.” (Project 2025, Section 3.5: Department of Health and Human Services, Roger Severino, page 482, paragraph 2.)

Severino isn’t explicitly calling for a federal abortion ban, here (more for distancing the federal government from supporting abortion in any form), so I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt (ish) for now. (Spoiler: He calls for the equivalent of a federal abortion ban later in this section.) Let’s talk about the facts.

Abortion IS health care.

“Pregnancy imposes significant physiological changes on a person’s body. These changes can exacerbate underlying or preexisting conditions, like renal or cardiac disease, and can severely compromise health or even cause death. Determining the appropriate medical intervention depends on a patient’s specific condition. There are situations where pregnancy termination in the form of an abortion is the only medical intervention that can preserve a patient’s health or save their life.

“As physicians, we are focused on protecting the health and lives of the patients for whom we provide care. Without question, abortion can be medically necessary.” [Source]¹⁵

In other words, when it’s time to choose between a living, breathing woman and an unborn fetus’s life? THE WOMAN TAKES PRECEDENCE. Always. If you save a woman’s life, you’re enabling her to potentially have healthy children in the future if she so chooses. You’re enabling her to continue to be a mother her existing children, if she has them. Most importantly, you’re allowing her to LIVE.

The word “abortion” is politically charged, but it is medical terminology that refers to any fetus not carried to full term¹⁶. This means that miscarriages, ectopic pregnancies, and more, are medically coded as abortions. Ectopic pregnancies, if not treated in a timely fashion, threaten the mother’s life, and the fetus at that stage is nearly never viable.

“If the embryo or fetus dies and the body naturally expels all the products of conception, it is termed “complete abortion.” If some of the products pass, but some parts of the fetus, placenta, or membranes are retained, it is called an “incomplete abortion.” An “inevitable abortion” is the scenario when the cervix has dilated in preparation for expulsion, but has not yet done so.

A “missed abortion” is when a fetus has died (not proximately, usually days to weeks ago), but the body does not proceed to expel the nonviable intrauterine pregnancy. A “septic abortion” is a result of intrauterine infection following an abortion. Finally, a “threatened abortion” is vaginal bleeding in pregnancy before 20 weeks with a closed cervix (i.e., not an inevitable abortion). A total of 25 percent of pregnancies have some bleeding in early pregnancy, and approximately half of these progress to abortion.

There are other complications of pregnancy that can result in the need for removal of nonviable products of conception. These include a blighted ovum, in which an early embryo never develops or arrests, and a hydatidiform mole (AKA molar pregnancy), when a noncancerous tumor forms instead of a healthy placenta.”

There are a LOT of reasons abortion care is medically necessary. The result of not receiving this care, for women, is harm to their future fertility, infection, mental and physical trauma, and sometimes death. You can feel however you want to about elective abortion, but the fact remains that abortion in general is a necessary part of routine health care for women. Moreover, abortion being legal, safe, and sometimes necessary does not force anyone with moral objections to have elective abortions. Make decisions for yourself, not for others. I touch on why abortion bans don’t work in Section 2.6¹⁷.

Euthanasia is not legal in the United States. Assisted suicide is legal in Washington, D.C., California, Colorado, Oregon, Vermont, New Mexico, Maine, New Jersey, Hawaii, and Washington, and there are ethical constructs around when it’s appropriate. [Source]¹⁸ I’m guessing this is an issue that Severino would prefer NOT to have left up to the states.

“Radical actors inside and outside government are promoting harmful identity politics that replaces biological sex with subjective notions of “gender identity” and bases a person’s worth on his or her race, sex, or other identities.” (Project 2025, Section 3.5: Department of Health and Human Services, Roger Severino, page 482, paragraph 4.)

By “basing their worth”, Severino is implying that “radical actors” are valuing or assessing individuals based on characteristics like race, sex, gender identity, or other personal identities, rather than on individual abilities, actions, or merits.

A look at the way Olympic boxer Imane Khelif was treated by conservatives reveals that this is complete garbage. It was certainly not liberals or “radical actors” who accused Khelif of being transgender and harassed her mercilessly, ignoring her actual abilities, actions, talents, and merits, and making everything about her entirely about a gender identity that they’d completely fabricated in their minds (Khelif is not trans, conservatives simply deemed her “insufficiently female” for their liking.) If Severino were projecting any harder, here, he’d be on the moon.

“Right-wing extremists — including Donald Trump, J.D. Vance, Elon Musk — alongside gender-binary zealots like J.K. Rowling are currently hurling vitriol at a cis woman boxer, Imane Khelif of Algeria, following the athlete’s swift defeat of her Italian opponent in an Olympic match in Paris on Thursday. Khelif is a female athlete who was deemed by the International Olympic Committee to be eligible to compete. She is only the latest woman of color in sports to be deemed insufficiently female by a right-wing commentariat obsessed with forging the strictest gender binaries, contrary to social, biological, and medical realities.” [Source]¹⁹

Severino goes on to simper about nuclear families, but I’ll wait until he suggests actual policies to discuss that at length. Suffice it to say, he – and by extension the Heritage Foundation – believe that the only valid type of family are those made up of a married man and woman, with biological children. He attacks President Biden for “focusing on ‘LGBTQ+ equity,’ subsidizing single motherhood, disincentivizing work, and penalizing marriage” – but offers no examples of Biden’s policies that do any of the last three things.

