The bill forbids any Federal department, agency, or office from conducting, funding, approving, or otherwise supporting research that uses human fetal tissue obtained pursuant to an induced abortion. It carves out permission for federal agencies to develop or support new, high‑efficiency cell lines provided those lines are not derived from fetal tissue obtained from induced abortion, and it explicitly permits federal research only on fetal tissue obtained after a miscarriage or stillbirth under a revised Public Health Service Act (PHSA) section.
The statute also amends PHSA sections 498A and 498B—tightening definitions, shifting the allowable universe of federally supported fetal tissue research, repealing a prior NIH authorization (section 113 of the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993), and making it unlawful to solicit or knowingly accept donations of tissue when the donor or recipient knows the tissue came from an induced abortion or that a pregnancy was deliberately initiated to provide tissue. The changes will force federal agencies, grantees, procurement operations, and institutional compliance programs to rework protocols, sourcing, and grant terms where fetal tissue is or was involved.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill bars federal entities from conducting, funding, approving, or otherwise supporting research involving human fetal tissue obtained from induced abortions, while allowing federal work on tissue from miscarriages or stillbirths. It amends the PHSA to restrict federally supported fetal‑tissue research to tissue obtained after miscarriage or stillbirth and changes donor solicitation rules to prohibit knowingly receiving tissue from induced abortions.
Who It Affects
Federal research agencies (notably NIH), grant recipients and contractors that use human fetal tissue, hospitals and tissue procurement organizations that supply tissue, and private-sector researchers who collaborate with federally funded programs. It also affects entities developing alternative cell lines intended as replacements for fetal-tissue-derived materials.
Why It Matters
The bill creates a statutory limit on one source of biological material that has been essential for certain preclinical models, vaccine and vector development, and basic developmental biology. By rewriting PHSA provisions and the donor‑solicitation rule, it changes compliance baselines for federal grants, procurement, and institutional review, and opens operational questions about provenance, collaborations, and legacy materials.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Protecting Life and Integrity in Research Act of 2025 establishes a clear prohibition: no Federal department, agency, or office may conduct, fund, approve, or otherwise support research that involves human fetal tissue obtained as a result of an induced abortion. That prohibition reaches beyond direct laboratory work to include federal approval and other forms of support, which will affect grantmaking, contracts, and any federal facilitation of such research.
The bill does not ban private-sector research on such tissue outright, but it severs federal involvement.
To preserve some federally supported work with non‑abortion-derived tissue, the bill amends section 498A of the Public Health Service Act. It renames and refocuses that section to authorize federal research only on human fetal tissue obtained after a miscarriage or a stillbirth, and it provides explicit definitions: miscarriage as involuntary fetal death before 20 weeks and stillbirth as at or after 20 weeks.
The bill also leaves in place (and explicitly permits) federal efforts to develop or support high‑efficiency cell lines so long as those cell lines are not derived from fetal tissue obtained from induced abortions.The bill also revises the donor‑solicitation rules in PHSA section 498B to make it unlawful to solicit or knowingly acquire, receive, or accept a donation of human fetal tissue when the donor or recipient knows the tissue came from an induced abortion or that a pregnancy was deliberately initiated to provide tissue. The amendment excludes transfers for autopsy or burial from that prohibition.
Finally, the bill repeals section 113 of the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993, removing prior statutory language that authorized certain NIH activities related to fetal tissue transplantation and aligning statutory text with the new prohibitions.Taken together, the changes rework statutory authority, definitions, and procurement rules that govern how federal entities interact with human fetal tissue. The text supplies narrow exceptions and affirmative permission for non‑abortion‑derived tissues, but it leaves enforcement mechanisms and operational implementation—such as how existing cell lines, ongoing grants, and international collaborations will be treated—unaddressed in detail.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill forbids any Federal department, agency, or office from conducting, funding, approving, or otherwise supporting research using human fetal tissue obtained pursuant to an induced abortion.
It permits federal development or support of new, high‑efficiency cell lines so long as those cell lines are not derived from fetal tissue obtained via induced abortion.
Section 498A of the Public Health Service Act is rewritten to limit federally supported fetal‑tissue research to tissue obtained after a miscarriage or a stillbirth and to redefine 'miscarriage' (<20 weeks) and 'stillbirth' (≥20 weeks).
The bill amends section 498B to make it illegal to solicit or knowingly acquire, receive, or accept a donation of fetal tissue when one knows the tissue was obtained from an induced abortion or that a pregnancy was initiated to provide tissue, excluding transfers for autopsy or burial.
It repeals section 113 of the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993, removing a prior statutory authorization related to NIH fetal tissue activities and aligning statutory language with the new prohibitions.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Provides the Act's caption: 'Protecting Life and Integrity in Research Act of 2025.' This is a standard organizational clause with no operative effect beyond naming the statute for citation.
Broad federal prohibition on research with abortion‑derived fetal tissue
Imposes an across‑the‑board prohibition that covers conducting, funding, approving, or otherwise supporting research involving human fetal tissue obtained pursuant to an induced abortion. The phrase 'otherwise support' is expansive and likely intended to capture assistance that falls short of direct funding—such as contracts, cooperative agreements, technical assistance, or formal approvals—creating broad operational implications for federal program managers and grantees.
