Bill Overview
Title: Pregnant Students’ Rights Act
Description: This bill requires a public institution of higher education (IHE) that participates in federal student-aid programs to provide information to admitted and enrolled students on the rights and resources for students who are pregnant or may become pregnant. These rights and resources must exclude abortion services. Additionally, the IHE must establish a protocol to meet with students who believe they were discriminated against based on pregnancy. The IHE must also provide pregnancy-related questions to enrolled students and annually submit compiled responses to the Department of Education.
Sponsors: Rep. Hinson, Ashley [R-IA-1]
Target Audience
Population: Pregnant students or students who may become pregnant at public institutions of higher education globally
Estimated Size: 870000
- The bill targets pregnant students or those who may become pregnant and are attending public IHEs that participate in federal student-aid programs.
- There are approximately 19.8 million students enrolled in higher education in the United States, with about 14.5 million of these enrolled in public institutions.
- Of these, a significant portion are women, who form about 56% of undergraduate students and about 58% of graduate students.
- According to the CDC, about 6% of women aged 15-44 were pregnant in the past 12 months, a portion of which may be enrolled in higher education.
- Considering these statistics, potentially millions of students in the United States could be impacted by initiatives aimed at pregnant students in public IHEs.
Reasoning
- The target population for this policy includes pregnant students or those who might become pregnant while attending public institutions. Considering the current costs associated with legislation implementation, outreach, and development of support systems, the budget must be efficiently allocated.
- The policy aims to enhance the well-being and educational support for a notable subset of the higher education population by addressing gaps in rights awareness and discrimination processes.
- Given the budget constraints, it's essential to evaluate the spread and density of impacts across various stakeholders, including pregnant students, potential faculty allies, institution administrators, and students not directly affected.
- A range of perspectives also considers variations due to socio-economic status, proximity to necessary resources, and personal goals (educational and beyond).
- While the primary focus is on pregnant and potentially pregnant students, the secondary impacts might influence peers, educational staff, and institutional culture over time. Prioritizing statistical data and expert analysis helps in balancing expenditures.
Simulated Interviews
Student (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 20 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy's focus on pregnant students might initially seem limited, but it emphasizes a need for understanding and non-discrimination.
- I wonder how effectively the institutions will actually implement this without external monitoring.
- It should help in creating a supportive environment, but excluding abortion services is problematic for comprehensive care.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Graduate Student (Austin, TX)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Having clear policies and support could ease some of the stress of potential pregnancy during my doctoral studies.
- The act seems but a first step; more comprehensive health care that includes all options should be prioritized.
- I hope the data collected doesn't lead to invasive scrutiny but rather improvements in support services.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Student Athlete (Miami, FL)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Informing students of their rights in such situations is empowering.
- The protocol for complaints is a good step, though I hope it doesn't end up as mere red tape.
- Athletes often face stricter guidelines, so having specific accommodations could be beneficial.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Undergraduate Student (Columbus, OH)
Age: 19 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Access to this kind of information can help people like me who lack support from family when navigating college.
- It's a critical change, but there needs to be more focus on affordable childcare services.
- If executed well, it could significantly improve experiences of many students.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Student intern (New York, NY)
Age: 23 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This initiative aligns with ongoing advocacy efforts for gender equity in education.
- I anticipate varying responses from institutions based on geographic location or state policies.
- Though I wouldn't be directly affected, I see the positive societal impacts it could foster.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Adjunct faculty (Philadelphia, PA)
Age: 31 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This Act could make a world of difference for students struggling between academic commitments and pregnancy.
- I see potential in using this framework to improve institutional policies on family leave.
- Higher education must constantly adapt to the needs of its student body.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Student services coordinator (Seattle, WA)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The measure can greatly assist in normalizing discussions about pregnancy in academic settings.
- Exclusion of abortion information remains a glaring policy gap.
- I aim for increased training for staff to handle these sensitive matters competently.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Student (Chicago, IL)
Age: 21 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.5 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's insightful to include formal channels for discrimination claims.
- There is a lack of focus on reproductive health education and resources.
- Balancing studies and pregnancy could be eased with better institutional support.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Community college student (Baltimore, MD)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- For many community college students, pregnancy is intertwined with multiple life responsibilities.
- The policy needs to acknowledge students' need for flexible schedules and child care support.
- It could reduce dropout rates if implemented well.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Assistant Principal at a Community College (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It’s good to see centralized guidance for pregnant students.
- I fear an over-reliance on these policies might delay the real work of creating inclusive environments.
- Prompting institutions to reflect on their support systems is valuable.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $45000000 (Low: $35000000, High: $60000000)
Year 2: $45000000 (Low: $35000000, High: $60000000)
Year 3: $45000000 (Low: $35000000, High: $60000000)
Year 5: $45000000 (Low: $35000000, High: $60000000)
Year 10: $45000000 (Low: $35000000, High: $60000000)
Year 100: $45000000 (Low: $35000000, High: $60000000)
Key Considerations
- Implementation costs vary by institution size and current resources related to student support services.
- Long-term benefits could include improved retention and success rates for pregnant students, potentially leading to higher graduation rates.