“In the context of current and emerging reproductive technologies, HHS policies should never place the desires of adults over the right of children to be raised by the biological fathers and mothers who conceive them.” (Project 2025, Section 3.5: Department of Health and Human Services, Roger Severino, page 483, paragraph 3.)

This is an argument against certain types of IVF, surrogacy, adoption, and use of donor gametes to create families.

On to the specific recommendations:

He begins by trashing the CDC (Center for Disease Control), blaming them for mishandling COVID:

“COVID-19 exposed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) as perhaps the most incompetent and arrogant agency in the federal government. CDC continually misjudged COVID-19, from its lethality, transmissibility, and origins to treatments. We were told masks were not needed; then they were made mandatory. CDC botched the development of COVID tests when they were needed most. When it was too late, we were told to put our lives on hold for “two weeks to flatten the curve;” that turned into two years of interference and restrictions on the smallest details of our lives.” (Project 2025, Section 3.5: Department of Health and Human Services, Roger Severino, page 484, paragraph 6.)

The CDC did make some missteps, but calling it “perhaps the most incompetent and arrogant agency” is a significant overstatement.

The CDC, along with other health agencies, had to continuously update its understanding of the virus as new data emerged. Early in the pandemic, the full extent of COVID-19’s transmissibility and lethality was not well understood, leading to frequent updates in guidelines. This is typical in a rapidly evolving situation, though it caused confusion and frustration. Science changes its mind in the face of new evidence.

“Science is not the truth. Science is finding the truth. When science changes its opinion, it didn’t lie to you. It learned more.” – Brene Brown

We still don’t know the origins of the virus and never have, so for Severino to indicate that the CDC “misjudged” the origins is a lie. They haven’t judged them at all (although zoonotic transmission or a lab leak are leading theories.)

Early in the pandemic, the CDC and the World Health Organization (WHO) did not recommend masks for the general public. This was partly due to a desire to reserve masks for healthcare workers and partly due to a limited understanding of how COVID-19 spread (it was initially believed to spread primarily through droplets rather than aerosols). As more data became available, the CDC revised its guidelines and recommended masks. While this led to public confusion, it reflects the evolving nature of scientific guidance, not necessarily incompetence.

Severino is also COMPLETELY ignoring Trump’s harmful and untruthful messaging²⁰ about the pandemic, which had a much broader reach than any direction from any government agency.

“We have learned that when CDC says what people “should” do, it readily becomes a “must” backed by severe punishments, including criminal penalties.” (Project 2025, Section 3.5: Department of Health and Human Services, Roger Severino, page 486, paragraph 3.)

This is patently false. The CDC’s guidance and recommendations are advisory, not legally binding. The CDC doesn’t make laws. The enforcement of public health measures typically comes from state or local governments, not the CDC itself, which lacks the authority to impose any measures or penalties.

“There is never any justification for ending a child’s life as part of research, and the research benefits from splicing or growing aborted fetal cells and aborted baby body parts can easily be provided by alternative sources. All such research should be prohibited as a matter of law and policy.” (Project 2025, Section 3.5: Department of Health and Human Services, Roger Severino, page 487, paragraph 2.)

This is a recommendation for banning stem cell research and other types of research using fetal cells. I touch on this in Section 3²¹ quite a bit, so I won’t repeat that argument here – please do read it if you’re interested in how this type of research works and how banning it would impact society.

His assertion that children’s lives are “ended as part of research” is a bald-faced lie. There are ethical constructs surrounding how and when fetal cells can be used for research, and in the case of elective abortion, it is always arranged after the abortion was already decided upon and finalized. In the United States, laws regarding fetal tissue collection for research require informed consent from the woman donating the tissue, prohibit the buying and selling of fetal tissue for profit, and mandate that the collection process cannot influence the timing or method of an abortion to obtain the tissue; all governed under federal regulations outlined in the Public Health Service Act (PHSA) Section 498A and 498B²².

“Accurate and reliable statistical data about abortion, abortion survivors, and abortion-related maternal deaths are essential to timely, reliable public health and policy analysis.” (Project 2025, Section 3.5: Department of Health and Human Services, Roger Severino, page 487, paragraph 4.)

I would argue that if you want to distance the federal government completely from abortion, then the federal government shouldn’t be entitled to any state data on the subject. Also, “reliable public health and policy analyis”? I thought abortion wasn’t health care, Severino. As I said in an earlier section, it’s almost like the author knows he’s completely full of shit.

FYI, the reason he wants the data is so the federal government can cut off Medicaid and other funding to states that allow abortion, as well as potentially criminally punish women who travel to get abortions from states where it is banned. This is why he wants WAY more data than is anyone’s business:

“Because liberal states have now become sanctuaries for abortion tourism, 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, at what gestational age of the child, for what reason, the mother’s state of residence, and by what method.” (Project 2025, Section 3.5: Department of Health and Human Services, Roger Severino, page 487, paragraph 5.)

“Miscarriage management or standard ectopic pregnancy treatments should never be conflated with abortion.” (Project 2025, Section 3.5: Department of Health and Human Services, Roger Severino, page 487, paragraph 5.)

Except that they literally, medically, are coded as abortions, and often require the very abortion drugs that Severino goes on to recommend banning.

“The CDC should immediately end its collection of data on gender identity, which legitimizes the unscientific notion that men can become women (and vice versa) and encourages the phenomenon of ever-multiplying subjective identities.” (Project 2025, Section 3.5: Department of Health and Human Services, Roger Severino, page 488, paragraph 3.)

