The Safe Passages Act of 2025 establishes the Safe Passages Maternal and Child Health Program to reduce maternal, fetal, neonatal and infant deaths in low‑ and lower‑middle‑income countries. The bill directs the Secretary of State to implement evidence‑oriented clinical trainings, facility upgrades, nutrition supports for the first 1,000 days, father‑engagement activities, and dissemination of natural fertility‑awareness methods through partnerships that emphasize local faith‑based providers.
The Act amends section 104(c) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to prioritize maternal and child health consistent with the Safe Passages model and explicitly bars use of program funds for abortion or abortion‑related services. It also requires detailed biennial reporting on trainings, facility upgrades, co‑investments, program reach, and estimated lives saved.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill creates a new U.S. global maternal and child health initiative and requires the Secretary of State to prioritize implementation through local, faith‑based health partnerships. It directs that at least $400,000,000 per year be made available from the Global Health Programs account to support training, emergency obstetric equipment, nutrition in the first 1,000 days, father‑engagement, and fertility‑awareness methods.
Who It Affects
Primary targets are faith‑based and community health providers in low‑ and lower‑middle‑income countries, midwives and frontline cadres receiving training, U.S. global health implementers (State/USAID partners), and recipient ministries of health that coordinate facility upgrades and referral systems.
Why It Matters
The Act shifts a defined portion of U.S. global health resources toward partners and interventions framed as ‘life‑affirming,’ conditions funding on exclusion of abortion services, and requires new performance reporting — all of which can reshape partner selection, program design, and the set of permissible clinical services.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Safe Passages Act sets up a focused global program meant to reduce preventable maternal and child deaths by training local clinicians and community health workers, supplying emergency obstetric equipment, and strengthening basic facility capacity. Training covers recognition and management of the five leading causes of maternal death (including hemorrhage, hypertensive disorders, sepsis, obstructed labor and related surgical care), neonatal resuscitation and common causes of early infant mortality, and extends care focus through the first year postpartum for specified conditions.
The bill also funds nutrition supports tied to the first 1,000 days and explicitly includes father‑engagement activities as part of service delivery.
The Secretary of State must prioritize implementation with ‘‘efficient and reliable’’ partners but is directed to favor faith‑based providers with strong local ties. The statute instructs coordination with the office leading on global food security for nutrition components and allows funding for specific facility upgrades — basic labs, blood transfusion services, second‑line uterotonics, antibiotics, referral and transport, and ultrasound — to make low‑resource settings more functional for emergency obstetric care.The law amends the Foreign Assistance Act to align section 104(c) with Safe Passages program priorities and contains an express prohibition on using program funds for abortion or abortion‑related services.
It mandates a reporting regime beginning two years after enactment and every two years thereafter: the reports must list trainings and curricula, pre/post‑training effectiveness metrics, co‑investments, facility upgrades, community‑level morbidity and mortality comparisons between served and unserved areas, estimated lives saved, and compliance with the Act’s restrictions. The program is authorized to operate through fiscal year 2030, and the funding directive is written ‘notwithstanding any other provision of law,’ making the $400 million annual availability a prominent legal command.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Act directs the President, through the Secretary of State, to make available not less than $400,000,000 annually from the Global Health Programs account specifically for the Safe Passages program.
Section 4 establishes the Safe Passages Maternal and Child Health Program to operate in low‑ and lower‑middle‑income countries through fiscal year 2030 and prioritizes life‑affirming, faith‑based partnerships.
The bill amends 22 U.S.C. 2151b(c) (Foreign Assistance Act section 104(c)) to require maternal and child health assistance to align with Safe Passages and explicitly states such assistance shall not be used for abortion or abortion‑related services.
Implementation priorities include training for the five leading causes of maternal mortality, facility upgrades (e.g.
blood transfusion services, second‑line uterotonics, ultrasound), and nutrition for the first 1,000 days coordinated with the global food security lead.
The Secretary of State must submit biennial reports beginning two years after enactment with pre/post training assessments, numbers of providers trained, facility upgrades, co‑investment levels, regional coverage, and estimates of maternal and child lives saved.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Designates the bill as the 'Safe Passages Act of 2025.' This provides the statutory name used in amendments and reporting references and signals the program’s stated philosophical framing as life‑affirming care.
Purpose — defined program priorities
Lays out the program’s objectives: equip local providers with training and emergency obstetric tools, support maternal and infant nutrition during the first 1,000 days, promote father engagement, deliver natural fertility‑awareness methods, and provide a continuum of care from pre‑conception through postpartum. The purpose language sets substantive boundaries for what activities Congress expects the program to fund and emphasizes non‑abortive, family‑strengthening interventions.
