Alabama state-government finances, comparable debt and interest figures, and the enacted budget.
The national companion measures federal finances. Here the unit is Alabama state government. Federal debt is not allocated to Alabama; a state budget is not the federal budget.
State debt outstanding$10.99BFY2024 · #26 of 50 · highest first
Interest expenditure$327.17MFY2024 · #25 of 50 · highest first
Total state tax collections$16.87BFY2024 · #27 of 50 · highest first
Alabama over time
Explore Alabama readings, major events and reviewed actions on the same date scale. Alabama officeholders appear in separate lanes. National event evidence describes national context; it does not measure a Alabama effect.
Major events & context · A curated selection, including uncertain effects. Milestone dates do not establish that an event caused a Alabama change.
Enacted / issuedDid not proceedPending / in progressStatus unclear
Colors show the latest recorded status. Passing one chamber is not enactment. A number groups actions with the same date, body and status.
No comparable time series is retained for this topic. The chart shows events and reviewed actions; current state comparisons appear below.
Alabama government actions Alabama · source units
Move across the chart to inspect the nearest observation. Click or tap to keep a reading selected, or focus the chart and use the arrow keys. Hover over or focus a marker to explore; click or tap to pin. Press Escape to clear.
7 of 7 reviewed Alabama actions match · 7 date markers shown. 51 major events shown separately.
How major events are selected
The timeline combines the corresponding national fact’s reviewed event catalog, labeled National context, with individually reviewed state milestones. State events use primary sources and distinguish signing, effective and filing dates. Each milestone keeps its source-check date, geographical limits and evidence limits. This curated selection is not a complete history.
Date ranges affect events and actions. Action type, status and official-name search affect government records only. Events remain separate from action counts. An event after the latest observation extends context without creating a new reading.
Alabama · state comparison
State debt and interest
Compare state-government balances and interest expenditure from the same Census fiscal-year survey.
Alabama · FY2024$10.99B
Alabama rank#26among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark$1.1TSame measure and period when published
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
State debt outstanding
Long-term debt outstanding plus short-term debt outstanding at fiscal year end.
State governments only, Census level 2; amounts converted from thousands to dollars. Fiscal-year ending dates differ among states. Excludes local-government debt. Dollar ranks describe scale, not credit quality.
Compare states on the graph
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Alabama stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Alabama has a dark outline.
Lower value · $728.59MHigher value · $166.39BStriped: unavailable
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
Alabama · $10.99BFY2024 · Rank #26 of 50, highest firstSelected state
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
Compare Alabama with every state · 50 ranked
State debt outstanding · FY2024 · highest value ranked #1
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
California
$166.39B
—
#2
New York
$120.59B
—
#3
Texas
$70.05B
—
#4
Massachusetts
$65.87B
—
#5
New Jersey
$57.23B
—
#6
Pennsylvania
$48.67B
—
#7
Illinois
$43.38B
—
#8
Virginia
$33.73B
—
#9
Connecticut
$33.27B
—
#10
Ohio
$32.29B
—
#11
Washington
$30.62B
—
#12
Maryland
$25.9B
—
#13
Michigan
$25.02B
—
#14
Colorado
$23.57B
—
#15
Wisconsin
$22.79B
—
#16
Florida
$20.14B
—
#17
Minnesota
$17.03B
—
#18
Oregon
$16.91B
—
#19
Louisiana
$16.09B
—
#20
South Carolina
$15.36B
—
#21
West Virginia
$15.08B
—
#22
Georgia
$14.05B
—
#23
North Carolina
$13.13B
—
#24
Hawaii
$11.72B
—
#25
Rhode Island
$11.41B
—
#26
Alabama · your comparison
$10.99B
—
#27
Oklahoma
$10.15B
—
#28
Kentucky
$10.08B
—
#29
Tennessee
$9.03B
—
#30
Indiana
$8.52B
—
#31
Iowa
$8.06B
—
#32
Arkansas
$8.05B
—
#33
Mississippi
$7.72B
—
#34
New Hampshire
$7.58B
—
#35
Kansas
$7.16B
—
#36
New Mexico
$7.12B
—
#37
Missouri
$6.99B
—
#38
Arizona
$6.88B
—
#39
Alaska
$5.72B
—
#40
Utah
$5.55B
—
#41
Maine
$5.3B
—
#42
North Dakota
$4.89B
—
#43
South Dakota
$4.67B
—
#44
Delaware
$3.69B
—
#45
Nebraska
$3.39B
—
#46
Nevada
$2.89B
—
#47
Montana
$2.76B
—
#48
Vermont
$2.67B
—
#49
Wyoming
$1.26B
—
#50
Idaho
$728.59M
—
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
All measures use Census state-government records for FY2024. Categories describe collections; they do not rank statutory tax rates.
Alabama · FY2024$4.59B
Alabama rank#33among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark$465.4BSame measure and period when published
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
General sales-tax collections
Census category T09.
State governments only, Census level 2; amounts converted from thousands to dollars. Fiscal-year ending dates differ among states.
Compare states on the graph
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Alabama stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Alabama has a dark outline.
