PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 113-111.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Feb 13, 2013
Ruth Moore Act of 2013 - Directs the Secretary of Veterans Affairs (VA), in any case in which a veteran claims that a covered mental health condition was incurred in or aggravated by military sexual trauma during active duty, to accept as sufficient proof of service-connection a diagnosis by a mental health professional together with satisfactory lay or other evidence of such trauma and an opinion by the mental health professional that such condition is related to such trauma, if consistent with the circumstances, conditions, or hardships of such service, notwithstanding the fact that there is no official record of such incurrence or aggravation in such service, and to resolve every reasonable doubt in favor of the veteran. Allows such service-connection to be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.
Includes as a "covered mental health condition" post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, depression, or any other mental health diagnosis that the Secretary determines to be related to military sexual trauma.
Requires the Secretary to report annually to Congress in each of 2014 through 2018 on covered claims submitted.
People & committees
Sen. Tester, Jon [D-MT] · D–MT
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 113-111.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Dec 5, 2025. 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 S.294 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 S.294 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 S.294 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 S.294 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.