More of the Bruno Strategy at work, here. “If we don’t count transgender people, they don’t exist!” In this case, it’s a way of codifying into law the idea that transgender people are not people. They literally “don’t count.”

Severino goes on to recommend making it easier to produce generic versions of name-brand drugs (okay, sounds fine), then he makes a number of false and misleading claims about chemical abortions (a.k.a., “the abortion pill”), which leads into his calling for those being banned:

“FDA should therefore: Reverse its approval of chemical abortion drugs.” (Project 2025, Section 3.5: Department of Health and Human Services, Roger Severino, page 490, paragraphs 2 & 3.)

He argues that the safety of these drugs were never studied, which isn’t true and in fact, it’s a lame argument – why lie? If you want to ban chemical abortion, own that it’s because you’re anti-choice, don’t make some mealy-mouthed fake argument about its safety.

In fact, chemical abortion is quite safe, and ends early pregnancies safely and usually at home²³. Most chemical abortions present as a late and heavy period. These types of drugs are also used to treat miscarriages that haven’t expelled yet, so that the woman doesn’t develop sepsis and other infections related to carrying dead tissue inside her body.

This recommendation equates to a federal abortion ban – over half of all abortions performed in the United States²³ are chemical abortions that are in very early stages of pregnancy.

How safe are medication abortions?

“There is less than a 0.4% risk of serious complications, according to a 2013 review article published in Contraception. From 2000 to June 2022, there have been 28 deaths out of 5.6 million women who have taken mifepristone, according to the FDA. However, “these events can not with certainty be causally attributed to mifepristone” for various reasons, the FDA says.” Source: Yale Medicine and the FDA²⁴

That’s 5 deaths per million users. By contrast, penicillin has 20 deaths per million users, and Viagra has 49 deaths per million users. [Source]²⁵

“Now that the Supreme Court has acknowledged that the Constitution contains no right to an abortion, the FDA is ethically and legally obliged to revisit and withdraw its initial approval, which was premised on pregnancy being an “illness” and abortion being “therapeutically” effective at treating this “illness.”” (Project 2025, Section 3.5: Department of Health and Human Services, Roger Severino, page 490, paragraph 4.)

This is also a flat-out lie. The FDA has never officially classified pregnancy as an “illness” in the way the statement suggests. The FDA approved mifepristone (used in chemical abortions) in 2000 under a regulatory framework known as Subpart H, which was designed for drugs that treat “serious or life-threatening illnesses.” Critics of the FDA’s decision sometimes argue that by using this regulatory pathway, the FDA implied that pregnancy is an “illness.” However, the FDA has not explicitly stated that pregnancy itself is an “illness”; rather, the pathway was used to facilitate the approval of the medication because of its importance in certain medical situations.

The FDA likely used this pathway because it allowed for the monitoring of drug safety and the imposition of certain restrictions, like requiring healthcare provider certification and patient agreements.

Claiming that the FDA is “legally and ethically obliged to withdraw approval” following Dobbs vs. Jackson (which overturned Roe v. Wade) is also a lie. The FDA’s drug approval process is based on scientific evidence about safety and effectiveness, not on the legal status of abortion in different states. The Supreme Court’s ruling doesn’t change the FDA’s approval criteria for mifepristone or require them to reconsider their approval.

Incidentally, these drugs (primarily misoprostol and mifepristone), are medically indicated for uses other than chemical abortion. Mifepristone is additionally used to control high blood sugar (hyperglycemia)²⁶ in patients with Cushing’s syndrome who also have type 2 diabetes. Misoprostol is used to treat ulcers, and to induce natural labor²⁷.

He goes on to further mischaracterize and misrepresent research practices using fetal tissue (I talk more about that in Section 3.²¹)

“Because the male-female dyad is essential to human nature and because every child has a right to a mother and father, three-parent embryo creation and human cloning research should be banned.” (Project 2025, Section 3.5: Department of Health and Human Services, Roger Severino, page 493, paragraph 5.)

This mischaracterizes the purpose of “three-parent embryo creation.”

What it IS, is removing the nucleus from a mother’s egg and placing it into a donor egg with healthy mitochondria, which is then fertilized by the father. The goal is to prevent mothers from passing on genetic illnesses that they’re aware they carry (and are caused by mitochondrial disease.) Examples of mitochondrial diseases that babies can inherit include MELAS syndrome, Kearns-Sayre syndrome, Leigh syndrome, neuropathy, ataxia, NARP, Pearson syndrome, and more. This practice enables women who carry hereditary genetic diseases to have healthy biological children.

“Finally, HHS needs to restore and enhance conscience protection regulations that allow medical practitioners to participate in federal health care programs without being compelled to provide sex changes or similar services.” (Project 2025, Section 3.5: Department of Health and Human Services, Roger Severino, page 496, paragraph 5.)

This is another lie. There’s nothing to “restore.”

No, medical practitioners in the U.S. are not being compelled to provide gender-affirming care, including services related to sex changes, under federal law. The ACA’s anti-discrimination practices hold that providers and insurance companies cannot discriminate against patients seeking gender-affirming care. They do NOT require individual medical practitioners to personally perform procedures, such as sex reassignment surgeries, if it goes against their religious or moral beliefs. These are referred to collectively as “conscience protection laws”²⁸, and they’ve been around since the 1970’s.

