“Push to reinstate the protections of Roe v. Wade, pass the Women's Health Protection Act, and codify the right to contraception and IVF.”
Sources (click to view full provenance)
Propose an edit to this promise's details
Suggest a sourced correction to the promise text, topic, scope, significance, or dates. Changing the promise text requires a source. Your suggestion is reviewed before it changes the record.
Free — it takes a minute. New here? Create an account and complete the Contributor Agreement once.
Assessments
evidence-backed verdictsThese are sourced verdicts from fact-checkers or community evidence reviews — not opinions.
Independently verified two primary sources: (1) govinfo.gov confirms Rep. Laura Gillen introduced H.R. 2049 (Access to Family Building Act) on March 11, 2025 as lead sponsor (with Fitzpatrick and Lawler as cosponsors) — this is the IVF codification prong of the promise. (2) Gillen's official House press release (Feb 11, 2025) confirms she cosponsored H.R. 999 (Right to Contraception Act) — the contraception prong. Being lead sponsor of a bill (not merely a cosponsor or single vote) is the definitional threshold for CHAMPIONED. She actively led on one prong (IVF) and cosponsored another (contraception); prior researcher also credited WHPA cosponsorship (H.R. 12), which I could not independently verify due to congress.gov 403 errors and exhausted web search budget, but the CHAMPIONED rating is already supported by the IVF sponsorship alone. Rating is fair under a nonpartisan standard — a Republican who was lead sponsor of a pro-life codification bill would similarly qualify as CHAMPIONED for that promise. None of these bills have passed (Republican-controlled House), so not FULL. Confidence 0.85 stands.
Your opinion on this assessment(clearly labeled opinion)
Sign in to vote.
Discussion
community opinionsComments are user opinions — not verdicts. They do not affect the official assessment.
Sign in to join the discussion.
Propose a correction
community accountabilitySee an error in the promise text, status, significance, or missing source? Submit a sourced correction — a reviewer will evaluate and apply it if accurate. Your submission must cite evidence; unsourced changes are not accepted.
Sign in or create an account to propose a correction.
Debate
sourced community argumentsThese are sourced community arguments — not StumpWatch assessments. Each cites a source and is community-contributed; it does not change the official status or rating above.
No arguments yet
Be the first to weigh in. Every argument cites a source and is reviewed before it publishes. Create an account to add one and help keep this promise honest.
Add a sourced argument
Cite a source for your point. Submissions are held for reviewer approval before they appear.
Sign in or create an account to add an argument.