Lower value · $0Higher value · $54.35BStriped: unavailable
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
Alabama · $4.59BFY2024 · Rank #33 of 50, highest firstSelected state
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
Compare Alabama with every state · 50 ranked
General sales-tax collections · FY2024 · highest value ranked #1
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
Texas
$54.35B
—
#2
California
$53.33B
—
#3
Florida
$40.09B
—
#4
Washington
$22.81B
—
#5
New York
$19.99B
—
#6
Ohio
$16.33B
—
#7
Illinois
$16.05B
—
#8
Pennsylvania
$15.6B
—
#9
New Jersey
$14.31B
—
#10
Tennessee
$14.08B
—
#11
Arizona
$13.16B
—
#12
Michigan
$12.7B
—
#13
North Carolina
$12.16B
—
#14
Indiana
$10.96B
—
#15
Massachusetts
$9.4B
—
#16
Georgia
$9.01B
—
#17
Minnesota
$8.49B
—
#18
Nevada
$8.4B
—
#19
Wisconsin
$7.59B
—
#20
Virginia
$7.4B
—
#21
Maryland
$6.85B
—
#22
South Carolina
$6.44B
—
#23
Connecticut
$6.23B
—
#24
Kentucky
$5.8B
—
#25
Missouri
$5.26B
—
#26
Mississippi
$5.07B
—
#27
Arkansas
$5.07B
—
#28
Louisiana
$4.87B
—
#29
Hawaii
$4.79B
—
#30
Colorado
$4.67B
—
#31
Iowa
$4.64B
—
#32
Utah
$4.63B
—
#33
Alabama · your comparison
$4.59B
—
#34
Kansas
$4.33B
—
#35
New Mexico
$4.33B
—
#36
Oklahoma
$3.81B
—
#37
Idaho
$3.09B
—
#38
Nebraska
$2.97B
—
#39
Maine
$2.35B
—
#40
West Virginia
$1.82B
—
#41
South Dakota
$1.68B
—
#42
Rhode Island
$1.63B
—
#43
Oregon
$1.34B
—
#44
North Dakota
$1.32B
—
#45
Wyoming
$1.01B
—
#46
Vermont
$597.33M
—
#47
Alaska
$0
—
#47
Delaware
$0
—
#47
Montana
$0
—
#47
New Hampshire
$0
—
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
Census categories allow consistent comparisons. These selected categories are not a breakdown of the current Alabama appropriations act.
Alabama · FY2024$9.73B
Alabama rank#30among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark$1.02TSame measure and period when published
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Public welfare current operations
Current operations for public welfare institutions and other public welfare, excluding capital and transfers.
State governments only, Census level 2; amounts converted from thousands to dollars. Fiscal-year ending dates differ among states.
Compare states on the graph
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Alabama stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Alabama has a dark outline.
Lower value · $1.09BHigher value · $156.71BStriped: unavailable
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
Alabama · $9.73BFY2024 · Rank #30 of 50, highest firstSelected state
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
Compare Alabama with every state · 50 ranked
Public welfare current operations · FY2024 · highest value ranked #1
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
California
$156.71B
—
#2
New York
$97.35B
—
#3
Texas
$57.32B
—
#4
Illinois
$41.13B
—
#5
Florida
$40.11B
—
#6
Ohio
$39.77B
—
#7
Pennsylvania
$39.34B
—
#8
Massachusetts
$34.12B
—
#9
North Carolina
$30.64B
—
#10
New Jersey
$28.06B
—
#11
Arizona
$26.02B
—
#12
Michigan
$24.37B
—
#13
Virginia
$23.68B
—
#14
Minnesota
$23.37B
—
#15
Indiana
$22.93B
—
#16
Maryland
$21.61B
—
#17
Kentucky
$20.54B
—
#18
Oregon
$20.47B
—
#19
Washington
$19.6B
—
#20
Georgia
$18.99B
—
#21
Louisiana
$18.69B
—
#22
Tennessee
$16.42B
—
#23
Wisconsin
$16.26B
—
#24
Missouri
$15.65B
—
#25
Oklahoma
$14.57B
—
#26
Colorado
$13.6B
—
#27
South Carolina
$12.84B
—
#28
New Mexico
$10.72B
—
#29
Iowa
$10.26B
—
#30
Alabama · your comparison
$9.73B
—
#31
Arkansas
$8.67B
—
#32
Mississippi
$8.08B
—
#33
Utah
$6.91B
—
#34
Kansas
$6.84B
—
#35
Nevada
$6.62B
—
#36
West Virginia
$6.24B
—
#37
Maine
$5.7B
—
#38
Nebraska
$4.97B
—
#39
Connecticut
$4.88B
—
#40
Rhode Island
$4.54B
—
#41
Hawaii
$4.14B
—
#42
Delaware
$3.97B
—
#43
Idaho
$3.73B
—
#44
Alaska
$3.27B
—
#45
Montana
$2.89B
—
#46
New Hampshire
$2.72B
—
#47
Vermont
$2.69B
—
#48
North Dakota
$2.09B
—
#49
South Dakota
$1.95B
—
#50
Wyoming
$1.09B
—
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
The enacted plan, spending categories and audited activity use different periods and accounting scopes; they are kept separate.
Alabama · FY2024$26.99B
Alabama rank#27among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark$2.04TSame measure and period when published
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Current operation expenditure
Sum of Census current-operation expenditure categories, excluding capital outlay, interest, and assistance/subsidy expenditure.
State governments only, Census level 2; amounts converted from thousands to dollars. Fiscal-year ending dates differ among states. This FY2024 comparison differs in scope and period from Alabama’s FY2027 appropriations and Fiscal year ended September 30, 2025 audit shown below.
Compare states on the graph
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Alabama stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Alabama has a dark outline.
