Bill Overview
Title: Protecting Girls with Turner Syndrome Act of 2022
Description: This bill creates new federal crimes related to the performance of an abortion on an unborn child who has Turner syndrome. It subjects a violator to criminal penalties—a fine, a prison term of up to five years, or both. It also authorizes civil remedies, including damages and injunctive relief. A woman who undergoes such an abortion may not be prosecuted or held civilly liable.
Sponsors: Rep. Feenstra, Randy [R-IA-4]
Target Audience
Population: People aware of a Turner syndrome diagnosis during pregnancy
Estimated Size: 740
- Turner syndrome is a chromosomal disorder that affects development in females.
- Turner syndrome occurs in approximately 1 out of every 2,500 female births globally.
- The bill specifically targets abortions related to Turner syndrome, indicating it affects those who carry a female pregnancy diagnosed with this condition.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily affects a very small segment of the population—specifically expectant mothers who carry a pregnancy diagnosed with Turner syndrome.
- Most of the population will see no change in wellbeing or legal impact from the policy since the condition is rare.
- The policy's financial implications must be managed within a limited budget, which puts boundaries on enforcement and outreach efforts.
- While the policy addresses a highly specific medical and ethical concern, broader public awareness and understanding efforts are crucial for any long-term impacts on community wellbeing.
Simulated Interviews
Teacher (Houston, Texas)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's a very personal and difficult decision to make. I wish politicians wouldn’t make it harder for families who are already struggling.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Lobbyist (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Such policies infringe on women's rights and make advocacy work even more challenging.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Nurse (Miami, Florida)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- These decisions are already hard. We need more support, not more hurdles.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Genetic counselor (Boston, Massachusetts)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our focus should be on providing comprehensive information and support to parents facing this diagnosis.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Attorney (Los Angeles, California)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could have a convoluted effect on families, creating more legal battles.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Social worker (Chicago, Illinois)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Understanding Turner's develops over time; policies should instead focus on supporting affected families.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Retired nurse (Santa Fe, New Mexico)
Age: 70 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- With my experience, I think education and emotional support are more beneficial than imposing legal restrictions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Research scientist (Seattle, Washington)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Research and science should inform these decisions; legal restrictions can impede progress.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Pediatrician (Phoenix, Arizona)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The focus should be on therapy and intervention, ensuring quality of life for those born with Turner syndrome.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Tech startup founder (New York City, New York)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Evolution of tech in genetics should aid real choices rather than legal impositions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $3000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $4000000)
Year 2: $3100000 (Low: $2100000, High: $4200000)
Year 3: $3200000 (Low: $2200000, High: $4400000)
Year 5: $3300000 (Low: $2300000, High: $4500000)
Year 10: $3500000 (Low: $2500000, High: $4700000)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The enforcement costs depend heavily on the number of cases pursued under this policy.
- Potential legal challenges and court cases could increase expenses significantly.
- Healthcare providers may need additional resources to comply with or challenge the new prohibition.