Permits development of non‑abortion‑derived cell lines and research on miscarriage/stillbirth tissue
Carves out two narrow permissions: agencies may develop or support new high‑efficiency cell lines that are not derived from abortion‑obtained fetal tissue, and agencies may continue research on fetal tissue obtained after a miscarriage or stillbirth, subject to PHSA section 498A rules. The drafting signals an intent to preserve some research avenues (alternative cell lines and non‑abortion‑derived tissue) while eliminating a particular procurement pathway.
Redefines PHSA section 498A to confine federal fetal‑tissue research
Rewrites section 498A: changes the heading, limits the Secretary’s authority to conduct or support research to tissue obtained after miscarriage or stillbirth, adjusts donor and transplantation provisions, and replaces the prior subsection structure. The amendment also gives statutory definitions for 'human fetal tissue', 'miscarriage', 'stillbirth', and cross‑references an 'unborn child' definition in Title 18. These textual moves narrow the statutory permit for federal fetal‑tissue research and recast the permissible material by gestational threshold.
Prohibits solicitation/receipt of tissue known to be abortion‑derived
Alters PHSA section 498B to prohibit soliciting or knowingly acquiring or accepting a donation of fetal tissue when the donor or recipient knows the tissue resulted from an induced abortion or that a pregnancy was initiated to provide tissue. The prohibition explicitly excludes transfers for autopsy or burial, and the bill streamlines and reorders subsections and cross‑references. Practically, tissue banks, hospitals, and investigators will need documentation and provenance processes to avoid 'knowing' receipt; the text, however, does not specify criminal penalties or administrative enforcement details within the amended subsection itself.
Repeal of prior NIH authorization
Repeals section 113 of the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993 (a note to 42 U.S.C. 289g–1), removing earlier statutory language that had authorized certain NIH activities involving transplantation of fetal tissue. The repeal aligns the statute with the newly imposed prohibitions and removes a previous statutory basis for some NIH fetal‑tissue work.
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
- Advocacy organizations and constituencies opposed to fetal‑tissue research: they gain a statutory ban on federal involvement with tissue from induced abortions, translating policy preferences into enforceable federal limits.
- Institutions and researchers focusing on alternative models or non‑abortion‑derived sources: those developing cell lines, organoids, or animal models that do not rely on abortion‑derived fetal tissue may receive clearer federal support pathways and reduced competition for certain grants.
- Hospitals and clinics that wish to avoid participation in abortion‑derived tissue procurement: the law reduces pressure to engage in procurement chains that some institutions find ethically or reputationally fraught.
Who Bears the Cost
- NIH and other federal research agencies: they lose an established source of primary human tissue used in developmental biology and certain preclinical models, requiring program restructuring and potentially stranded research investments.
- Academic researchers and federally funded laboratories that use abortion‑derived fetal tissue: investigators who rely on that tissue for disease models, developmental studies, or certain translational projects will need to change protocols or seek private funding and face possible delays or loss of federal grant eligibility.
- Tissue procurement organizations and clinical partners: entities that collect and supply fetal tissue for research must overhaul consent, documentation, and transfer processes and may see a collapse in demand from federally funded researchers.
- Public health and biomedical programs that depend on specific models (e.g., some viral vector or vaccine development lines): certain lines of inquiry could slow or require alternative, potentially costlier methods, with downstream effects on product pipelines and timelines.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill resolves an ethical concern—preventing federal support for research using tissue from induced abortions—by restricting a specific research input, but in doing so it forces a trade‑off between ethical policy objectives and the scientific value of a material that has enabled particular biomedical advances; the statute shifts federal support away from one research supply chain without addressing how to preserve scientific capacity, oversight clarity, or research reproducibility in its absence.
The bill draws a bright legal line on one procurement pathway—tissue obtained pursuant to induced abortion—while leaving many operational details unresolved. It does not set forth an enforcement regime (criminal penalties, administrative fines, or grant‑condition sanctions) for violations, so implementation will likely fall to agency grant and contracting rules and internal compliance offices.
The broad phrase 'otherwise support' is open to interpretation: does it capture regulatory interactions, shared data resources, subcontracting, or collaborative projects where federal funds do not directly pay for fetal tissue? Agencies will need to define scope through guidance and contract terms.
Provenance and 'knowing' receipt provisions create practical and evidentiary headaches. The amendment bars solicitation or receipt when the recipient 'knows' the tissue was abortion‑derived or that a pregnancy was started to provide tissue; the bill does not define the standard of knowledge or require particular documentation.
That raises questions about how institutions will demonstrate compliance, how auditors will evaluate intent or knowledge, and whether vendors might obscure source information. The carve‑out allowing development of 'new, high‑efficiency cell lines' not derived from abortion‑obtained tissue preserves a pathway for substitute materials but offers no standards for validating provenance or equivalence, leaving scientific and regulatory uncertainty about what counts as a permissible cell line.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.