What he’s likely referring to, is that under the Trump Administration, the HHS Office for Civil Rights expanded these conscience protections through a new Conscience and Religious Freedom Division, issuing rules to allow broader refusals for certain services, including gender-affirming care. However, some aspects of these rules were struck down by courts. The Biden Administration has moved to revise or roll back some of these conscience protections, especially in the context of gender-affirming care, but the fundamental conscience protection laws like the Church, Weldon, and the Coats-Snowe Amendments remain in effect.

“Repeal harmful health policies enacted under the Obama and Biden Administrations such as the Medicare Shared Savings Program and Inflation Reduction Act.” (Project 2025, Section 3.5: Department of Health and Human Services, Roger Severino, page 497, paragraph 12.)

Obviously this would result in higher prescription drug prices, loss of savings programs, inequality in health care access, and more. Severino proposes no alternatives here. “…reforms that will have meaningful impact for seniors should be pursued.”

“Clarify that states have the ability to adopt work incentives for able-bodied individuals (similar to what is required in other welfare programs) and the ability to broaden the application of targeted premiums and cost sharing to higher-income enrollees.” (Project 2025, Section 3.5: Department of Health and Human Services, Roger Severino, page 500, paragraph 3.)

This one is blink-and-you’ll-miss-it. He’s arguing for tying Medicaid benefits to work requirements, especially for able-bodied people, and likens Medicaid to a “welfare program.”

The ability to apply premiums and cost-sharing to higher-income enrollees suggests that some beneficiaries might face additional financial responsibilities based on their income, which can further complicate access to care.

Implementing targeted time limits or lifetime caps on benefits aims to prevent long-term dependence on Medicaid. This could mean that beneficiaries might only be eligible for coverage for a certain period, incentivizing them to find work or transition off Medicaid.

“CMS should add flexibility to eliminate obsolete mandatory and optional benefit requirements and, for able-bodied recipients, eliminate benefit mandates that exceed those in the private market. This should include flexibility to redesign eligibility, financing, and service delivery of long-term care to serve the most vulnerable and truly needy and eliminate middle-income to upper-income Medicaid recipients.” (Project 2025, Section 3.5: Department of Health and Human Services, Roger Severino, page 500, paragraph 6.)

This one requires some unpacking to fully explain.

“Flexibility to eliminate obsolete mandatory and optional benefit requirements” refers to giving states more control to cut or change certain Medicaid benefits that may no longer be considered necessary. This could mean reducing coverage for services that are currently mandatory or optional under federal rules, but are deemed outdated or redundant. This is another example of something that shouldn’t be left up to states to decide.

The proposal suggests that able-bodied recipients should not receive benefits that exceed what is available in the private market. In practice, this means:

• Fewer Medicaid benefits for able-bodied adults: States would be encouraged to limit the range of services for these individuals to align with what private health plans typically cover, potentially cutting services like dental, vision, or more comprehensive treatments that Medicaid might currently offer.
• Aligning Medicaid with private insurance: Benefits for able-bodied individuals could be reduced to a level similar to what people would get if they purchased private insurance, reducing Medicaid’s role in providing more extensive or unique coverage.

Redesigning eligibility, financing, and service delivery of long-term care is aimed at refocusing Medicaid’s long-term care (LTC) services, such as nursing homes or home-based care. In practice, this could mean:

• Tightening eligibility for long-term care: States could restrict LTC services, making it harder for middle- and upper-income individuals to qualify for Medicaid LTC benefits, ensuring the program primarily serves low-income and severely disabled individuals.
• Changing how LTC is funded: The proposal could shift more responsibility for LTC costs to wealthier individuals or their families, rather than having Medicaid cover these expenses.

Eliminating middle- and upper-income recipients from Medicaid suggests narrowing eligibility so that people with higher incomes (even those who may have qualified previously due to high medical costs) would no longer be able to access Medicaid. In practice, this means:

• Middle- or upper-income individuals who previously qualified for Medicaid benefits, particularly through complex eligibility rules like “spend-down” programs, would be excluded.
• Potentially fewer long-term care services for wealthier individuals: These individuals may have to rely on private insurance or personal funds for LTC, rather than Medicaid covering those costs.

To sum up, able-bodied Medicaid recipients could lose access to their benefits, leading to gaps in health care coverage and care quality. Fewer people would qualify for Medicaid in the first place, potentially leaving millions without affordable care options. Wealthier individuals may face greater financial burdens for long-term care, either needing to purchase private insurance or pay out of pocket for care that Medicaid no longer covers. By cutting benefits and tightening eligibility, this approach could disproportionately affect vulnerable populations, leading to greater healthcare disparities.

In short, the practical effect would be a more restricted Medicaid program that serves fewer people and offers fewer services.

Well, what do you mean by “wealthier individuals”?

In the context of discussing Medicaid eligibility, “wealthier” is a relative term. It doesn’t mean extremely rich people, but rather those who fall in middle- to upper-income brackets compared to traditional Medicaid recipients. Medicaid is primarily designed for low-income individuals and families, so “wealthier” in this context means people whose income or assets disqualify them from standard Medicaid benefits but who might have qualified under certain special eligibility rules, such as for long-term care.

In practical terms, who are we talking about, here?

