Summary#
The bill would ban federal agencies from using the term “birthing person” (or variations) in any official document. It requires agencies to use words such as “female,” “mother,” “pregnant female,” “pregnant woman,” or “woman” when referring to someone who is pregnant, giving birth, or a parent. The bill takes effect 30 days after it becomes law.
- Main change: Federal agencies may not use “birthing person” and must use the specified female- or woman-centered terms instead.
- Scope: Applies to any “agency” as that word is defined in federal law (title 5, United States Code).
- Definitions included: The bill gives specific definitions for “female,” “mother,” “pregnant female,” “pregnant woman,” and “woman.”
- Effective date: 30 days after enactment.
- No penalties or enforcement rules are stated in the bill text.
What it means for you#
- Federal agencies and employees: Agencies must stop using “birthing person” in regulations, guidance, forms, websites, and other official communications. They must use one of the listed terms when referring to pregnancy, birth, or parenthood.
- People who use federal services: Forms, letters, and program materials from federal agencies would use the female- and woman-focused terms listed in the bill. This could change how some federal forms and notices read.
- People who are transgender or nonbinary: The bill’s required terms refer specifically to “female” or “woman.” This could mean federal documents will not use gender-neutral terms that some transgender or nonbinary people prefer. The bill does not explain how to refer to people who are not female but become pregnant.
- Healthcare providers and clinics that work with federal programs: Guidance or forms that come from federal agencies (for example, in programs tied to federal funding) would use the listed terminology. This could affect wording used in federally funded materials.
- State and local governments or contractors: If they rely on federal templates, grants, or guidance, they may need to update local materials to match federal wording. This is an indirect effect rather than an explicit requirement on states or contractors.
Expenses#
No publicly available information.
- The bill itself includes no fiscal note or cost estimate.
- Possible government costs (not quantified in the bill): updating and reissuing documents and forms; revising websites and training materials; staff time to review and change guidance and regulations.
- Possible legal or administrative costs (uncertain): defending challenges or answering questions about how to apply the required terms in cases not clearly covered by the bill.
- The bill does not create fines or specify enforcement mechanisms.
Proponents' View#
- The bill appears intended to ensure federal documents use female- and woman-centered language when referring to pregnancy, birth, and motherhood.
- A possible argument for the bill is that it promotes clarity and consistency by requiring specific, sex-based terms in official federal materials.
- The bill’s title and language suggest its aim is to emphasize and protect references to mothers and females in government communications.
Opponents' View#
- One concern is that the required terms focus only on “female” or “woman” and do not address people who are not female but can be pregnant (for example, some transgender men and nonbinary people). This could leave those people misnamed or unrecognized in federal materials.
- The bill does not explain how agencies should handle situations that do not fit the listed terms. That lack of guidance may cause confusion in practice.
- Another concern is administrative burden: agencies may face time and expense to find and change every affected document, form, regulation, and piece of guidance.
- The bill does not specify enforcement or penalties, so it is unclear how compliance would be monitored or what happens if an agency continues to use other terminology.