Establishment and program elements
Creates the Safe Passages Maternal and Child Health Program and enumerates the clinical and community interventions it may support — from management of obstetric hemorrhage and hypertensive disorders to neonatal resuscitation and nutrition. Subsection (c) directs the Secretary of State to prioritize local faith‑based providers and partnerships deemed efficient and reliable, making partner selection a defined program decision rather than a purely technical procurement outcome.
Amendment to Foreign Assistance Act and mandated funding
Amends FAA section 104(c) to align maternal and child health assistance with Safe Passages priorities and to include an explicit prohibition on using funds for abortion services. Subsection (b) contains a funding directive — framed to override other law — that requires at least $400 million annually from the Global Health Programs account for the program’s activities, effectively earmarking a fixed funding floor for these interventions.
Reporting and oversight requirements
Imposes biennial reporting duties on the Secretary of State starting two years post‑enactment. Reports must include granular training counts and curricula, objective pre/post competency measures, facility upgrade inventories, co‑investment tracking, community‑level morbidity/mortality comparisons between served and unserved areas, and estimated lives saved. These metrics create an accountability framework but also demand standardized data collection and attribution methodologies in low‑resource settings.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Healthcare across all five countries.
Explore Healthcare 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
- Pregnant women and newborns in targeted low‑ and lower‑middle‑income countries — they gain expanded access to trained frontline providers, emergency obstetric interventions, and nutrition services specifically designed to reduce the leading causes of maternal and infant mortality.
- Local faith‑based health providers and affiliated NGOs — the bill explicitly prioritizes faith‑based partners, increasing their eligibility for U.S. funding, technical assistance, and capacity‑building support.
- Midwives, community health workers, and frontline clinicians — these cadres receive training, equipment, and integration into referral and transport systems that can improve clinical outcomes and professional capacity.
- Recipient ministries of health and local health systems — facility upgrades, diagnostics, transfusion capacity, and referral networks funded under the program can strengthen system readiness for obstetric emergencies and neonatal care.
Who Bears the Cost
- The Global Health Programs account and broader U.S. global health portfolio — the mandated $400 million annually reallocates or dedicates money that could otherwise support other priority programs, constraining fiscal flexibility for other global health initiatives.
- Secular or non‑faith‑based implementers not prioritized under the bill — organizations without faith affiliation or those the Secretary deems insufficiently 'faith‑based' may face reduced access to program funds despite technical capacity.
- Implementing agencies (State, USAID) — they inherit increased administrative and monitoring burdens from the new reporting requirements, partner vetting based on faith‑based criteria, and the need to demonstrate compliance with funding restrictions.
- Local health systems and implementers tasked with co‑investments and sustainability plans — recipients must show buy‑in and often commit resources or systems change to meet program criteria, which can strain already limited local budgets.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether channeling a large, fixed stream of U.S. global health funds to 'life‑affirming,' faith‑based models will save more mothers and infants than a more neutral, evidence‑driven partnership strategy that includes a full range of reproductive health interventions; the bill solves for ideological alignment and community ties but creates a risk that medically indicated services or capable secular partners will be excluded, complicating the goal of maximizing health outcomes.
The bill’s framing and operational rules create several implementation ambiguities and trade‑offs. First, the statutory insistence on 'life‑affirming' care and the explicit prohibition on funding abortion or 'abortion‑related services' is clear in letter but not always clear in clinical boundary cases — for example, funding for post‑abortion emergency stabilization, miscarriage management, or comprehensive post‑rape care may face differing interpretations.
Implementers and the Secretary of State will need to develop operational definitions and guidance to avoid denials of medically necessary stabilization care while complying with the statutory ban.
Second, prioritizing faith‑based organizations as the preferred implementers can improve local legitimacy in some settings but may exclude efficient secular actors or cause friction where faith‑based partners have limited clinical depth. The requirement to favor faith‑based providers creates a tension between community access, clinical effectiveness, and non‑discrimination among implementers.
Third, the mandated annual $400 million 'notwithstanding any other provision of law' removes appropriation flexibility; Congress still controls appropriations, but the language creates a strong directional command that may crowd out other global health programming and require reallocation within a constrained global health budget. Finally, the bill's monitoring expectations — pre/post‑training assessments, facility upgrade inventories, community comparison data and 'lives saved' estimates — are rigorous but technically challenging to standardize and attribute to program activities in low‑resource settings, raising questions about how success will be measured and compared across diverse contexts.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.