Bill Overview
Title: Protect S.T.A.T.E. Lines Act
Description: This bill prohibits, subject to some exceptions, the use of federal funds to pay for an individual's interstate travel for an abortion. The funding prohibition does not apply to abortions performed in cases of rape or incest or when necessary to resolve a pregnancy-related physical condition that endangers the individual's life.
Sponsors: Rep. Cawthorn, Madison [R-NC-11]
Target Audience
Population: Women of reproductive age seeking abortion services involving interstate travel
Estimated Size: 250000
- The bill aims to prohibit the use of federal funds for interstate travel for abortions.
- Federal funds are sometimes used to assist low-income individuals seeking medical procedures, including abortions, in cases where local access is unavailable.
- The bill includes exceptions for abortions in cases of rape, incest, or life-threatening conditions, so these scenarios will not be impacted.
- The target population likely includes women of reproductive age who are seeking abortions and live in areas without local access to such services, necessitating travel.
Reasoning
- This simulation takes into account a diverse set of individuals, including those directly impacted by the policy, such as low-income women who may rely on federal funds to travel for abortion services.
- We also include perspectives from individuals not directly impacted by the policy, such as men or women not of reproductive age, to provide a broader societal view.
- The policy's exceptions for rape, incest, and life-threatening conditions mean that some individuals will not experience any impact.
- We consider variations in state laws and the likelihood of needing interstate travel for abortion services.
- The policy may lead to an observable drop in wellbeing scores for those unable to afford travel without federal assistance.
Simulated Interviews
Retail worker (Texas)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am worried about the impact of this policy because I cannot afford to pay for travel myself, and I won't have access to services here if needed.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Software engineer (New York)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy doesn't directly affect me because I live in a state with access to abortion services.
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 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Nurse (Missouri)
Age: 31 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support this policy because I believe federal funds should not be used for abortions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Construction worker (Florida)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I haven't given much thought to how this affects me personally, but I'm concerned what it means for my daughters' future rights.
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 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
College student (Alabama)
Age: 23 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This bill would make it nearly impossible for me to get the services I need if ever required, as traveling out of state would be too expensive.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 9 |
Professor (California)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While this policy doesn't affect me directly, it's concerning because it represents a step back in reproductive rights.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Waitress (Mississippi)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Without federal support for travel, my options are limited; living in Mississippi makes this policy an additional hurdle.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Graphic designer (Ohio)
Age: 26 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is not my immediate concern but it does make me reconsider possible scenarios that could complicate family planning.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Small business owner (Montana)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think it's reasonable not to use federal funds for such travel, as these funds could be better used elsewhere.
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 |
Teacher (Kentucky)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Travel for medical procedures can be necessary; this policy would make it more challenging to obtain essential services.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $0 (Low: $0, High: $20000000)
Year 2: $0 (Low: $0, High: $20000000)
Year 3: $0 (Low: $0, High: $20000000)
Year 5: $0 (Low: $0, High: $20000000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $20000000)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $20000000)
Key Considerations
- Compliance and monitoring costs may arise, ensuring that federal funds are not used improperly.
- The potential for increased legal challenges in complicated cases regarding what qualifies under exceptions.
- Impact on low-income groups who require financial assistance for health services, increasing out-of-pocket costs.