Bill Overview
Title: Lawrence v. Texas Codification Act of 2022
Description: This bill provides statutory authority for the right of individuals of the same sex to engage in private, consensual sexual conduct. Specifically, the bill prohibits any state from enacting a law or regulation that infringes on any individual's right to enter into a consensual sexual relationship in the confines of their home and private life, including with respect to individuals of the same sex. (The Supreme Court held that state laws criminalizing private, consensual sexual relationships between individuals of the same sex were unconstitutional in Lawrence v. Texas in 2003.) The bill allows the Department of Justice to bring a civil action for violations. It also establishes a private right of action through Section 1983 lawsuits (Section 1983 is a federal statute that allows individuals to sue state or local government actors for violations of constitutional rights).
Sponsors: Rep. Ocasio-Cortez, Alexandria [D-NY-14]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals who engage in or support the legal right to engage in consensual same-sex sexual conduct
Estimated Size: 12000000
- The bill targets individuals engaged in or who wish to engage in same-sex sexual conduct, a population that can include a significant portion of the LGBTQ+ community.
- According to estimates, around 3-7% of the global population identifies as LGBTQ+.
- Not all LGBTQ+ individuals engage in same-sex sexual conduct, but this legislation focuses on protecting those who do from legal discrimination.
- Taking the current global population as approximately 8 billion, 3-7% would translate to roughly 240-560 million people potentially impacted.
- Considering the entire spectrum of LGBTQ+ individuals who value legal protections for same-sex conduct and privacy, the impact could extend to allies and community supporters as well.
Reasoning
- The estimated target population is approximately 12 million U.S. adults who may engage in or support the right to same-sex sexual conduct.
- The budget constraints necessitate focusing on groups likely to be most impacted by legal protection reinforcement, such as individuals currently or potentially facing discrimination.
- A diversity of perspectives is critical in understanding policy impact, so individuals from different states with varying societal norms should be included.
- Given the $5 million budget for Year 1, ensuring high-impact interventions for legal education and support is essential.
- A wide range of age groups, occupations, and socio-economic backgrounds within the LGBTQ+ community should be considered to comprehend the policy impact across the spectrum.
Simulated Interviews
Graphic Designer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 25 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy feels empowering because it solidifies legal protections we should have always had.
- Living in a progressive city, I feel relatively safe, but knowing there's federal backing improves peace of mind.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
University Professor (Austin, TX)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This gives us the legal grounding to feel secure about our relationship, irrespective of future political changes.
- It enables us to focus on our lives and career without the looming dread of potential legal issues.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Retired (Topeka, KS)
Age: 65 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I have lived most of my life in fear of being found out, so this policy feels reassuring even in retirement.
- I worry less about younger generations going through what I did.
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 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Freelance Writer (New York, NY)
Age: 32 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Federal protection provides a sense of validation and safety in identity and expression.
- New York is progressive, but it's vital to know these rights extend nationwide.
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 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Software Engineer (Salt Lake City, UT)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's comforting knowing the legal system acknowledges our right to love, without state's interference.
- Local attitudes have been changing, but legal support is crucial.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Store Clerk (Rural Alabama)
Age: 53 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This legal support feels like a distant reality in such a conservative area, but still it offers hope.
- I'm wary about societal change catching up, but law is a step forward.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
College Student (Chicago, IL)
Age: 19 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While at college, I feel accepted, but it's essential that rights are protected everywhere for everyone.
- The policy ensures future career moves aren't hindered by legal concerns.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Psychologist (Miami, FL)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's a relief to see more legal support for friends and clients who have undergone discrimination.
- This strengthens my advocacy efforts and creates broader societal awareness.
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 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Chef (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy reinforces our rights at a fundamental level, helping ensure business or personal discrimination doesn't prevail.
- It's reassuring for my partner and me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Yoga Instructor (Vermont)
Age: 50 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- In a liberal state, I haven't felt as vulnerable, but this step is vital for comprehensive countrywide acceptance.
- Legal backing is foundational for broader acceptance.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 2: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 3: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 5: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 10: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 100: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Key Considerations
- The bill solidifies rights already recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court, ensuring statutory protection against future legal challenges at the state level.
- Costs are primarily associated with litigation and administration rather than new federal programs.
- The broad societal impact could lead to indirect economic benefits through increased inclusion and acceptance.
- The bill could influence other judicial or legislative actions concerning LGBTQ+ rights, indirectly affecting related socio-economic policies.