• These could be people who are not extremely poor but are not wealthy either – for example, a retired couple with modest savings and a home. In some cases, they may have been able to “spend down” their income or assets to qualify for Medicaid long-term care benefits, but under stricter rules, they would no longer be eligible.
• People who might have a higher annual income or assets that put them above the standard thresholds for Medicaid, but who, under current rules, may have still qualified for specific Medicaid services, like long-term care, by utilizing certain legal strategies such as setting up trusts, transferring assets, or using Medicaid planning.

For 2024, the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) for a family of four is $30,000. Medicaid often uses multiples of this number to set income eligibility limits. In many states, Medicaid long-term care is available for those with income up to 300% of the FPL ($90,000 for a family of four), but these limits vary depending on the state. (And if you recall, Severino is proposing leaving it up to the states, who could set arbitrary limits excluding almost everyone.)

Who is considered “wealthier” when we’re talking about long-term care?

• Income limits: Medicaid for long-term care often has higher income limits than traditional Medicaid. For example, someone could qualify with an income under $2,742 per month ($32,904 per year) for institutional care, but stricter reforms might exclude individuals at this level.
• Asset limits: Medicaid typically has strict asset limits (like $2,000 for a single individual), but with long-term care, certain assets, such as homes, might be excluded from this calculation. Medicaid reform could target these exclusions and force middle- and upper-income individuals to pay for long-term care out of pocket or through private insurance.

In summary, the “wealthier individuals” referenced in the proposal could include those who fall just above the traditional Medicaid thresholds but aren’t considered wealthy in the broader sense—people with some assets or moderate income who might have qualified for Medicaid long-term care services. The reforms aim to eliminate access for these middle- and upper-income groups, leaving Medicaid primarily for the lowest-income individuals. Unless, of course, you’re a lowest-income individual in a state that provides abortions.

“Revisit the No Surprises Act on surprise medical billing. The No Surprises Act protected consumers against balance bills, but it also established a deeply flawed system for resolving payment disputes between insurers and providers.” (Project 2025, Section 3.5: Department of Health and Human Services, Roger Severino, page 501, paragraph 3.)

Surprise! They’re bringing back being blindsided by enormous medical bills!

This proposal is good for health care providers and insurance companies, but bad for people. Which, unlike your future medical bills, is not a surprise. Speaking of bad for people:

“Separate the subsidized ACA exchange market from the non-subsidized insurance market. The Affordable Care Act has made insurance more expensive and less competitive, and the ACA subsidy scheme simply masks these impacts.” (Project 2025, Section 3.5: Department of Health and Human Services, Roger Severino, page 501, paragraph 5.)

The consequences of separating the subsidized market (Affordable Care Act) exchange market from the non-subsidized insurance market would likely result in higher premiums in the non-subsidized market for people who don’t qualify for ACA subsidies. Without the ACA’s regulatory mandates (such as protections for pre-existing conditions or essential health benefits), insurers in the non-subsidized market will almost certainly charge more, offer plans with fewer benefits, or go back to dropping people with pre-existing conditions. This is another example of good for insurance companies, bad for people.

“Prohibit abortion travel funding. Providing funding for abortions increases the number of abortions and violates the conscience and religious freedom rights of Americans who object to subsidizing the taking of life.” (Project 2025, Section 3.5: Department of Health and Human Services, Roger Severino, page 503, paragraph 2.)

In 2022, post-Roe v. Wade being overturned, the Biden Administration signed an executive order²⁹ to allow Medicaid to help women seeking abortions in states where it is banned, to travel to states where they can receive medical care. The Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel issued a legal opinion that the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits using federal funds to pay for an abortion, only applies to the abortion itself, not to travel.

This is to say nothing of the fact that we are supposed to have separation of church and state in this country, and women need not concern themselves with whether or not their health care decisions “violate” someone else’s conscience. It CERTAINLY doesn’t violate someone else’s “religious freedom rights” to make health care choices for oneself. It violates someone’s freedom to dictate what their choices are. Religous concerns shouldn’t enter into the kinds of health care services we offer as a country. Your religion dictates what YOU should do, not what everyone else should do.

“Prohibit Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid funds.” (Project 2025, Section 3.5: Department of Health and Human Services, Roger Severino, page 503, paragraph 4.)

This isn’t going to result in fewer abortions, it’s just a way to punish the poor. The Hyde Amendment already dictates that no federal funds go towards abortions. So do you know what Planned Parenthood uses that funding for? Cancer screenings. STD and STI tests and treatment. Breast exams. Offering sex education, contraceptives, and birth control options. HIV tests. Pregnancy tests and planning. Prenatal and Postpartum services. Vaccines. Wellness and preventative care.

They provide all of these services affordably to low-income families. Abortions comprise about 3% of the services they provide to patients. [Source]³⁰ This proposal would result in a cut of 40% of their funding. By contrast, about 45% of services provided in FY14-15 at Planned Parenthood clinics were for sexually transmitted infection tests, and 31% were for contraceptive services.

All this proposal would result in is more low-income people with sexually transmitted infections and unwanted pregnancies.

“Withdraw Medicaid funds for states that require abortion insurance or that discriminate in violation of the Weldon Amendment. The Weldon Amendment declares that no HHS funding may go to a state or local government that discriminates against pro-life health entities or insurers. In blatant violation of this law, seven states require abortion coverage in private health insurance plans, and HHS continues to fund those states. HHS under President Trump disallowed $200 million in Medicaid funding from California because of the state’s flouting of the law, but the Biden Administration restored it.” (Project 2025, Section 3.5: Department of Health and Human Services, Roger Severino, page 504, paragraph 6.)

