This bill charges the Department of Health and Human Services with examining the connection between violence (intimate partner violence and a broad set of related harms) and maternal morbidity and mortality, and it establishes a grant program to develop and scale interventions aimed at improving outcomes for pregnant and postpartum victims. It also directs HHS to publish guidance for clinicians, states, Tribes, and managed care entities on routine assessment, education, trauma‑informed care, and partnerships with community organizations.
Why this matters: maternal deaths and severe maternal health conditions are a persistent public‑health problem, and this measure treats interpersonal violence as a potential driver. The legislation creates a federal evidence effort, seed funding for innovation, and operational guidance that would change screening, referral, and coordination practices across clinical and community settings—especially in Tribal and underserved communities.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill directs HHS to arrange a study (preferably through the National Academy of Medicine) to analyze how various forms of violence and trauma influence maternal morbidity and mortality. It creates a HRSA‑administered grant program for interventions and requires HHS to issue guidance on universal education, routine assessment, trauma‑informed care, and provider‑community partnerships.
Who It Affects
Directly affects HHS and HRSA (grant administration and guidance), hospitals and perinatal providers (screening and care protocols), federally qualified health centers, Tribal health entities, community‑based organizations that provide violence prevention/intervention, and public health surveillance systems that track maternal outcomes.
Why It Matters
The bill reframes intimate partner violence and related harms as potential social determinants of maternal health and allocates federal resources to build evidence and implement culturally tailored interventions—an operational shift that could change clinical standards of care and public‑health surveillance.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill has three operational tracks. First, it requires the Secretary of HHS to seek an arrangement with the National Academy of Medicine (NAM)—or a comparable body if NAM declines—to conduct a comprehensive study of how intimate partner violence and a long list of related harms (dating violence, sexual assault, stalking, various forms of trafficking, child sexual abuse, forced marriage, reproductive coercion, intergenerational violence, trauma, and psychiatric disorders) affect maternal morbidity and mortality.
The study must examine links to suicide, homicide (including intimate partner homicide), substance use and overdose, and adverse birth outcomes, and evaluate whether these harms function as social determinants of health. The statute asks the study to pay particular attention to diverse and often undercounted populations: Black/African American, Hispanic/Latino, American Indian, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, Alaskan Native, LGBTQIA2S+, and adolescent mothers.
Second, the bill establishes a grant program administered by HRSA in collaboration with several agencies (including the Administration for Children and Families, Indian Health Service, SAMHSA leadership, and the VA) to fund innovative approaches that improve maternal and child health outcomes for victims of the listed harms. Eligible applicants include states, local governments, federally recognized Tribes, nonprofit and community‑based organizations that deliver prevention or intervention services, Tribal epidemiology centers, FQHCs, certified community behavioral health clinics, hospitals and clinics, institutions of higher education, specialized substance use disorder programs for parents, and VA health facilities.
The statute lists explicit priorities for award consideration—programs targeting pregnant and postpartum people, culturally relevant strategies and bias/antiracism training, Tribal epidemiology projects, surveillance improvements, and shared learning among grantees.Third, the bill requires HHS to publish and distribute operational guidance within two years of enactment aimed at states, Tribes, territories, providers, and managed care entities. That guidance must cover developing protocols for universal education about healthy relationships and intimate partner violence, routine assessment for IPV and mental/behavioral health conditions, trauma‑informed care plans, and building sustainable partnerships between health care providers and community organizations that serve survivors.
The statute also defines key terms: it frames maternal morbidity to include mental health and substance use disorders tied to pregnancy, defines maternal mortality to include suicide, overdose, and homicide occurring during pregnancy or within 12 months postpartum, and sets postpartum as the 12‑month period after childbirth.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Secretary must seek a study arrangement with the National Academy of Medicine (or a comparable entity) to analyze how a broad set of violence‑related exposures affect maternal morbidity and mortality, explicitly including suicide, overdose, and intimate partner homicide.
HRSA will run a competitive grant program for innovative interventions; eligible applicants include States, Tribes, FQHCs, Tribal epidemiology centers, hospitals, community‑based domestic violence organizations, universities, parent‑specialized SUD programs, and VA health facilities.
Congress authorizes $15 million per year for fiscal years 2027, 2028, and 2029 to fund the grant program.
HHS must publish guidance within two years to cover universal education on healthy relationships, routine IPV and behavioral‑health assessment, trauma‑informed care planning, and sustainable health–community partnerships.
The bill requires the Secretary to report to Congress on best practices for grant‑funded approaches starting 3 years after enactment and then every 3 years thereafter.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Names the measure the 'Protect Moms From Domestic Violence Act.' This is a labeling provision only, but it signals the bill's policy focus on maternal health and interpersonal violence.