Lower value · $4.01BHigher value · $287.03BStriped: unavailable
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
Alabama · $26.99BFY2024 · Rank #27 of 50, highest firstSelected state
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
Compare Alabama with every state · 50 ranked
Current operation expenditure · FY2024 · highest value ranked #1
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
California
$287.03B
—
#2
New York
$161.37B
—
#3
Texas
$136.18B
—
#4
Florida
$86.61B
—
#5
Pennsylvania
$77.15B
—
#6
Illinois
$75.67B
—
#7
Ohio
$66.77B
—
#8
New Jersey
$64.53B
—
#9
Massachusetts
$61.38B
—
#10
North Carolina
$59.01B
—
#11
Michigan
$57.27B
—
#12
Virginia
$53.45B
—
#13
Washington
$49.82B
—
#14
Georgia
$45.19B
—
#15
Maryland
$45.06B
—
#16
Oregon
$41.41B
—
#17
Arizona
$38.71B
—
#18
Minnesota
$38.1B
—
#19
Indiana
$37.4B
—
#20
Kentucky
$36.94B
—
#21
Wisconsin
$34.5B
—
#22
Missouri
$34.43B
—
#23
South Carolina
$32.85B
—
#24
Colorado
$32.73B
—
#25
Louisiana
$31.67B
—
#26
Tennessee
$31.12B
—
#27
Alabama · your comparison
$26.99B
—
#28
Oklahoma
$24.28B
—
#29
Utah
$22.7B
—
#30
New Mexico
$21.94B
—
#31
Connecticut
$21.22B
—
#32
Iowa
$19.89B
—
#33
Kansas
$18.39B
—
#34
Hawaii
$16.62B
—
#35
Mississippi
$16.46B
—
#36
Arkansas
$16.28B
—
#37
West Virginia
$13.19B
—
#38
Nevada
$12.43B
—
#39
Nebraska
$10.41B
—
#40
Maine
$10.12B
—
#41
Delaware
$9.24B
—
#42
Rhode Island
$8.93B
—
#43
Alaska
$8.4B
—
#44
Idaho
$8.21B
—
#45
New Hampshire
$7.12B
—
#46
Montana
$6.44B
—
#47
Vermont
$6.28B
—
#48
North Dakota
$5.63B
—
#49
South Dakota
$4.55B
—
#50
Wyoming
$4.01B
—
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
Direct annual appropriations reported in Alabama's enacted comparison tables: $10.479 billion from the Education Trust Fund, including separately enacted State-related and private-school appropriations, and $3.737 billion in State General Fund appropriations, including the listed non-State agency appropriation. The total excludes earmarked, federal, and local funds shown beside the General Fund bill, separate supplemental measures, and conditional appropriations that have not been released.
Shares of the $15.308 billion in taxes reported as general revenue for Alabama's primary government. The property-tax line is State revenue; county, municipal, and school property taxes retained locally are outside this denominator.
The Education Trust Fund follows the official K–12, higher-education, and other split. FactVote groups the largest General Fund health, human-services, public-safety, correctional, and court agencies and uses an exact residual for the remaining direct General Fund appropriations.
Government-wide activity for Alabama's primary government on the accrual basis. Revenue combines charges for services, operating and capital grants, taxes, investment earnings, unrestricted grants, and miscellaneous revenue; transfers cancel at the primary-government level.
Explore current officeholders and explicitly reviewed historical executive officials, labeled at the time of their actions. Timeline dates, action type, status and search also filter this list. Read any record’s summary, latest recorded status and official evidence below, or open it beside the timeline.
7 of 7 reviewed Alabama actions · newest first
Jun 11, 2026 · HR 9260 · Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2027 · In CongressU.S. Congress · Alabama delegation · HR 9260
Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2027
Jun 11, 2026 · In Congress
Rep. Robert B. Aderholt · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
Sections 506–507 of this FY2027 appropriations proposal restrict its funds for abortion and abortion coverage, with rape, incest, and specified life-endangerment exceptions. It concerns financing and access; it cannot explain Alabama’s earlier resident-based abortion count.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 604. No enactment of this bill is recorded at the review cutoff.
Why this record is included
The fact counts induced terminations for Alabama residents in 2024, including events in other states reported back to Alabama. Access, restrictions and reporting concern this resident-based measure, which does not capture every out-of-state event. This connection does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain the earlier observed value.
Retained Alabama evidence context: Reported induced terminations among Alabama residents · Adults with at least a high school diploma · People receiving Social Security benefits. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
506. (a)None of the funds appropriated in this Act, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are appropriated in this Act, shall be expended for any abortion. (b)None of the funds appropriated in this Act, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are appropriated in this Act, shall be expended for health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion. (c)The term health benefits coverage means the package of services covered by a managed care provider or organization pursuant to a contract or other arrangement. 507. (a)The limitations established in the preceding section shall not apply to an abortion— (1)if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest; or (2)in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed. (b)Nothing in the preceding section shall be construed as prohibiting the expenditure by a State, locality, entity, or private person of State, local, or private funds (other than a State's or locality's contribution of Medicaid matching funds). (c)Nothing in the preceding section shall be construed as restricting the ability of any managed care provider from offering abortion coverage or the ability of a State or locality to contract separately with such a provider for such coverage with State funds (other than a State's or locality's contribution of Medicaid matching funds). (d) (1)None of the funds made available in this Act may be made available to a Federal agency or program, or to a State or local government, if such agency, program, or government subjects any institutional or individual health care entity to discrimination on the basis that the health care entity does not provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions. (2)In this subsection, the term health care entity includes an individual physician or other health care professional, a hospital, a provider-sponsored organization, a health maintenance organization, a health insurance plan, or any other kind of health care facility, organization, or plan.
Inspect this action on the timeline ↑Mar 31, 2026 · HB 649 · Class 1 municipalities; creation of housing trust fund authorized · Not enactedAlabama Legislature · HB 649
Class 1 municipalities; creation of housing trust fund authorized
Mar 31, 2026 · Not enacted
Rep. Kelvin Datcher · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
The proposal would authorize a Class 1 municipality to create a housing trust fund for producing, rehabilitating, and maintaining housing affordable to households at or below 120 percent of local median income. It grants no new taxing authority.
Pending Committee Action in House of Origin. Latest official history entry: Pending Committee Action in House of Origin (2026-03-31). The reviewed session ended without a recorded enactment. Proposed effective dates do not establish that the proposal became law.
