The Protecting Life on College Campus Act of 2025 conditions an institution of higher education’s eligibility for any federal funds on whether the institution hosts or is affiliated with a campus clinic that provides abortion drugs or performs abortions for students or employees. An institution that hosts or affiliates with such a ‘‘school-based service site’’ must annually certify to the Secretary of Education and the Secretary of Health and Human Services that no abortion drugs or abortions are provided at those sites.
The bill is significant because it uses the federal funding baseline to regulate campus health services: colleges that fail to certify risk losing any direct or indirect federal funding (including awards made via contracts and subcontracts). The statutory definitions are broad — the bill covers telehealth and contracted providers and defines "abortion drug" by intended or actual use — which raises compliance and operational questions for campus clinics, vendors, and institutions that must monitor on-campus and affiliated services.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill makes an institution ineligible for federal funds if it hosts or is affiliated with a campus clinic that provides abortion drugs or abortions to students or employees, and requires an annual certification to the Secretaries of Education and Health and Human Services that no such services are provided. The prohibition applies to funding awarded directly or indirectly, explicitly including contracts and subcontracts.
Who It Affects
All institutions of higher education that accept federal funding, on-campus clinics and their contracted providers (including those offering telehealth and pharmaceutical services), compliance officers who manage federal awards, and students and campus employees seeking reproductive health services.
Why It Matters
The bill uses funding eligibility as an enforcement tool rather than imposing a new criminal penalty, making a broad fiscal lever the mechanism for shaping campus health offerings. That approach could prompt institutions to alter contracting, campus clinic operations, or hosting arrangements to avoid jeopardizing grants, student financial aid flows, or research funding.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill creates a single, blunt condition: if an institution of higher education hosts or is affiliated with a campus clinic that provides abortion drugs or performs abortions for students or employees, the institution becomes ineligible to receive federal funds. ‘‘Federal funds’’ are barred whether provided directly or indirectly, so money delivered through grants, contracts, or subcontracts is in scope. To preserve eligibility, the institution must submit an annual certification to the Secretary of Education and the Secretary of Health and Human Services stating that no campus clinic or affiliated site provides abortion drugs or abortions.
The statutory definitions are key to how the rule will operate. "Abortion drug" is defined by intended or actual use rather than product labeling and expressly excludes actions aimed at producing a live birth, removing a dead unborn child, or treating an ectopic pregnancy. "School-based service site" covers campus-located clinics that provide a spectrum of health services — primary care, family planning, telehealth, and pharmaceutical services — and it reaches services performed by employed staff and contracted providers. Hospitals are carved out of the definition, so on-campus hospitals (as defined under the Social Security Act) are not treated as covered sites.Practically, institutions will face a compliance problem set: they must determine whether any on-campus or affiliated clinical provider offers covered services, secure contractual assurances from vendors, monitor telehealth arrangements, and maintain the annual certification.
The bill does not elaborate enforcement procedures beyond the funding ineligibility itself; it assigns reporting to DOE and HHS but leaves open how those agencies will verify certifications, adjudicate disputes, or implement remedial processes. The broad language about affiliation and the inclusion of contracted providers mean institutions that rely on external vendors for campus health services will need to decide whether to change contracts, demand provider certifications, or discontinue hosting arrangements to preserve federal funding.For students and employees, the bill narrows the set of reproductive health services available on campus because campus clinics and affiliated providers will either stop offering the covered services or risk cutting off the institution’s federal funding.
That is likely to shift care off campus or force students to pursue out-of-pocket or out‑of-state options. From an administrative perspective, DOE and HHS would need to develop oversight models to process annual certifications and reconcile them against real-world clinic operations, a task complicated by telehealth, subcontracting chains, and privacy constraints around individual medical care.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The funding bar applies to any federal funds awarded directly or indirectly, explicitly including contracts and subcontracts — the bill uses the funding chain as the enforcement mechanism.
Institutions must submit an annual certification to both the Secretary of Education and the Secretary of Health and Human Services confirming that no covered campus or affiliated site provides abortion drugs or abortions.
The bill defines "abortion drug" by intended or actual use, regardless of labeling, and explicitly excludes treatments intended to produce a live birth, remove a dead unborn child, or treat an ectopic pregnancy.
"School-based service site" includes campus clinics that offer primary care, family planning, telehealth, and pharmaceutical services and covers services provided by employees and contracted providers; hospitals are excluded.
The statute imposes ineligibility for federal funds but does not set out a specific audit, verification, appeal, or penalty process — implementation details are left to DOE and HHS.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Names the bill the "Protecting Life on College Campus Act of 2025." This is a formal caption; it does not affect substantive obligations but signals the statute’s policy aim and will shape legislative and administrative framing during implementation.
