Some Democratic lawmakers warn that in addition to further rollbacks of women’s reproductive rights, a second Donald Trump presidency would also mean a reversal of the progress that has been made in women’s health research under President Biden.
“We are dealing with a contrast here that will either advance women’s health or put it in a sort of retrograde,” Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.) said.
“The Biden administration has really begun to turn the page for us and the only way that I see that continuing is with the election of Kamala Harris as the first woman president of the United States,” she said.
Health conditions that predominantly affect women have historically been under-researched, in part because many researchers have preferred to conduct studies mainly on male bodies either due to concerns over potential unborn children or worries over fluctuating hormones tied to the female reproductive system.
Research into women’s health also receives far less funding than that focused on health conditions that mostly affect men. One 2021 study found that in almost three-quarters of cases, diseases that mainly affect women are underfunded for the amount of people they impact and illnesses that primarily affect men are overfunded.
The Biden administration has taken steps to try to counter that imbalance. Last year, it created the White House Initiative on Women’s Health Research to boost investment in research on conditions that primarily affect the female reproductive system, like menopause and endometriosis; that impact women differently than men, like cardiovascular disease; or that occur more commonly in women than men, like many autoimmune diseases.
In February, first lady Jill Biden announced the first “major deliverable” under the initiative — the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health’s (ARPA-H) Sprint for Women’s Health, which aims to ramp up advances in women’s health.
Since then, the initiative has been able to garner commitments from the U.S. Department of Defense and the National Institutes of Health to invest a combined $700 million in women’s health research.
Earlier this month, ARPA-H announced that it had awarded $110 million to 23 different recipients to develop health technology like a first-of-its-kind blood test to diagnose endometriosis and new ways to measure chronic pain in women, according to a release.
Several Democrats who have sought to advance women’s health research in their time in Congress expressed concern that a second Trump term would stymie the headway being made on the issue, however.
Clarke pointed to past actions by the former president, specifically citing Trump’s role in the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade as an example of how women’s health — including research efforts — will worsen if he is reelected.
Trump has repeatedly touted the role his appointment of three conservative Supreme Court justices played in the overturning of the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision, which ruled the Constitution protected the right to an abortion.
Rep. Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.) agreed with Clarke, arguing that the momentum under the Biden administration to advance women’s health research can only continue if Vice President Harris wins in November.
“Donald Trump’s record proves he’s actively working against us,” she said in an email to The Hill.
“As the architect of the women’s health crisis unfolding in this country, we simply cannot trust him to invest in our care when he has proven that he doesn’t care about our health,” she added.
Rep. Robin Kelly (D-Ill.) pointed to the future outlined in Project 2025, a presidential transition plan for the next Republican administration spearheaded by conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation, as evidence that a possible Trump return to the White House will mean less investment in women’s health research.
Trump has denied any connection to Project 2025, which was published last year by the Heritage Foundation along with more than 100 other conservative groups, but many of the authors of the plan’s policy initiatives previously served in his administration or as his advisers.
The project has four components, the most heavily criticized of which is a policy guide for the next presidential administration. The guide includes recommendations on how the next secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) can “reform” the department and have it return to “serving the health and well-being of all Americans at all stages of life.”
In the recommendations, author Roger Severino, who served as the Trump administration’s director of the HHS’s Office of Civil Rights, criticizes the National Institutes of Health for maintaining “inappropriate industry ties” that create “conflicts of interest.”
One of the actions recommended in the guide is to mandate that “funding for agencies and individual government researchers must come directly from the government with robust congressional oversight.”
“I see a Trump win as further going down the road of less access for women, less resources for women, less research for women,” Kelly said.
Women’s health research advocates, however, are hopeful that progress can still be made on the issue regardless of who wins in November given the bipartisan efforts in the House and Senate to pass legislation related to women’s health.
One example is the Endometriosis CARE Act, which was reintroduced by Rep. Nikema Williams (D-Ga.) this spring and is now co-sponsored by one Republican lawmaker: Puerto Rico Resident Commissioner Jenniffer González-Colón.
Another is the Women and Lung Cancer Research and Preventive Services Act of 2024, which has 35 co-sponsors, nine of whom are Republican.
Neither of those measures have passed, however. The Endometriosis CARE Act was referred to the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health in May, and the Women and Lung Cancer and Preventive Services Act of 2024 was placed on the U.S. House of Representatives Union Calendar in July, meaning it was eligible for floor consideration in the late summer.
One women’s health advocate told The Hill that bills related to women’s health research fail to pass not because of pushback from a particular elected official or party but because they are forgotten about in the hustle to get more immediately pressing legislative work done.
“I think what’s happening is that it just gets lost in the end-of-the-year rush to do Medicare extenders or keep the government from shutting down,” the advocate said.
“A broad rallying point” that can capture the big picture of how important women’s health research is would probably help future legislation get passed, according to the advocate.
The Society for Women’s Health Research, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit that advocates for policies that improve women’s health outcomes, is committed to working with Congress and the incoming presidential administration to ensure “sustained and adequate funding for women’s health research,” said Katie Schubert, CEO of organization.
“All policymakers should recognize the value of investing in women’s health research and that such research is imperative to improve health care outcomes for all,” she added.
