PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Health and the Environment.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Nov 19, 1993
Mickey Leland Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention and Parenthood Act of 1993 - Amends the Public Health Service Act to replace the title on adolescent family life demonstration projects with a title on adolescent pregnancy prevention, care, and research grants. Authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services to make grants to provide, supplement, or improve the quality of prevention and care services to pregnant adolescents and their male partners, adolescent parents, and nonpregnant adolescents. Requires grantees to charge fees for services only under a fee schedule, approved by the Secretary, based on the income of the person and taking into account the difficulty adolescents face in obtaining resources to pay for services. Prohibits discrimination because of an individual's inability to pay for services. Sets forth priorities in making grants, including giving priority to applicants that: (1) serve an area with a high incidence of adolescent pregnancy; and (2) serve an area with a high proportion of low-income families and low availability of care programs. Directs the Secretary to coordinate Federal policies and programs providing services relating to the prevention of initial and recurrent adolescent pregnancies and providing care services, including by requiring grantees under these provisions to report concerning Federal, State, and local policies that interfere with delivery and coordination of programs of care for pregnant adolescents and adolescent parents. Authorizes the Secretary to make grants to institutions of higher education to support and disseminate the results of research relating to adolescent pregnancy. Limits grants or contracts to: (1) one year, subject to renewal for four additional one-year periods; and (2) subject to waiver, a specified dollar amount. Directs the Secretary to establish a system for the review of grant and contract applications which is similar to the system of scientific peer review of the National Institutes of Health. Allows grants only to programs determined by the review panel to have scientific merit. Authorizes appropriations. Prohibits using grant funds for the performance of an abortion.
People & committees
Rep. Johnson, Nancy L. [R-CT-6] · R–CT
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Health and the Environment.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E2982)
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Jun 3, 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.3561 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.3561 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.3561 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.3561 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.