Why this record is included
Gross rent includes contract rent and tenant-paid utilities. Rental protections, assistance, and housing supply concern components of rental-market conditions; they do not set Alabama’s median rent. This connection does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain the earlier observed value.
Retained Alabama evidence context: Median gross rent. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
Section 3. As used in this act, the following words and phrases have the following meanings: (1) AFFORDABLE HOUSING. Residential housing for rent or sale that is appropriately priced for rent or sale to a person or family whose income does not exceed one hundred twenty percent of the median income for the local area, with adjustments for household size, according to the latest figures available from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2) HOUSING TRUST FUND. A trust fund which is established by the governing body of a Class 1 municipality for the collection and distribution of designated funds for the purpose of increasing the production of housing units, rehabilitating existing housing units, and maintaining such housing so that it can be made affordable to individuals and families whose incomes are at or below 120 percent of the median family income. Section 4. A Class 1 municipality is hereby authorized to create and operate a housing trust fund, by ordinance or resolution, for the purposes stated in this act. Section 5. (a) A Class 1 municipality may fund its housing trust fund with any money available to the Class 1 municipality, unless expressly prohibited by state law. Sources of these funds include, but are not limited to: (1) Donations; (2) Bond proceeds; (3) Grants and loans from a state, federal, or private source; (4) Appropriations by a Class 1 municipality to the trust fund; (5) Investment earnings of the trust fund; (6) Appropriations from a state housing trust fund; and (7) Dedicated funding sources authorized by the legislature. (b) This act does not create, grant, or confer a new or additional tax or revenue authority to a Class 1 municipality unless otherwise provided by the law of this state.
Inspect this action on the timeline ↑Sep 30, 2025 · HR 3838 · Streamlining Procurement for Effective Execution and Delivery and National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026 · In CongressU.S. Congress · Alabama delegation · HR 3838
Streamlining Procurement for Effective Execution and Delivery and National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026
Sep 30, 2025 · In Congress
Rep. Mike Rogers · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
Section 1116 of the reviewed defense-authorization proposal would direct an increase in pay for specified Department of Defense prevailing-rate employees under the referenced appropriations provisions. This concerns wages for a defined employee group and does not establish a statewide median-income effect.
Received in the Senate. No enactment of this bill is recorded at the review cutoff.
Why this record is included
Wages and cash benefits can be components of household money income. Census income is measured before taxes, so tax relief alone is not an increase in this statistic; the provision does not determine the statewide median. This connection does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain the earlier observed value.
Retained Alabama evidence context: Median household income. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
1116.DOD prevailing rate employee pay increase (a)In generalBeginning on the first day of the first pay period beginning on or after the date of the enactment of this Act, the rate of pay for any employee of the Department of Defense who is a prevailing rate employee (as that term is defined in section 5342(a)(2)(A) of title 5, United States Code) shall be increased by the percentage allowed by operation of section 737 of the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024, as extended by division A of the American Relief Act, 2025. (b)ReportNot later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit a report to the congressional defense committees on actions taken to resolve delays in increasing the rates of pay for such employees, the status of the Department of Defense Wage Committee, and any recommendations for preventing future interruptions to wage increases for such employees.
Inspect this action on the timeline ↑Sep 11, 2025 · HR 5304 · Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2026 · In CongressU.S. Congress · Alabama delegation · HR 5304
Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2026
Sep 11, 2025 · In Congress
Rep. Robert B. Aderholt · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
Sections 506–507 of this appropriations proposal restrict the use of its funds for abortion and abortion coverage, with exceptions for rape, incest, and specified danger to the woman’s life. This is a federal funding provision, not an Alabama occurrence count or a new statewide abortion ban.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 227. No enactment of this bill is recorded at the review cutoff.
Why this record is included
The fact counts induced terminations for Alabama residents in 2024, including events in other states reported back to Alabama. Access, restrictions and reporting concern this resident-based measure, which does not capture every out-of-state event. This connection does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain the earlier observed value.
Retained Alabama evidence context: Reported induced terminations among Alabama residents · People receiving Social Security benefits. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
506.(a)None of the funds appropriated in this Act, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are appropriated in this Act, shall be expended for any abortion.(b)None of the funds appropriated in this Act, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are appropriated in this Act, shall be expended for health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion.(c)The term health benefits coverage means the package of services covered by a managed care provider or organization pursuant to a contract or other arrangement.507.(a)The limitations established in the preceding section shall not apply to an abortion—(1)if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest; or(2)in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed.(b)Nothing in the preceding section shall be construed as prohibiting the expenditure by a State, locality, entity, or private person of State, local, or private funds (other than a State's or locality's contribution of Medicaid matching funds).(c)Nothing in the preceding section shall be construed as restricting the ability of any managed care provider from offering abortion coverage or the ability of a State or locality to contract separately with such a provider for such coverage with State funds (other than a State's or locality's contribution of Medicaid matching funds).(d)(1)None of the funds made available in this Act may be made available to a Federal agency or program, or to a State or local government, if such agency, program, or government subjects any institutional or individual health care entity to discrimination on the basis that the health care entity does not provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.(2)In this subsection, the term health care entity includes an individual physician or other health care professional, a hospital, a provider-sponsored organization, a health maintenance organization, a health insurance plan, or any other kind of health care facility, organization, or plan.
SB 304 establishes an Energy Infrastructure Bank with loan and bond-financing powers and a Strategic Energy Infrastructure Development Fund for qualifying industrial-development energy projects and equipment, with specified rural-area funding requirements. The act creates financing authority and reporting requirements. Its loans and bonds are subject to statutory conditions; this event does not show that financing was issued, infrastructure completed, or economic output increased.
Signed on 2025-05-14. Governor approval May 14, 2025. The original act specifies June 1, 2025 for effectiveness, separately from approval and any later project decisions. The act creates financing authority and reporting requirements. Its loans and bonds are subject to statutory conditions; this event does not show that financing was issued, infrastructure completed, or economic output increased.
