SB 2189, the Equal Access to Reproductive Care Act, would amend the Internal Revenue Code to treat certain assisted reproduction expenses as medical expenses for tax purposes. The bill defines “assisted reproduction” broadly to include methods, treatments, procedures, and services intended to achieve pregnancy and carry it to term, including gamete and embryo donation, intrauterine insemination, in vitro fertilization, intracervical insemination, traditional reproductive surrogacy, and gestational reproductive surrogacy.
Under the bill, these expenses would be included within the definition of “medical care” for the taxpayer, the taxpayer’s spouse, or a dependent, so long as the taxpayer or family member intends to take legal custody or responsibility for any child born as a result of the assisted reproduction. The amendment would apply to taxable years beginning after enactment, making the change prospective rather than retroactive.
Impact
The bill would expand the scope of deductible medical expenses under section 213 of the Internal Revenue Code by expressly including assisted reproduction costs. This would affect taxpayers who incur fertility-related expenses, including those using IVF, donor gametes or embryos, and surrogacy arrangements, and could reduce federal income tax liability for eligible households. It would also require coordination with existing tax rules governing medical expense deductions and related transportation, insurance, and other provisions that reference medical care.
Sentiment
There is no recorded committee debate or vote history in the provided materials, so no direct legislative sentiment can be measured from discussion. Based on the bill text and title, the measure appears intended as a supportive, access-expanding tax policy for people seeking fertility treatment and family-building services. The absence of opposition statements or amendments in the record provided suggests the bill was introduced and referred without documented controversy at this stage.
Contention
The main policy questions likely center on the breadth of the definition of assisted reproduction and the inclusion of surrogacy, especially traditional and gestational surrogacy, within deductible medical care. Another possible point of contention is the requirement that the taxpayer or family member intend to take legal custody or responsibility for the resulting child, which may raise questions about eligibility in more complex family-building arrangements. Because no committee transcript or vote record is provided, specific supporters or opponents cannot be identified from the available materials.