HR-7973-119
Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Education and Workforce, Veterans' Affairs, Natural Resources, and the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Sponsored by Lauren Underwood (D-IL)
What it does
The Momnibus Act would create a broad federal initiative to reduce maternal mortality, severe maternal morbidity, and maternal health disparities in the United States. It would authorize hundreds of millions of dollars in grants across 14 titles covering social determinants of health, community-based organizations, workforce training, data collection, mental health, incarcerated individuals, telehealth, climate-related risks, and veterans' maternal care. It would also extend WIC nutrition program eligibility for postpartum individuals from 6 months to 24 months and from 1 year to 24 months for breastfeeding individuals.
Who benefits
Pregnant and postpartum individuals, particularly Black, Indigenous, and other women of color who face disproportionately high maternal mortality rates. Veterans who are pregnant or postpartum. Incarcerated pregnant individuals who would gain protections against shackling. Community-based organizations and minority-serving institutions that would receive new grant funding. Doulas, midwives, community health workers, and other perinatal health workers who would gain workforce development support. WIC-eligible postpartum individuals who would receive extended nutrition benefits. Rural and underserved communities with limited maternity care access. Telehealth providers and health technology companies that would gain new grant opportunities. Researchers at minority-serving institutions studying maternal health disparities.
Who is hurt
Federal taxpayers who would bear the cost of hundreds of millions in new authorized spending. Hospitals and maternity care settings that would face new compliance program requirements and reporting burdens. Correctional facilities and state and local governments that would need to implement new standards for incarcerated pregnant individuals. Competing grant applicants from non-minority-serving institutions who may be deprioritized under the bill's preference criteria. Existing federal programs that could face budget competition if appropriations are constrained. States that may face new administrative obligations tied to federal guidance and grant conditions.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the United States has the highest maternal mortality rate among high-income nations, and that Black women die from pregnancy-related causes at roughly three times the rate of white women — a disparity the CDC has documented for decades. They contend the bill's multi-pronged approach addresses both clinical and nonclinical drivers of maternal death, including housing instability, nutrition insecurity, and provider bias, which evidence shows are significant contributors. They further argue that extending WIC eligibility to 24 months is supported by research linking sustained nutrition support to improved postpartum and infant health outcomes.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill authorizes over $500 million in new discretionary spending across dozens of overlapping grant programs without a clear mechanism to measure whether the spending actually reduces maternal mortality rates. They contend that many provisions — such as implicit bias training mandates and race-conscious grant prioritization — may face legal challenges under equal protection principles, particularly in the post-SFFA (2023) environment where race-conscious government programs face heightened scrutiny. They further argue that the bill's breadth and complexity, spanning 14 titles and five House committees, may dilute accountability and make it difficult to evaluate which interventions are actually effective.