Why this record is included
SB 304 establishes an Energy Infrastructure Bank with loan and bond-financing powers and a Strategic Energy Infrastructure Development Fund for qualifying industrial-development energy projects and equipment, with specified rural-area funding requirements. The act creates financing authority and reporting requirements. Its loans and bonds are subject to statutory conditions; this event does not show that financing was issued, infrastructure completed, or economic output increased. This topic relationship does not establish an effect on a state statistic.
Retained Alabama evidence context: Natural gas share of in-state electricity generation · energy · reviewed policy-topic context. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
There is created within the authority, a division to be known as the Alabama Energy Infrastructure Bank.
Inspect this action on the timeline ↑Mar 3, 2025 · HR 1776 · New Health Options Act of 2025 · In CongressU.S. Congress · Alabama delegation · HR 1776
New Health Options Act of 2025
Mar 3, 2025 · In Congress
Rep. Gary J. Palmer · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
The New Health Options Act proposal would establish federal reinsurance payments for specified individual-market plans, with the stated purpose of lowering premiums. It concerns the cost and availability of health insurance, not a measured reduction in Alabama’s uninsured rate.
Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Ways and Means, and Education and Workforce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. No enactment of this bill is recorded at the review cutoff.
Why this record is included
The fact measures residents under 65 without health insurance. Insurance eligibility, enrollment, coverage continuity and premium assistance concern the covered population. Provider payments and covered services alone do not establish a coverage change, and Medicare-only changes mostly concern a different age population. This connection does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain the earlier observed value.
Retained Alabama evidence context: People under age 65 without health insurance. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
1344.Reinsurance program for certain off-Exchange plans(a)In generalThere is established a Reinsurance Program, to be administered by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, to provide payments to health insurance issuers with respect to claims for eligible individuals for the purpose of lowering premiums for such individuals.(b)Funding(1)AppropriationFor the purpose of providing funding for the Reinsurance Program, for each year during the period beginning on January 1, 2026, and ending on December 31, 2030, there is appropriated out of any monies in the Treasury not otherwise obligated an amount equal to the product of $50 and the aggregate number of member months for all eligible individuals enrolled in a covered plan during such year.(2)Limitation on appropriationIn no year shall the appropriation for the Reinsurance Program authorized in paragraph (1) exceed $6,000,000,000.(3)Use of unexpended fundsAppropriated amounts remaining unexpended at the end of any year may be used to make payments under the Reinsurance Program in any future year.(4)Limitation on use of fundsNo funds received under the Reinsurance Program may be used to pay for services described in section 1303(b)(1)(B)(i) (as in effect on the date of the enactment of this section).(c)Operation of program(1)In generalThe Secretary shall establish parameters for the operation of the Reinsurance Program consistent with this section.(2)Deadline for initial operationNot later than 120 days after the date of the enactment, the Secretary shall establish sufficient parameters to specify how the Program will operate for 2026.(3)DefinitionsIn this section:(A)Covered planThe term covered plan means individual health insurance coverage (as such term is defined in section 2791 of the Public Health Service Act)—(i)with respect to which the issuer of such coverage has made the election described in section 1312(c)(1)(A); and(ii)that does not provide coverage for services described in section 1303(b)(1)(B)(i) (as in effect on the date of the enactment of this section).(B)Eligible individualThe term eligible individual means an individual enrolled in a covered plan.(d)Attachment dollar amount and payment proportion(1)In generalThe Secretary shall annually establish an attachment point, payment proportion, and reinsurance cap with respect to claims for eligible individuals for payments under the Reinsurance Program, consistent with the following:(A)The attachment point for the period beginning January 1, 2026, and ending December 31, 2026, shall be $110,000.(B)The payment proportion for the period beginning January 1, 2026, and ending December 31, 2026, shall be 90 percent.(C)The reinsurance cap for the period beginning January 1, 2026 and ending December 31, 2026, shall be $300,000.(2)Adjustment authorityThe Secretary may adjust any amounts described in paragraph (1) as necessary to ensure the Reinsurance Program does not make payment for a year in excess of the amount available for such year under subsection (b)..
Records come from published fact relationships or reviewed topic records with official supporting evidence and verified Alabama officeholder attribution. Historical executive officials require evidence tied to the action date and are excluded from incumbent proposals. Inclusion follows an explicit topic review, a related state fact, or the action’s title and supporting evidence. Explicit topic reviews take priority; repeated actions use the most recent explicit review for this topic. Duplicate actions attached to several facts appear once. This topic match is not a new finding that an action caused a result, and the reviewed collection is selective. Collection reviewed Oct 5, 2026.
What candidates are saying
Explore statements about budgets, government spending, deficits and public debt from FactVote’s Alabama candidate profiles. Compare candidates within each recorded race, with each person’s matching statements kept together. These are candidate and campaign statements, not verified outcomes.
18 statements from 10 candidates
2026 Alabama Public Service Commissioner, Place 2 — General Election
1 candidate with matching statements · 1 statement
Republican · Public Service Commissioner, Place 2 · AL
Budgets, spending & debt
Gas utilities like Spire operate under PSC oversight. Rate structures, infrastructure investments, and cost recovery all require Commission approval. When winter arrives and heating costs rise, these regulatory decisions directly impact family budgets.
