Democratic governors say proposed changes to federal grants would harm reproductive healthcare
A coalition of 23 state governors and the governor of Guam, all Democrats, submitted a joint comment to the U.S. Office of Management and Budget on Monday objecting to a proposed rule that would drastically change the federal grantmaking process, saying it threatens programs related to maternal health and reproductive care.
The public comment period on the draft rule, posted on May 29 with 41 co-signing federal agencies, closes at the end of the day Monday, July 13. The current rule emphasizes that grant applications should be reviewed based on merit, with language about measurable results that align with an agency’s strategic goals and objectives, while considering available data, evidence and results from past programs.
The proposed rule, which runs more than 100 pages, would make a host of changes related to applications, decision making, oversight and cost sharing.
The governors also expressed concern about the speed at which the rule is set to be adopted. There were more than 278,000 public comments on the draft proposal as of Sunday afternoon, and the office said it intends to adopt the formal rule by Oct. 1. According to Regulations.gov, after a comment period closes, the agency typically reviews all comments received and conducts an analysis responding to the issues raised.
The proposed new rule states that senior political appointees would be part of the merit review process to ensure that awards “advance the president’s policy priorities.” The proposal says this approach would improve transparency, accountability and proper oversight that was not used during the Biden administration.
“Federal awards were often used during those years to promote a ‘woke’ policy agenda that did not reflect the values of the vast majority of the American public,” the proposed rule says. “For example, federal programs and funding opportunities were designed to advance unlawful identity-based ‘Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion’ (DEI) policies and preferences across the country.”
The Democratic governors said in their comment that the proposed rule would jeopardize states’ ability to maintain stable access to reproductive healthcare and support critical service providers in their states by allowing agencies to “unilaterally terminate discretionary grants based on political considerations, even where the award terms never reserved that right and the grantee did not have advance notice.”
One example is Perinatal Quality Initiatives meant to improve maternal health and funded in part by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. There are 34 collaboratives that address issues such as bloodstream infections in newborns, reducing pregnancy complications associated with high blood pressure and hemorrhaging, and maternal mental health care.
The funding is passed along to healthcare providers, hospitals and community-based organizations. Other programs include Safe Motherhood and Infant grants, Rural Maternal Health grants and others that are meant to improve services and care over a period of years.
The proposed rule would also prohibit the use of federal funds for statistical or demographic analyses, which the letter said is key to achieving longstanding federal health goals that help identify and address problems specific to certain populations. That portion of the rule could cause confusion among grantees and result in worse health outcomes, the letter said.
The draft rule states that there would be broad authority to cancel an award at any time, at the federal government’s discretion, without notice.
Stateline reported the Trump administration recently canceled most of the active grants under the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program, telling 53 of 67 grantees that their funding was terminated immediately because their programs normalized or promoted sexual activity for minors. The grants were canceled two years before their expiration dates.
The National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association and a family planning organization in Pennsylvania filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Health and Human Services agency in June alleging that it is politicizing the Title X grant funding program by requiring grantees to pass an “alignment review” before being awarded any funds.
“We’re sort of already getting a preview of what they’re thinking about and trying to solidify and put into official regulation,” said Christina Chang, executive director of the Reproductive Freedom Alliance, in an interview with Stateline on Friday. The governors signing the letter are all members of the alliance, which exists as a way for governors to speak in support of reproductive healthcare.
The Reproductive Freedom Alliance letter also highlighted a portion of the proposed rule that refers to an existing federal budget rule called the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits federal funds from being used for abortion services with limited exceptions. The draft rule would add that costs associated with “elective abortions” are not allowable under federal awards. The governors called that language vague and overly broad, which could discourage providers from offering comprehensive reproductive healthcare out of fear of losing their funding.
Stateline reporter Kelcie Moseley-Morris can be reached at kmoseley@stateline.org.
This story was originally produced by Stateline, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Kentucky Lantern, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.