PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · May 23, 2025
Reproductive Empowerment and Support Through Optimal Restoration Act or the RESTORE ACT
This bill explicitly prohibits penalizing health care providers for declining to participate in assisted reproductive technology (e.g., in vitro fertilization). It also modifies services and training relating to reproductive health, especially to support an approach the bill refers to as restorative reproductive medicine. The bill describes restorative reproductive medicine as using methods such as monitoring reproductive health and addressing health conditions that may cause infertility (e.g., endometriosis) to restore reproductive function without using methods such as assisted reproductive technology.
The bill prohibits the federal government and entities receiving federal funding from penalizing health care providers that decline to (1) participate in assisted reproductive technology, or (2) facilitate such activities due to religious beliefs or moral convictions.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) must update the medical codes for classifying infertility treatments to reflect the latest practices for restorative reproductive medicine.
Also, HHS must expand the Teen Pregnancy Prevention program to include grants to entities focusing on restorative reproductive medicine. HHS must also deem entities providing or teaching restorative reproductive medicine eligible for certain family planning grants, when otherwise eligible.
Additionally, HHS must
issue reports every three years on the standards of care for diagnosing infertility and reproductive health conditions,
require the Reproductive Health National Training Center to provide training on restorative reproductive medicine,
develop education within HHS programs on treating male infertility, and
expand research on restorative reproductive medicine and reproductive health conditions.
People & committees
Rep. Harshbarger, Diana [R-TN-1] · R–TN
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
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.
Source last updated: Jun 15, 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.3589 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.3589 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.3589 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.3589 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.