Study by National Academy of Medicine
Directs HHS to arrange for a comprehensive study—ideally through the National Academy of Medicine—on the relationship between a wide range of violence‑related exposures and maternal morbidity and mortality. The study's scope is broad: it must look at suicide, homicide, substance use and overdose, and birth outcomes; assess whether those exposures function as social determinants of health; and disaggregate impacts for specified racial, ethnic, Tribal, LGBTQIA2S+, and adolescent groups. For implementers, the practical implication is that the report will need to knit together clinical, behavioral‑health, criminal justice, and social‑determinant data sources—an inherently cross‑sector task with data access and harmonization challenges.
Grants for innovative approaches to improve maternal and child health
Authorizes HRSA, in collaboration with ACF, IHS, SAMHSA leadership, and VA, to award grants to a long list of eligible entities for culturally relevant education, provider training, surveillance improvements, and other innovations targeting victims of the named harms. The statute sets explicit award priorities (pregnant/postpartum focus, culturally tailored anti‑bias strategies, Tribal epidemiology, surveillance improvements, and shared learning) and identifies a multi‑agency partnership model for administering the program. Importantly, Congress authorizes $15 million annually for three fiscal years (2027–2029), which frames the program as a time‑limited, seed investment rather than a permanent entitlement.
Guidance for screening, education, and partnerships
Requires HHS to publish and disseminate guidance within two years aimed at states, Tribes, territories, providers, and managed care entities. The guidance must cover protocols for universal education on healthy relationships, routine assessment for IPV and behavioral health conditions, trauma‑informed care plans, and building sustainable health‑community partnerships. Practically, the guidance will be the primary lever to change clinical practice and payer expectations, but it is nonbinding—states and payers will decide how and whether to adopt it absent further federal rules or funding.
Definitions
Sets operational definitions that matter for measurement and eligibility: 'maternal morbidity' includes mental health and SUD conditions attributed to or aggravated by pregnancy; 'maternal mortality' covers deaths during pregnancy or within 1 year after pregnancy and explicitly includes suicide, overdose, and homicide tied to pregnancy complications; 'postpartum' is defined as the 12‑month period after childbirth. These definitions broaden the conventional maternal mortality construct and will affect surveillance case definitions and reporting if adopted in guidance or subsequent administrative action.
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 and postpartum survivors of intimate partner violence and related harms — the bill channels funding and guidance toward identifying needs and creating culturally tailored interventions that aim to reduce morbidity and mortality.
- Community‑based organizations and domestic‑violence service providers — eligible for competitive grants to scale prevention and intervention models and to partner formally with health systems.
- Tribal health systems and Tribal epidemiology centers — receive explicit eligibility and priority, plus opportunities to develop culturally specific surveillance and intervention approaches.
- Maternal health clinicians and birth centers — will get federal guidance and resources to support routine assessment, trauma‑informed plans, and provider education.
Who Bears the Cost
- HHS and HRSA — responsible for contracting the NAM study, running the grant program, convening interagency partners, producing guidance, and reporting to Congress; administrative costs and coordination burdens fall to the agency.
- Health care providers and clinics (including FQHCs and hospitals) — will need to allocate clinician time, training resources, and IT adjustments to implement new screening, referral, and trauma‑informed care protocols.
- States and managed care entities — expected audience for guidance and potential adopters of new protocols; they may incur costs to change Medicaid policies or to build partnerships with community organizations.
- Small community‑based organizations — while eligible for grants, many will face capacity and administrative burdens when applying for and managing federal funds without technical assistance.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between building rigorous evidence and national guidance on violence as a driver of maternal harm versus the immediate risks and resource gaps that accompany broader screening and intervention: more detection can save lives only if there are safe, culturally competent, and resourced pathways for survivors—yet the bill's funding is time‑limited and it leaves much of the operational burden to states, providers, and community organizations.
The bill stitches together evidence‑building, short‑term grant funding, and nonbinding guidance—but that mix creates implementation risks. The NAM‑style study can produce a robust synthesis, but translating findings into timely clinical practice depends on the content and uptake of guidance plus sufficient, sustained funding; the three‑year, $15 million per‑year authorization is modest relative to nationwide needs and framed as seed money rather than a long‑term program.
Data limitations also complicate the study: linking violence exposures to maternal deaths requires cross‑sector data sharing (vital records, criminal justice, clinical records, behavioral‑health data) and standardization across jurisdictions, which raises privacy, legal, and interoperability barriers.
Another unresolved issue is the safety trade‑off of expanded screening. The bill mandates guidance on routine assessment and universal education, but evidence shows that screening without robust safety planning, secure referral pathways, and survivor control can increase risk for some individuals.
The statute prioritizes culturally relevant approaches and Tribal engagement, which helps, but it does not allocate dedicated funding for long‑term service capacity (shelter, legal aid, long‑term behavioral health), creating a gap between identifying needs and meeting them. Finally, the bill centralizes surveillance improvements and definitions (for example, counting suicide and overdose as maternal mortality), which will change measurement but also raise technical disputes over attribution and comparability with existing maternal mortality data.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.