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Natural Gas Regulation
Candidate campaign source
Gas utilities like Spire operate under PSC oversight. Rate structures, infrastructure investments, and cost recovery all require Commission approval. When winter arrives and heating costs rise, these regulatory decisions directly impact family budgets.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 17, 2026
I am a huge fan of the work Elon Musk did at the federal level to cut federal spending and stop wasting money. Although Alabama’s budgets are in much better shape than the federal budgets are, I assure you, there’s still plenty of waste in our spending as well. In my second term I would like to spea…
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Alabama DOGE
Candidate campaign source
I am a huge fan of the work Elon Musk did at the federal level to cut federal spending and stop wasting money. Although Alabama’s budgets are in much better shape than the federal budgets are, I assure you, there’s still plenty of waste in our spending as well. In my second term I would like to spearhead an effort to identify and eliminate wasteful spending of taxpayer dollars. I believe that a group of constitutional officers, legislators, state employees, conservative think tank representatives, and businessmen could identify dozens of ways that Alabama could save money in our budgets each year.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 19, 2026
As a small-businessman, Jerry Carl believes Washington needs to live within its means, just like families and small-businesses do every day. That’s why he supports a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution and believes Members of Congress should go without pay until they balance the budget. Je…
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Restore Fiscal Sanity & Bring Down Inflation
Candidate campaign source
As a small-businessman, Jerry Carl believes Washington needs to live within its means, just like families and small-businesses do every day. That’s why he supports a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution and believes Members of Congress should go without pay until they balance the budget. Jerry even refused to accept a taxpayer-funded salary before a potential government shutdown. As a fiscal conservative who believes government spending is out-of-control, Jerry has consistently voted against wasteful spending in Congress and he supported the largest deficit reduction and spending cuts ever voted on by Congress.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 17, 2026
This section matches specific budgets, government spending, deficits and public debt terms in retained, attributed source text from published Alabama candidate profiles. A profile heading or biography alone does not qualify. The Florida geography is fixed; saved state preferences cannot change these results. A mention can concern a community or group rather than Florida’s statewide measure.
Matching is automatic and does not establish a candidate’s stance, the accuracy of a claim, or an effect on the measured result. Results are grouped by recorded race, then by candidate name. Within each candidate, the matching issue mentions appear first. Only candidates with matching retained statements are shown; this is not a complete race roster. Repeated identical text for the same candidate is shown once. Coverage follows the existing state profiles and is not a complete record of all candidates or everything they have said. Review dates are not statement dates.
Alabama incumbents
What incumbents are proposing
Explore reviewed bills sponsored by current Alabama legislators and Alabama’s congressional delegation, plus retained proposals from Alabama’s governor and agencies. Each record keeps its latest recorded status and official evidence.
6 matching sponsorships or proposals · 5 Alabama incumbents. These filters apply only to this section.
Rep. Gary J. Palmer
U.S. House of Representatives, Alabama District 6 · R–AL
1 proposalView proposals from Rep. Gary J. PalmerU.S. Congress · Alabama delegation · HR 1776
New Health Options Act of 2025
Mar 3, 2025 · In Congress
Rep. Gary J. Palmer · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
The New Health Options Act proposal would establish federal reinsurance payments for specified individual-market plans, with the stated purpose of lowering premiums. It concerns the cost and availability of health insurance, not a measured reduction in Alabama’s uninsured rate.
Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Ways and Means, and Education and Workforce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. No enactment of this bill is recorded at the review cutoff.
Why this record is included
The fact measures residents under 65 without health insurance. Insurance eligibility, enrollment, coverage continuity and premium assistance concern the covered population. Provider payments and covered services alone do not establish a coverage change, and Medicare-only changes mostly concern a different age population. This connection does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain the earlier observed value.
Retained Alabama evidence context: People under age 65 without health insurance. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
1344.Reinsurance program for certain off-Exchange plans(a)In generalThere is established a Reinsurance Program, to be administered by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, to provide payments to health insurance issuers with respect to claims for eligible individuals for the purpose of lowering premiums for such individuals.(b)Funding(1)AppropriationFor the purpose of providing funding for the Reinsurance Program, for each year during the period beginning on January 1, 2026, and ending on December 31, 2030, there is appropriated out of any monies in the Treasury not otherwise obligated an amount equal to the product of $50 and the aggregate number of member months for all eligible individuals enrolled in a covered plan during such year.(2)Limitation on appropriationIn no year shall the appropriation for the Reinsurance Program authorized in paragraph (1) exceed $6,000,000,000.(3)Use of unexpended fundsAppropriated amounts remaining unexpended at the end of any year may be used to make payments under the Reinsurance Program in any future year.(4)Limitation on use of fundsNo funds received under the Reinsurance Program may be used to pay for services described in section 1303(b)(1)(B)(i) (as in effect on the date of the enactment of this section).(c)Operation of program(1)In generalThe Secretary shall establish parameters for the operation of the Reinsurance Program consistent with this section.(2)Deadline for initial operationNot later than 120 days after the date of the enactment, the Secretary shall establish sufficient parameters to specify how the Program will operate for 2026.(3)DefinitionsIn this section:(A)Covered planThe term covered plan means individual health insurance coverage (as such term is defined in section 2791 of the Public Health Service Act)—(i)with respect to which the issuer of such coverage has made the election described in section 1312(c)(1)(A); and(ii)that does not provide coverage for services described in section 1303(b)(1)(B)(i) (as in effect on the date of the enactment of this section).(B)Eligible individualThe term eligible individual means an individual enrolled in a covered plan.(d)Attachment dollar amount and payment proportion(1)In generalThe Secretary shall annually establish an attachment point, payment proportion, and reinsurance cap with respect to claims for eligible individuals for payments under the Reinsurance Program, consistent with the following:(A)The attachment point for the period beginning January 1, 2026, and ending December 31, 2026, shall be $110,000.(B)The payment proportion for the period beginning January 1, 2026, and ending December 31, 2026, shall be 90 percent.(C)The reinsurance cap for the period beginning January 1, 2026 and ending December 31, 2026, shall be $300,000.(2)Adjustment authorityThe Secretary may adjust any amounts described in paragraph (1) as necessary to ensure the Reinsurance Program does not make payment for a year in excess of the amount available for such year under subsection (b)..
Class 1 municipalities; creation of housing trust fund authorized
Mar 31, 2026 · Not enacted
Rep. Kelvin Datcher · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
The proposal would authorize a Class 1 municipality to create a housing trust fund for producing, rehabilitating, and maintaining housing affordable to households at or below 120 percent of local median income. It grants no new taxing authority.
Pending Committee Action in House of Origin. Latest official history entry: Pending Committee Action in House of Origin (2026-03-31). The reviewed session ended without a recorded enactment. Proposed effective dates do not establish that the proposal became law.
Why this record is included
Gross rent includes contract rent and tenant-paid utilities. Rental protections, assistance, and housing supply concern components of rental-market conditions; they do not set Alabama’s median rent. This connection does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain the earlier observed value.
Retained Alabama evidence context: Median gross rent. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
Section 3. As used in this act, the following words and phrases have the following meanings: (1) AFFORDABLE HOUSING. Residential housing for rent or sale that is appropriately priced for rent or sale to a person or family whose income does not exceed one hundred twenty percent of the median income for the local area, with adjustments for household size, according to the latest figures available from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2) HOUSING TRUST FUND. A trust fund which is established by the governing body of a Class 1 municipality for the collection and distribution of designated funds for the purpose of increasing the production of housing units, rehabilitating existing housing units, and maintaining such housing so that it can be made affordable to individuals and families whose incomes are at or below 120 percent of the median family income. Section 4. A Class 1 municipality is hereby authorized to create and operate a housing trust fund, by ordinance or resolution, for the purposes stated in this act. Section 5. (a) A Class 1 municipality may fund its housing trust fund with any money available to the Class 1 municipality, unless expressly prohibited by state law. Sources of these funds include, but are not limited to: (1) Donations; (2) Bond proceeds; (3) Grants and loans from a state, federal, or private source; (4) Appropriations by a Class 1 municipality to the trust fund; (5) Investment earnings of the trust fund; (6) Appropriations from a state housing trust fund; and (7) Dedicated funding sources authorized by the legislature. (b) This act does not create, grant, or confer a new or additional tax or revenue authority to a Class 1 municipality unless otherwise provided by the law of this state.
Alabama House of Representatives, District 59 · D–AL
1 proposalView proposals from Rep. M. MooreAlabama Legislature · HB 374
Relating to Medicaid; to expand the program to provide assistance to certain state residents; to direct the Alabama Medicaid Agency to implement the expansion; to direct other state agencies and entities to provide certain assistance; and to provide for appropriations for adequate funding.
Apr 25, 2023 · Not enacted
Rep. M. Moore · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
The proposal would direct Alabama’s Medicaid Agency to implement Affordable Care Act Medicaid expansion and require state funding for the program. It did not become law.
Pending Committee Action in House of Origin. Latest official history entry: Introduced and Referred (2023-04-25). The reviewed session ended without a recorded enactment. Proposed effective dates do not establish that the proposal became law.
Why this record is included
The fact measures residents under 65 without health insurance. Insurance eligibility, enrollment, coverage continuity and premium assistance concern the covered population. Provider payments and covered services alone do not establish a coverage change, and Medicare-only changes mostly concern a different age population. This connection does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain the earlier observed value.
Retained Alabama evidence context: People under age 65 without health insurance. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
Section 2. (a) The Medicaid program shall provide assistance to all persons who apply for and are determined to be eligible for assistance and for whom federal matching funds are available to the state under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Public Law 111-148, March 23, 2010, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act 4 of 2010, Public Law 111-152, March 30, 2010. (b) The Alabama Medicaid Agency shall take all steps necessary to implement the Medicaid expansion program as provided for in subsection (a) and shall be the lead agency for the implementation in this state. The Alabama Medicaid Agency shall seek assistance from any state or federal agencies or entities to implement the program as appropriate, and all state agencies and entities shall provide assistance as requested by the agency. (c) The Legislature shall annually appropriate adequate funding to the Alabama Medicaid Agency for the purpose of implementing and operating the Medicaid expansion program pursuant to this section. Section 3. This act shall become effective immediately following its passage and approval by the Governor, or its otherwise becoming law.
U.S. House of Representatives, Alabama District 3 · R–AL
1 proposalView proposals from Rep. Mike RogersU.S. Congress · Alabama delegation · HR 3838
Streamlining Procurement for Effective Execution and Delivery and National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026
Sep 30, 2025 · In Congress
Rep. Mike Rogers · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
Section 1116 of the reviewed defense-authorization proposal would direct an increase in pay for specified Department of Defense prevailing-rate employees under the referenced appropriations provisions. This concerns wages for a defined employee group and does not establish a statewide median-income effect.
Received in the Senate. No enactment of this bill is recorded at the review cutoff.
Why this record is included
Wages and cash benefits can be components of household money income. Census income is measured before taxes, so tax relief alone is not an increase in this statistic; the provision does not determine the statewide median. This connection does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain the earlier observed value.
Retained Alabama evidence context: Median household income. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
1116.DOD prevailing rate employee pay increase (a)In generalBeginning on the first day of the first pay period beginning on or after the date of the enactment of this Act, the rate of pay for any employee of the Department of Defense who is a prevailing rate employee (as that term is defined in section 5342(a)(2)(A) of title 5, United States Code) shall be increased by the percentage allowed by operation of section 737 of the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024, as extended by division A of the American Relief Act, 2025. (b)ReportNot later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit a report to the congressional defense committees on actions taken to resolve delays in increasing the rates of pay for such employees, the status of the Department of Defense Wage Committee, and any recommendations for preventing future interruptions to wage increases for such employees.
U.S. House of Representatives, Alabama District 4 · R–AL
2 proposalsView proposals from Rep. Robert B. AderholtU.S. Congress · Alabama delegation · HR 9260
Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2027
Jun 11, 2026 · In Congress
Rep. Robert B. Aderholt · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
Sections 506–507 of this FY2027 appropriations proposal restrict its funds for abortion and abortion coverage, with rape, incest, and specified life-endangerment exceptions. It concerns financing and access; it cannot explain Alabama’s earlier resident-based abortion count.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 604. No enactment of this bill is recorded at the review cutoff.
Why this record is included
The fact counts induced terminations for Alabama residents in 2024, including events in other states reported back to Alabama. Access, restrictions and reporting concern this resident-based measure, which does not capture every out-of-state event. This connection does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain the earlier observed value.
Retained Alabama evidence context: Reported induced terminations among Alabama residents · Adults with at least a high school diploma · People receiving Social Security benefits. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
506. (a)None of the funds appropriated in this Act, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are appropriated in this Act, shall be expended for any abortion. (b)None of the funds appropriated in this Act, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are appropriated in this Act, shall be expended for health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion. (c)The term health benefits coverage means the package of services covered by a managed care provider or organization pursuant to a contract or other arrangement. 507. (a)The limitations established in the preceding section shall not apply to an abortion— (1)if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest; or (2)in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed. (b)Nothing in the preceding section shall be construed as prohibiting the expenditure by a State, locality, entity, or private person of State, local, or private funds (other than a State's or locality's contribution of Medicaid matching funds). (c)Nothing in the preceding section shall be construed as restricting the ability of any managed care provider from offering abortion coverage or the ability of a State or locality to contract separately with such a provider for such coverage with State funds (other than a State's or locality's contribution of Medicaid matching funds). (d) (1)None of the funds made available in this Act may be made available to a Federal agency or program, or to a State or local government, if such agency, program, or government subjects any institutional or individual health care entity to discrimination on the basis that the health care entity does not provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions. (2)In this subsection, the term health care entity includes an individual physician or other health care professional, a hospital, a provider-sponsored organization, a health maintenance organization, a health insurance plan, or any other kind of health care facility, organization, or plan.
Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2026
Sep 11, 2025 · In Congress
Rep. Robert B. Aderholt · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
Sections 506–507 of this appropriations proposal restrict the use of its funds for abortion and abortion coverage, with exceptions for rape, incest, and specified danger to the woman’s life. This is a federal funding provision, not an Alabama occurrence count or a new statewide abortion ban.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 227. No enactment of this bill is recorded at the review cutoff.
Why this record is included
The fact counts induced terminations for Alabama residents in 2024, including events in other states reported back to Alabama. Access, restrictions and reporting concern this resident-based measure, which does not capture every out-of-state event. This connection does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain the earlier observed value.
Retained Alabama evidence context: Reported induced terminations among Alabama residents · People receiving Social Security benefits. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
506.(a)None of the funds appropriated in this Act, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are appropriated in this Act, shall be expended for any abortion.(b)None of the funds appropriated in this Act, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are appropriated in this Act, shall be expended for health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion.(c)The term health benefits coverage means the package of services covered by a managed care provider or organization pursuant to a contract or other arrangement.507.(a)The limitations established in the preceding section shall not apply to an abortion—(1)if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest; or(2)in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed.(b)Nothing in the preceding section shall be construed as prohibiting the expenditure by a State, locality, entity, or private person of State, local, or private funds (other than a State's or locality's contribution of Medicaid matching funds).(c)Nothing in the preceding section shall be construed as restricting the ability of any managed care provider from offering abortion coverage or the ability of a State or locality to contract separately with such a provider for such coverage with State funds (other than a State's or locality's contribution of Medicaid matching funds).(d)(1)None of the funds made available in this Act may be made available to a Federal agency or program, or to a State or local government, if such agency, program, or government subjects any institutional or individual health care entity to discrimination on the basis that the health care entity does not provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.(2)In this subsection, the term health care entity includes an individual physician or other health care professional, a hospital, a provider-sponsored organization, a health maintenance organization, a health insurance plan, or any other kind of health care facility, organization, or plan.
Only current Alabama officeholders retained in the reviewed collection qualify. Bills require a recorded primary sponsorship; cosponsors and signing officials are excluded from sponsorship counts. An official introducer recorded as acting by request is labeled “Introduced by request”; that procedural role does not establish personal policy endorsement. Governor and agency records qualify when recorded as proposed. A separately verified governor transmittal can also establish an original proposal whose latest status reflects its later outcome. Signing an enacted law alone does not establish a proposal. A record appearing under several facts is counted once per officeholder. A bill with multiple primary sponsors appears under each recorded sponsor.
Enacted bills, adopted resolutions and unsuccessful measures remain visible as proposal history. Passing one chamber is not enactment. These counts do not measure effectiveness or prove that an action changed a Alabama statistic. Collection reviewed Oct 5, 2026.
Sources & methods
Every section retains its primary sources, units, reporting periods and comparison limits. Maps, graphs and tables use the same observation and cohort. All 50 states are listed; D.C. and territories are excluded. Missing and suppressed values remain unavailable and never become zero.
#1 is the highest measured value. Equal source values share a rank and leave gaps (1, 2, 2, 4). Ranks use source precision and are descriptive, not a score of the state. Survey uncertainty and reporting coverage can limit comparisons. Published U.S. benchmarks are used where available; a state average is not substituted.
Alabama snapshots and fiscal sources keep their own dates and accounting scope. National events and federal distribution explainers describe national context. Actions and statements are filtered to Alabama, retain their reviewed evidence, and do not establish that a policy caused a measured change.
Retained state source collections assembled October 5, 2026. Original review and source dates remain visible. Refreshing this page does not refresh an official data release.