Yanking Medicaid from states that mandate abortion coverage in private insurance plans would result in that entire state’s health care coverage being severely impacted, instantly dumping everyone on Medicaid from coverage through no fault of their own. This is strong-arming and coercion, and disproportionately affects the most vulnerable among us – children, low-income families, the elderly, and the disabled. (And do recall that covering abortion with insurance – since abortion is a medical term – is really just requiring insurance to cover pregnancy-related complications resulting in abortion; meaning that women who miscarry for any reason or have ectopic pregnancies won’t be covered by insurance for those items if their states cave to the government’s mafia tactics here.)

Another consequence would be that healthcare providers in states that lose Medicaid funding may face financial difficulties. Medicaid often reimburses for services provided to low-income patients, and losing those funds would strain providers who rely on that revenue, potentially resulting in staffing cuts, reduced services, or closures of clinics and hospitals, particularly in underserved areas.

Further, do you want state sovereignty, or don’t you, Heritage Foundation? States have historically regulated their own health insurance markets, including what services insurers must cover. By withdrawing Medicaid funds, the federal government would be punishing states for exercising their rights to regulate insurance coverage within their borders. States affected by this would be California, New York, Oregon, Washington, Illinois, Maine, and Vermont. According to Medicaid enrollment by state³¹ numbers, this would instantly dump 26,765,270 Americans off of their health care coverage.

This next part is truly awful:

“In July 2022, HHS/CMS released guidance mandating that EMTALA- covered hospitals and the physicians who work there must perform abortions, to include completing chemical abortions even when the child might still be alive. The guidance also declared that EMTALA would protect physicians and hospitals that perform abortions in violation of state law if they deem those abortions necessary to stabilize the women’s health. This novel interpretation of EMTALA is baseless. EMTALA requires no abortions, preempts no pro-life state laws, and explicitly requires stabilization of the unborn child.

HHS should rescind the guidance and end CMS and state agency investigations into cases of alleged refusals to perform abortions. DOJ should agree to eliminate existing injunctions against pro-life states, withdraw its enforcement lawsuits, and in lawsuits against CMS on the guidance agree to injunctions against CMS and withdraw appeals of injunctions.” (Project 2025, Section 3.5: Department of Health and Human Services, Roger Severino, pages 505 and 506.)

EMTALA is the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act. This is both misleading and horrifying – the statement suggests that EMTALA forces hospitals and doctors to perform abortions, even in cases where the fetus may still be alive. Truth: EMTALA was enacted to ensure that patients receive emergency care, including pregnant women facing life-threatening conditions, but it doesn’t explicitly mandate abortions. EMTALA also does not specifically address the “stabilization” of the fetus but requires hospitals to stabilize the mother in an emergency.

Rescinding the guidance will make it harder for women facing life-threatening pregnancy complications in pro-life states to access abortions, even in dire medical emergencies. This is already resulting in preventable deaths and serious health complications for women. See:

• Emergency rooms refused to treat pregnant women, leaving one to miscarry in a lobby restroom³³
• Pregnant women in distress report being turned away from ERs despite federal law³⁴
• Bleeding and in pain, she couldn’t get 2 Louisiana ERs to answer: Is it a misscarriage?³⁸
• Abortions Bans Have Delayed Emergency Medical Care. In Georgia, Experts Say This Mother’s Death Was Preventable.³⁹
• Afraid to Seek Care Amid Georgia’s Abortion Ban, She Stayed at Home and Died⁴⁰
• A Georgia Woman Has Died After an Abortion Ban Delayed Lifesaving Care⁴¹
• Two US women died because of a lack of abortion care, report says⁴²

Without federal guidance protecting doctors, those in pro-life states might be vulnerable to legal action for performing medically necessary abortions, potentially deterring healthcare providers from offering emergency care involving pregnancy complications. This is already happening also. See:

• She Needed an Emergency Abortion. Doctors in Idaho Put Her on a Plane.³²
• “Let Nature Take Its Course”: Because of Trump, Women Are Now Being Denied Emergency Abortion Care³⁵
• Delayed and denied: Women pushed to death’s door for abortion care in post-Roe America³⁶
• Rise in pregnant women turned away from US emergency rooms, papers show³⁷

Ending any state agency investigations into cases of alleged refusals to perform abortions suggests that Severino / The Heritage Foundation doesn’t give a single solitary shit that pregnant women are dying from preventable causes. There are many more such examples of this happening already, and it will get much, much worse if these proposals are entertained.

“In addition, Congress should pass the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act to require that proper medical care be given to infants who survive an abortion and to establish criminal consequences for practitioners who fail to provide such care.” (Project 2025, Section 3.5: Department of Health and Human Services, Roger Severino, page 506, paragraph 5.)

The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act already exists, and has since 2002. Homicide laws in EVERY STATE make it illegal to kill a baby, regardless of whether it was just born or is a few months old.

“The vast majority of abortions in the US – more than 90 percent – occur in the first trimester, or before 13 weeks. About 1 percent take place after 21 weeks, and far less than 1 percent occur in the third trimester.” [Source]⁴³

This law would be redundant.

“The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act amended the federal definition of a person so that “any federal prohibition on any form of violence, including homicide, would be extended to an infant born alive after abortion,” said Mary Ziegler, a University of California, Davis law professor and abortion historian.

