PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 14, 2025
Marriage Equality for Disabled Adults Act
This bill eliminates certain marriage-related criteria for individuals entitled to Social Security child’s benefits and Supplemental Security Income (SSI).
Specifically, the bill removes the requirement that individuals receiving Social Security child’s benefits be unmarried. Those eligible for Social Security child’s benefits generally include the minor children of eligible or deceased workers and disabled adult children (the disabled adult children of such workers for whom the onset of disability occurred before age 22). Under current law, child beneficiaries generally lose their benefits upon marriage to an individual who is not also eligible for Social Security benefits.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
With respect to SSI, the bill removes the requirement that couples who present themselves as married in their community be considered married for purposes of SSI eligibility. The bill also exempts SSI recipients who are disabled adult children, or who marry disabled adult children, from the general requirement that the income or resources of an SSI recipient’s spouse be considered in an eligibility determination.
Further, married disabled adult children and their spouses who would otherwise be eligible for Medicaid in a state if they were unmarried must remain eligible for Medicaid regardless of their marriage.
People & committees
Rep. Panetta, Jimmy [D-CA-19] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Sep 19, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1389 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1389 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1389 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1389 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2025-02-14 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
This proposal would remove an unmarried requirement from Social Security child’s insurance benefits and change benefit rules for certain married people with disabilities and their spouses. It would prevent one spouse’s income and assets from being counted as the other’s in specified benefit calculations. It would also preserve Medicaid eligibility for qualifying married individuals in certain states, subject to continuing eligibility conditions.
(1) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking was unmarried and;
for purposes of determining eligibility for, and the amount of, benefits for a married individual who is entitled to a child’s insurance benefit based on a disability under section 202(d), or for the spouse of such an individual, the income and resources of the one spouse is deemed to not include any income or resources of the other spouse.
In the case of a State that exercises the option under section 1902(f)
shall remain eligible for medical assistance under such plan for so long as the individual satisfies the criteria described in paragraphs (1) and (2).
Section 1 would name the proposal the Marriage Equality for Disabled Adults Act.
This Act may be cited as the Marriage Equality for Disabled Adults Act.
Section 2 would delete the words “was unmarried and” from a Social Security eligibility provision, replace paragraph (1)(D) with the month of the child’s death, and delete paragraph (5). It would also remove a reference to paragraph (d)(5) elsewhere in the law. The existing provisions are not reproduced, so their complete operation cannot be determined from this text alone.
Section 202(d) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402(d)) is amended— (1) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking was unmarried and; (2) by amending paragraph (1)(D) to read as follows: (D) the month in which such child dies; ; and (3) by striking paragraph (5).
Section 202(s)(2) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 402(s)(2)) is amended by striking (d)(5),.
Section 3 would require two people determined to be married for benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act to be treated as married for Title XVI benefits. That treatment would begin on the later of the marriage determination date or their application date for Title XVI benefits. This would replace an existing exception whose text is not supplied.
Section 1614(d) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1382c(d)) is amended by striking except that and all that follows through the end of the subsection
except that if two individuals have been determined to be married under section 216(h)(1) for purposes of title II they shall be considered (from and after the date of such determination or the date of their application for benefits under this title, whichever is later) to be married for purposes of this title.
Section 3 would also replace specified references to husbands and wives in Title XVI with terms such as “two married individuals,” “married to,” and “spouse.”
(1) in section 1611(e)(3)— (A) by striking a husband and wife each place it appears and inserting two married individuals; and (B) by striking such husband and wife and inserting such married individuals;
(2) in section 1614(b)— (A) in the first sentence, by striking the husband or wife of and inserting married to; and (B) in the second sentence, by striking husband and wife and inserting married; and (3) in section 1631(b)(1)(A)(i), by striking husband or wife and inserting spouse.
Section 4 would create an exception to the existing rule for counting a spouse’s finances. When determining benefit eligibility and amounts for a married person entitled to disability-based child’s insurance benefits, or that person’s spouse, one spouse’s income and resources—assets—would not include the other spouse’s income or assets.
(5) Notwithstanding paragraph (1) of this subsection, for purposes of determining eligibility for, and the amount of, benefits for a married individual who is entitled to a child’s insurance benefit based on a disability under section 202(d), or for the spouse of such an individual, the income and resources of the one spouse is deemed to not include any income or resources of the other spouse.
Section 5 would preserve Medicaid eligibility in states using the option in section 1902(f) for a married person entitled to disability-based child’s insurance benefits, or that person’s spouse, if the individual would qualify for Medicaid when unmarried. The protection would continue only while both conditions remain satisfied. The supplied text does not explain the state option.
(e) In the case of a State that exercises the option under section 1902(f), any individual who— (1) is a married individual who is entitled to a child’s insurance benefit based on a disability for any month under section 202(d) or the spouse of such an individual; and (2) would be eligible for medical assistance under the State plan approved under title XIX if the individual were unmarried, shall remain eligible for medical assistance under such plan for so long as the individual satisfies the criteria described in paragraphs (1) and (2).
Section 6 expresses Congress’s proposed view that adults in the Disabled Adult Children benefit category should retain Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security eligibility after marriage on the same terms as when unmarried, regardless of their state or its Medicaid law. It also says the legislation should not affect Medicaid services available before marriage. This is a statement of policy, rather than a separate operative eligibility amendment.
It is the sense of the United States Congress that—
(1) Disabled Adult Children, if married, should remain eligible for all Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security benefits under the same terms as they would if unmarried, regardless of State of residence or State Medicaid law; specifically, this legislation should not impact a Disabled Adult Child’s eligibility for any Medicaid services for which they were eligible when unmarried;
Section 6 also expresses the view that a legally defined relationship status called “holding out” should not affect these adults’ federal Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security eligibility, regardless of marital status. The referenced definition is not supplied.
It is the sense of the United States Congress that—
(2) regardless of marital status, eligibility of Disabled Adult Children to receive Federal Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security benefits should not be impacted by any holding out status as defined in section 1382c(d) of title 42, United States Code;
Section 6 further expresses the view that these adults’ eligibility for Social Security Disability Insurance should not depend on geographic location or United States residency. This statement does not itself amend residency requirements.
It is the sense of the United States Congress that—
(3) Disabled Adult Children’s eligibility for Social Security Disability Insurance benefits should not be conditioned on geographic location or residency in the United States.
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated September 19, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce committees on February 14, 2025. It does not establish subsequent action or enactment.
Source snapshot updated 2026-09-19T23:37:36Z.
2025-02-14: Introduced in House
2025-02-14: Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-02-14. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy change attached to appropriations was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish the contents of other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version; formal earmark disclosures and accompanying materials are not supplied.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
Findings to examine
The text contains a specific financial eligibility exception tied to the bill’s main policy. Classification identifies the narrow treatment, without judging its justification.
Section 4 would give married recipients of disability-based child’s insurance benefits and their spouses a specific exception to spousal income-and-asset counting. For benefit eligibility and amount calculations, each spouse’s finances would exclude the other’s. This is an express exception to an existing rule, beyond simply allowing married people to participate.
(5) Notwithstanding paragraph (1) of this subsection, for purposes of determining eligibility for, and the amount of, benefits for a married individual who is entitled to a child’s insurance benefit based on a disability under section 202(d), or for the spouse of such an individual, the income and resources of the one spouse is deemed to not include any income or resources of the other spouse.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Sep 19, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI