Bill Overview
Title: Women’s Health Protection Act of 2022
Description: This bill prohibits governmental restrictions on the provision of, and access to, abortion services. Specifically, governments may not limit a provider's ability to prescribe certain drugs, offer abortion services via telemedicine, or immediately provide abortion services when the provider determines a delay risks the patient's health. Furthermore, governments may not require a provider to perform unnecessary medical procedures, provide medically inaccurate information, comply with credentialing or other conditions that do not apply to providers whose services are medically comparable to abortions, or carry out all services connected to an abortion. In addition, governments may not (1) require patients to make medically unnecessary in-person visits before receiving abortion services or disclose their reasons for obtaining such services, or (2) prohibit abortion services before fetal viability or after fetal viability when a provider determines the pregnancy risks the patient's life or health. The bill also prohibits other governmental measures that are similar to the bill's specified restrictions or that otherwise single out and impede access to abortion services, unless a government demonstrates that the measure significantly advances the safety of abortion services or health of patients and cannot be achieved through less restrictive means. The Department of Justice, individuals, or providers may bring a lawsuit to enforce this bill, and states are not immune from suits for violations. The bill applies to restrictions imposed both prior and subsequent to the bill's enactment.
Sponsors: Rep. Chu, Judy [D-CA-27]
Target Audience
Population: Women affected by abortion laws and regulations
Estimated Size: 70000000
- This bill affects access to abortion services, which is relevant primarily to women and people with the capacity for pregnancy.
- Globally, about 1.9 billion women are of reproductive age, but not all live in areas with restricted abortion laws.
- In terms of the impact, we need to consider women in countries where abortion access is made more difficult due to governmental restrictions similar to those mentioned in the bill.
- Access to medication, telemedicine, and procedures related to abortions are relevant globally wherever telehealth and technological infrastructure support such practices.
- The global population of women impacted is hard to quantify exactly without details on a country-by-country basis, but the global population of women living under strict abortion laws has been estimated in various reports.
Reasoning
- The policy focuses on healthcare accessibility for women, specifically pertaining to reproductive health and abortion services. Many states have restrictive laws, so the bill could potentially impact millions, especially in states with strict regulations.
- The policy's effect will vary significantly based on current local abortion laws and the availability of telehealth technologies.
- The budget limitation implies targeting a select or prioritized group initially, possibly those in states with highly restrictive abortion laws.
- The broad range of perspectives will include those who are directly impacted by the change, those who might be indirectly affected, and those who are less affected but still form part of the general demographic.
- Individuals' Cantril Wellbeing scores are estimated before and after the policy to evaluate its psychological and emotional impact across short and long-term timelines.
- Population diversity is critical to understand different impacts due to socio-economic disparities, cultural backgrounds, and personal belief systems about abortion.
Simulated Interviews
Healthcare worker (Texas)
Age: 24 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe the Women's Health Protection Act is crucial. Women in Texas face unnecessary hurdles when accessing abortion services.
- It's unacceptable that some of my patients have to travel out of state for care. This act should streamline care access.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Software Developer (California)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm glad California already supports abortion rights, but this Act is important for those in less progressive states.
- Access to necessary healthcare should not be a political issue.
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 | 7 | 7 |
Lawyer (New York)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This Act could create uniformity in reproductive healthcare rights across states.
- The inconsistency in abortion laws is problematic and burdens victims of these laws.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
School Teacher (Georgia)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Hoping this Act will alleviate the strain on women here who have limited choices.
- Education and access to services must go hand in hand.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Stay-at-home mom (Illinois)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The bill is an important step forward, ensuring healthcare privacy and choice for my daughters.
- It removes unnecessary hurdles and ensures safer access to services.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Marketing Specialist (Alabama)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This Act is necessary; many women suffer mentally and physically without access to proper care.
- Painful to see friends struggle due to current laws.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 2 |
College Professor (Mississippi)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My students are deeply affected by local laws; this Act promises some relief.
- It's progress toward scientific, truthful discussions about women's health.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Retired Nurse (Florida)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this simplifies access problems many women face in Florida.
- Having worked in health, these barriers often seemed unnecessary.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
College Student (Ohio)
Age: 20 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Hopeful that federally this Act can ensure consistency and access.
- Many students are unaware of their rights and access, this Act helps.
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 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
High School Student (Utah)
Age: 18 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's scary thinking I might not have a choice over my body if needed.
- This Act feels like a safety net for future decisions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 2 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $15000000)
Year 2: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $15000000)
Year 3: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $15000000)
Year 5: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $15000000)
Year 10: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $15000000)
Year 100: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $20000000)
Key Considerations
- State compliance and varying legal frameworks might create disparities in initial implementation and cost estimation.
- The bill might lead to fewer state-imposed health service restrictions, potentially lowering procedural costs both for individuals and the healthcare system.