David Cohen, a Drexel University law professor who specialises in the intersection of constitutional law and gender, said once a person is born, “you have all the protections of every criminal law, every civil law, including laws against murder, including laws against assault, including medical malpractice laws, etc.”

“The redefinition of sex to cover gender identity and sexual orientation and pregnancy to cover abortion should be reversed in all HHS and CMS programs as was done under the Trump Administration.” (Project 2025, Section 3.5: Department of Health and Human Services, Roger Severino, page 507, paragraph 3.)

This has been covered elsewhere in this website. It’s anti-woman, anti-choice, transphobic, homophobic, science-denying garbage.

“HHS, through ACF and the Assistant Secretary for Financial Resources (ASFR), should repeal the unnecessary 2016 regulation that imposes nonstatutory sexual orientation and gender identity nondiscrimination conditions on agency grants and return to the policy of maximizing the options for placing vulnerable children in their forever homes.” (Project 2025, Section 3.5: Department of Health and Human Services, Roger Severino, pages 509 and 510.)

In context, this is a mandate allowing adoption agencies to legally discriminate against same-sex couples who want to adopt, or against unmarried adoptive parents.

“States should consider using some of their Title IV-B funding for providing healthy marriage and relationship education for families at risk of having their children placed in foster care.” (Project 2025, Section 3.5: Department of Health and Human Services, Roger Severino, page 512, paragraph 4.)

If my home life is in such a shambles that my children are in danger of being put in foster care, I can’t think of anything more useless than marriage counseling. Most kids end up in foster care because they’re being abused or neglected by one or both parents. Severino is suggesting not removing children from abusive and neglectful situations, but counseling their parents on “healthy relationships.” Statistics suggest that the majority of abusers NEVER STOP⁴⁴. Counseling regarding how to safely leave an abusive relationship and help doing so would be far more appropriate here. Note that I am not at all against marriage and relationship counseling, nor against the federal government helping to offer it. I AM against using marriage counseling as a substitute for removing children from abusive situations.

“Social science reports that assess the objective outcomes for children raised in homes aside from a heterosexual, intact marriage are clear: All other family forms involve higher levels of instability (the average length of same-sex marriages is half that of heterosexual marriages); financial stress or poverty; and poor behavioral, psychological, or educational outcomes.” (Project 2025, Section 3.5: Department of Health and Human Services, Roger Severino, page 513, paragraph 2.)

This is categorically untrue. Research finds that kids raised by same-sex couples fare the same as – or better than – kids of straight couples. [Source]⁴⁵

“On some metrics, children of sexual minority parents actually outperformed their peers from traditional families, particularly when it came to psychological adjustment and child-parent relationships.”

“Eliminate the Head Start program. Head Start, originally established and funded to support low-income families, is fraught with scandal and abuse. […] Research has demonstrated that federal Head Start centers, which provide preschool care to children from low-income families, have little or no long-term academic value for children.” (Project 2025, Section 3.5: Department of Health and Human Services, Roger Severino, page 514, paragraph 3.)

Head Start is a federal program that serves children and families in low-income communities by providing services that support early learning, health, nutrition, and family well-being. The program has served more than 38 million children since it was established in 1965. In 2023, around 820,000 children were enrolled in Head Start.

Severino’s claims that the program has little or no long-term value are false.

“This substantial investment in children is justified by evidence that early investments—and preschool in particular—change outcomes for children. The base of what we know about the effects of early childhood education on long-term outcomes is the result of experiments. Decades-spanning longitudinal studies of experimental preschool programs like HighScope/Perry Preschool and Abecedarian find those who participated in these early childhood educational interventions persist in education, have higher earnings and commit fewer crimes than the control group. New research on the intergenerational effect of Perry Preschool by Nobel laureate James Heckman and Ganesh Karapakula finds that participants were more stably married, that their children were less likely to be suspended from school, and more likely to graduate from high school and be employed.” Source: The Brookings Institute⁴⁶

These are the exact outcomes for children that Severino claims to want. There is no good reason to do this other than to punish poor children and families. Here’s some more on why Head Start is a solid investment in our communities⁴⁷.

“HHS should rescind, if finalized, the regulation titled “Coverage of Certain Preventive Services Under the Affordable Care Act,” proposed jointly by HHS, Treasury, and Labor.” (Project 2025, Section 3.5: Department of Health and Human Services, Roger Severino, page 515, paragraph 5.)

In context, this mandates that health care providers no longer have to provide access to contraception without patient co-payment, or indeed at all. This would also reverse the 2000 rule from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that insurance that provides coverage for prescription drugs must include birth control in what they cover. Additionally, going back to requiring a co-pay would likely put highly effective forms of birth control, such as IUDs, financially out of reach for some women, which could result in more unwanted/unintended pregnancies.

Severino goes on to argue for expanding inclusion of “fertility awareness”-based methods. This would be things like pulling out or the rhythm method⁴⁸, which are far less effective options.

“Using the rhythm method as a form of birth control doesn’t pose any direct risks. However, it’s considered one of the least effective forms of birth control. How well the rhythm method works varies between couples. In general, as many as 24 out of 100 women who use natural family planning for birth control become pregnant the first year. The rhythm method doesn’t protect you from sexually transmitted infections.”

“Eliminate men’s preventive services from the women’s preventive services mandate. In December 2021, HRSA updated its women’s preventive services guidelines to include male condoms after claiming for years that it had no authority to do so because Congress explicitly limited the mandate to “women’s” preventive care and screenings. HRSA should not incorporate exclusively male contraceptive methods into guidelines that specify they encompass only women’s services.” (Project 2025, Section 3.5: Department of Health and Human Services, Roger Severino, page 517, paragraph 3.)

