Bill Overview
Title: To restrict limitations on the possession, sale, purchase, transportation or use of any contraceptive that relates to interstate commerce.
Description: This bill bars state or local officials from prohibiting or restricting the possession, sale, purchase, transportation, or use of contraceptives (i.e., drugs or devices that are primarily used to prevent pregnancy). Individuals or the Department of Justice may bring civil actions for violations of this bill.
Sponsors: Rep. Thompson, Mike [D-CA-5]
Target Audience
Population: People who use or have access to contraceptives.
Estimated Size: 100000000
- The global population of women of reproductive age (15-49) is approximately 1.9 billion according to the latest data.
- Access and regulation of contraceptives can impact not only women but also men who are partners and people who identify differently who require contraceptives for their reproductive and sexual health needs.
- While the bill is specific to the United States, the global context of contraceptive access remains important as legislative changes can influence international policies, especially in countries with strong trade relations or cultural ties to the U.S.
- This bill may particularly affect populations in areas where local or state restrictions were previously more stringent, impacting millions within those jurisdictions.
Reasoning
- The target population includes a significant portion of adults in the U.S. who either use contraceptives directly or are impacted by their availability, such as partners, health care providers, and people using them for non-pregnancy related health reasons.
- Most heavily impacted will be those in states or municipalities with pre-existing restrictions on contraceptive access. These areas likely have large populations with unmet needs, which makes the policy beneficial for a substantial segment of the population.
- Budget constraints suggest a need to prioritize funding and resources in regions with the greatest regulatory restrictions and highest demands.
- Others less directly impacted include people in states with few restrictions, where access to contraceptives is already relatively high.
Simulated Interviews
nurse (Texas)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a major step forward.
- Access to contraceptives without restrictions will relieve economic pressure and help me plan my family better.
- In Texas, we previously had limited options because of state restrictions, so this change is welcome.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
software engineer (California)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- California has always been progressive with access, so this policy doesn't directly change much for us.
- It's a positive step but I'm aware not everyone is as lucky.
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 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
teacher (Missouri)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I primarily use contraceptives for hormonal balance, so any legal barrier being lifted is a relief.
- I've faced barriers in access before due to ambiguous regulations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
student (New York)
Age: 22 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy is affirming for LGBTQ+ individuals who often face discrimination even in healthcare practices.
- It signals greater acceptance and understanding of diverse healthcare needs.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
small business owner (Florida)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This will likely not change much for me personally since Florida has had reasonably good access.
- However, the increase in security knowing access to needed options can’t be taken away easily is definitely calming.
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 | 6 | 5 |
factory worker (Alabama)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've faced difficulties in accessing birth control due to work and costs.
- Lifting state restrictions could provide me with more consistent and affordable access.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
stay-at-home mom (Utah)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Even in a family-oriented environment, women's health options are essential.
- The policy could ease my access to reproductive health resources without fear of being cut off.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
pharmacist (Ohio)
Age: 31 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy will likely improve our ability to serve customers seeking contraceptives without causing legal headaches.
- Less red tape means we can focus on providing better service.
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 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
law student (Arizona)
Age: 26 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This bill is critical from a public policy perspective, removing barriers aligns with constitutional rights.
- It represents hope for continuous support with necessary legal backup.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
retired (Illinois)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While I may not personally benefit much, I strongly support this policy for future generations.
- Ensuring access without state-imposed limitations is a step toward gender equality in health.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| 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: $59583980 (Low: $35750388, High: $95451808)
Year 100: $155798303 (Low: $93478982, High: $249277285)
Key Considerations
- Legal challenges and enforcement costs could be significant in states with strong existing restrictions.
- Litigation could vary widely based on state compliance and interpretation of the law, impacting cost unpredictably.
- Potential demographic shifts in policy impact can lead to varied regional economic effects.
- The long-term savings could offset initial enforcement and compliance costs significantly if contraceptive access increases substantially.