Bill Overview
Title: Stealthing Act of 2022
Description: This bill establishes a civil action for the nonconsensual removal of a sexual protection barrier (e.g., a condom). A person may recover compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive and declaratory relief, and such other relief as a court may deem appropriate.
Sponsors: Rep. Maloney, Carolyn B. [D-NY-12]
Target Audience
Population: People engaged in consensual protected sexual activities
Estimated Size: 12000000
- The practice known as 'stealthing' refers to the nonconsensual removal of a sexual protection barrier during intercourse.
- This type of act could potentially impact any sexually active individual who uses protection barriers, like condoms, as a form of birth control or to prevent sexually transmitted infections (STIs).
- Globally, the number of populations engaging in sexual activities is vast, but estimating the precise number affected by this legislation is complex and involves those specifically who encounter nonconsensual scenarios.
- Multiple studies and surveys estimate millions of instances of similar wrongful acts, but reliable data on the specific incidence of stealthing is limited.
- This legislation can affect any gender but often relates to the protection of individuals who may be victims of stealthing.
Reasoning
- Stealthing affects a vulnerable subset of the sexually active population who may not readily report these incidents due to stigma or lack of legal recourse.
- The population characteristics include diversity across age, gender, occupation, and geographic location since use of sexual protection is common across various demographics.
- Budget considerations mean the policy must effectively target support to victims who decide to take legal action and must financially enable access to legal resources.
- Cantril wellbeing scores were used to estimate perceived personal wellbeing and changes over time, potentially impacted by the policy's implementation.
- Noticeably, awareness and psychological aspects weigh heavily on wellbeing changes resulting from having access to legal recourse.
Simulated Interviews
student (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 24 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think the policy is empowering. It gives a legal route to victims of stealthing, which might otherwise be brushed off.
- Having such a law might deter potential offenders knowing there could be serious repercussions.
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 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
lawyer (New York, NY)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's about time a policy like this was enacted! It validates the experiences of many victims and could provide a much-needed legal framework.
- However, there might be challenges in proving incidents which could limit its efficacy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
software engineer (Austin, TX)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This bill recognizes a vital issue and could improve safety in intimate situations for many in the LGBTQIA+ community.
- Awareness and education must accompany the policy to ensure it's effective.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 4 |
therapist (Chicago, IL)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am optimistic about the personal and societal impact of this legislation.
- But it needs robust implementation measures to truly help those affected.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
health educator (Miami, FL)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a positive step towards encouraging responsible sexual behavior.
- The education sector must be involved to spread awareness about these issues.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
judge (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy's strength will depend on the judiciary's understanding and handling of such cases.
- Training for law enforcement and legal practitioners is critical.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
barista (Seattle, WA)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this policy reduces the stigma around discussing 'stealthing' and encourages more victims to speak up.
- It may take time to see real change, but it's a start.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
public school teacher (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 41 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The Stealthing Act is important for our students, who need to know they are protected by the law.
- Our education system should also update curriculums to address consent and protection issues comprehensively.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
advocate (Denver, CO)
Age: 37 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This legislation is vital for sexual violence survivors.
- There’s still a lot of work to do, but it's a step in the right direction.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
college student (Boston, MA)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm glad the issue is being acknowledged legally.
- This policy could help future generations feel more secure when discussing and reporting these incidents.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $80000000)
Year 2: $51000000 (Low: $30600000, High: $81600000)
Year 3: $52020000 (Low: $31212000, High: $83232000)
Year 5: $54080800 (Low: $32448480, High: $86561280)
Year 10: $58452200 (Low: $35071320, High: $93523520)
Year 100: $114483320 (Low: $68689992, High: $183173312)
Key Considerations
- Legal costs and court resources will be significantly affected by the creation of a new civil action.
- The exact number of cases and financial claims resulting from the policy are unpredictable, given the previously limited legislative scope on stealthing.