This would prevent women from obtaining condoms in health care settings. Because no woman has ever needed to provide a condom to her partner! That’s a man’s job! Absolutely ridiculous. Severino goes on to mandate banning the week-after pill, preventing women from obtaining this as well.

“Ensure that training for medical professionals (doctors, nurses, etc.) and doulas is not being used for abortion training.” (Project 2025, Section 3.5: Department of Health and Human Services, Roger Severino, page 517, paragraph 3.)

Answer me this: When a woman has a medical emergency requiring abortion care and no doctors or health care professionals know how to perform one, what happens? SHE DIES. He continues: “Communicate to medical schools that any abortion-related training must be on an opt-in rather than opt-out basis.” (Project 2025, Section 3.5: Department of Health and Human Services, Roger Severino, page 518, paragraph 3.)

“Investigate, expose, and remediate any instances in which HHS violated people’s rights by: 1. Colluding with Big Tech to censor dissenting opinions during COVID. 2. Colluding with abortion advocates and LGBT advocates to violate conscience-protection laws and the Hyde Amendment.” (Project 2025, Section 3.5: Department of Health and Human Services, Roger Severino, pages 520 and 521.)

He’s indicating here that he believes that LGBTQ+ activists have been pressuring health care providers to provide gender care and abortions, even when they don’t want to, which is ridiculous. Note that he does not demonstrate proof of this.

The practical consequences of this include:

• Weakening of Public Health Authorities: If HHS or other government agencies are heavily scrutinized for their role in working with tech companies to control COVID-19 misinformation, it could undermine future public health efforts. Authorities might become hesitant to even try to combat dangerous misinformation, fearing accusations of censorship.
• Loss of Trust in Public Health: By framing government actions during the pandemic as violations of free speech, it could create further public mistrust in health agencies like the CDC and HHS, making it harder for them to communicate effectively in future crises.
• Disincentivizing Tech Platforms from Moderating Dangerous Content: If Big Tech platforms face penalties or public backlash for censoring harmful misinformation, they might become reluctant to moderate any content in the future, allowing the unchecked spread of harmful disinformation, especially during public health emergencies.
• First Amendment Conflicts: Investigations could spur a legal crisis around First Amendment rights, especially concerning what constitutes government overreach in “colluding” with tech companies. If tech companies were pressured to censor dissent, it raises constitutional concerns. However, if tech companies independently chose to remove harmful content without government involvement, it complicates the narrative. Legal challenges over the extent of government interference in online speech could drag on for years.
• Flood of Lawsuits: If investigations confirm that HHS violated conscience-protection laws or pressured providers, it could lead to an influx of lawsuits by healthcare providers, institutions, or advocacy groups claiming their rights were infringed.
• Increased Barriers to Healthcare: If HHS rolls back protections, individuals seeking gender-affirming care or abortion services could face increased obstacles. Providers may refuse these services on moral grounds, limiting access to care, especially in states that already have restrictive laws. This would disproportionately affect marginalized populations, including transgender individuals and women in need of reproductive healthcare.
• Negative Health Outcomes: Limiting access to necessary services like abortion or gender-affirming care could result in severe physical and mental health consequences. For example, women denied abortions might face health complications, while transgender individuals could face higher risks of suicide or mental health issues without access to affirming care.

All of these consequences are almost certainly by design, not to mention that this would exacerbate political and ideological division, as well as have a chilling effect on public discourse – if the government investigates tech companies and health agencies for perceived collusion, they will be reluctant to collaborate in the future in addressing societal challenges, making it harder to respond effectively to crises.

“The Secretary’s antidiscrimination policy statements should never conflate sex with gender identity or sexual orientation. Rather, the Secretary should proudly state that men and women are biological realities that are crucial to the advancement of life sciences and medical care and that married men and women are the ideal, natural family structure because all children have a right to be raised by the men and women who conceived them.” (Project 2025, Section 3.5: Department of Health and Human Services, Roger Severino, page 521, paragraph 5.)

This is in no way an “anti” discrimination policy. Also, “all children having a right to be raised by the men and women who conceived them” shits on IVF, egg and sperm donation, IUI, adoption, step-parents, family raising children as their own when their parents cannot, etc.

“In dealing with sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies, the OASH should focus on root-cause analysis with a focus on strengthening marriage and sexual risk avoidance.” (Project 2025, Section 3.5: Department of Health and Human Services, Roger Severino, page 522, paragraph 7.)

Yes, because married women famously have never required abortion care. Your body magically can carry babies to term without any complications once you say “I do.”

I’m again understating the amount of transphobia/trans discrimination throughout. It’s literally EVERYWHERE.

“OCR should withdraw its “Obligations Under Federal Civil Rights Laws to Ensure Access to Comprehensive Reproductive Health Care Services” guidance for retail pharmacies, which purports to address nondiscrimination obligations of pharmacies under federal civil rights laws and in fact orders them to stock and dispense first-trimester abortion drugs.” (Project 2025, Section 3.5: Department of Health and Human Services, Roger Severino, page 528, paragraph 4.)

So, he wants to return to the days of pharmacists being able to refuse you prescribed medication that they’re personally offended by. I hope all of them decide that they’re personally offended by dispensing Viagra to Republicans.