Prohibition on receiving federal funds if hosting or affiliating with covered campus clinics
Establishes the core substantive rule: an institution that hosts or is affiliated with a covered school-based service site that provides abortion drugs or abortions to students or employees may not be awarded federal funds. The provision's reach is broad because it captures indirect awards through contract and subcontract channels; institutions receiving NIH grants, federal financial aid flows, or other federal awards could be affected. The statutory language leaves ‘‘affiliated’’ undefined, which creates uncertainty about partnerships, vendor relationships, and shared-space arrangements.
Annual certification to DOE and HHS to retain eligibility
Requires an annual report to the Secretary of Education and the Secretary of Health and Human Services certifying that no covered site provides abortion drugs or abortions. The text obliges institutions to self-certify annually, but it does not provide standards for verification, timelines for submission, or penalties beyond loss of eligibility. That allocates the primary compliance burden to institutions and places the onus on the receiving agencies to devise oversight and verification procedures.
Definition of 'abortion drug' — intent and exclusions
Defines "abortion drug" by intended or actual use — any drug, substance, or combination used to intentionally kill an unborn child or terminate a pregnancy except for specified medical actions (producing live birth, removing a dead unborn child, treating ectopic pregnancy). Because the definition rests on intent or effect rather than drug name or FDA labeling, commonly prescribed medications could become implicated depending on clinical use, creating forensic and evidentiary questions for compliance reviews.
Definition of 'school-based service site' and narrow hospital exclusion
Defines covered sites to include on-campus clinics providing a range of services (primary care, family planning, telehealth, pharmaceutical) and explicitly includes services provided by contracted providers. It excludes hospitals as defined in the Social Security Act. In practice, this means many small campus health centers and third-party vendors will fall within the statute, while university-affiliated hospitals will not, shaping which facilities must change practices or contracts to maintain institutional funding eligibility.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Education across all five countries.
Explore Education in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Institutions that already do not host or affiliate with campus clinics offering abortion services — they face no new operational changes and keep access to federal funding without additional compliance steps.
- Off-campus providers and community clinics — they may see increased demand if campus sites curtail services, and they can contract with institutions for non-covered services without the specific funding restriction.
- Federal agencies (DOE and HHS) — the bill centralizes reporting obligations with these agencies, giving them a direct role and increased data about campus health site practices.
Who Bears the Cost
- Campus health centers and contracted campus clinic providers — they must alter service lines, revise contracts, or stop offering abortion-related services to avoid jeopardizing their host institution’s federal funding, with potential revenue and staffing impacts.
- Students and campus employees seeking abortion care — they will likely face reduced on-campus access and increased time, distance, and cost burdens to obtain care off campus.
- Institutions’ compliance and legal teams — they inherit an annual certification duty, must scrutinize vendor relationships and telehealth arrangements, and may need to implement monitoring and contractual safeguards.
- Research programs and financial-aid dependent operations — because the prohibition touches all federal awards (including grants and subcontracts), research projects and federal student aid flows could be at risk if an institution’s affiliated site is found noncompliant.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is a straightforward policy trade-off: the bill seeks to use federal funding power to prevent on‑campus abortion services, advancing one set of public‑policy objectives, but it does so at the cost of narrowing campus health care options and imposing heavy monitoring and contractual obligations on institutions whose funding streams the federal government also depends upon to advance education and research missions.
The bill packs policy significance into terse statutory language, and several implementation challenges follow. Key ambiguities — notably the undefined term "affiliated" and the intent‑based definition of "abortion drug" — leave room for wide administrative discretion and litigation.
Determining affiliation could require agencies to draw lines between loose cooperative relationships and formal contractual control; resolving that will be central to enforcement. The intent-based drug definition creates evidentiary complexity because lawful medications might be used for different purposes depending on a patient’s condition and clinician intent, complicating audits and increasing the risk of false positives.
Operationally, the bill imports telehealth and contracted-provider relationships into scope, which creates practical monitoring problems. Telehealth visits often occur off-campus and across state lines; verifying that an on-campus affiliated provider did not prescribe an abortion drug to a student or employee may be blocked by privacy rules or by decentralized electronic health records.
The statute also punts procedural details to DOE and HHS: there is no specified audit regime, appeals mechanism, or remedial pathway short of losing eligibility for federal funds. That gap forces agencies to design enforcement rules that balance firm oversight against due process and practical verification constraints.
Finally, the bill raises federal‑state friction where state law permits abortion: institutions operating in those states may face conflicting incentives and potential legal challenges if federal funding conditions bar services allowed by state law.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.