Bill Overview
Title: Access to Safe Contraception Act of 2022
Description: This bill prohibits states from banning any form of contraception that is approved by the Food and Drug Administration. The bill does not preempt state laws that protect the right of any entity to opt out of providing contraception due to the entity's religious or moral beliefs.
Sponsors: Rep. Bice, Stephanie I. [R-OK-5]
Target Audience
Population: People of reproductive age who use or may consider using contraception
Estimated Size: 130000000
- The population affected encompasses individuals of reproductive age, where contraception is a relevant concern.
- This includes both women and men as contraception impacts those who want to prevent pregnancy.
- FDA-approved contraceptive users are at the center of this legislation.
- Global estimates of individuals of reproductive age are needed to understand the total impacted population.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily affects individuals of reproductive age who are already using or are considering using FDA-approved contraceptives.
- The budget constraints indicate that only a fraction of the target population can be directly impacted during the initial years of the policy implementation.
- Given the religious or moral opt-out clause, not all potential providers will implement changes, potentially limiting the policy's reach.
- The wellbeing impacts will vary based on current accessibility to contraception, beliefs, socioeconomic status, and personal or community support systems.
- There is a substantial number of people who might not directly feel a change due to existing good access to contraception, thus experiencing 'none' or 'low' impact.
- Men's involvement in contraceptive decisions is indirect and likely has a minimal direct impact, though the policy could indirectly affect their wellbeing through partners.
- The data simulates both urban and rural geographic distribution, acknowledging differing levels of contraception accessibility.
Simulated Interviews
Graphic Designer (California)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think this policy will solidify my ability to freely access contraceptives without worrying about sudden changes in the law.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Teacher (Texas)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support this policy. It gives my wife more security in her contraceptive choices.
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 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
College Student (Kentucky)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Having this policy makes me feel a lot more secure about my birth control.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 2 |
Corporate Lawyer (New York)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy doesn't really affect me directly, but I'm glad it's there for others.
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 |
Nurse (Georgia)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Good policy — anything that strengthens a woman's right to healthcare is positive.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
High School Student (Florida)
Age: 18 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm not sure how much this matters to me, but I'm happy my girlfriend has stable access to what she needs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Small Business Owner (Ohio)
Age: 31 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is vital to keep my contraceptive affordable and accessible.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 2 |
Administrator (Illinois)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support the policy as a mentor to younger women who still need these resources.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Engineer (Oregon)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Equitable access to contraception is crucial and this policy reinforces existing rights.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Pharmacy Technician (Arizona)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I feel more confident dispensing and using contraceptives, knowing they are safeguarded by this policy.
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 | 7 | 3 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $20000000)
Year 2: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $20000000)
Year 3: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $20000000)
Year 5: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $20000000)
Year 10: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $20000000)
Year 100: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $20000000)
Key Considerations
- The implementation and ongoing compliance monitoring of the FDA-approved contraception provisions.
- Potential legal challenges to the Act, which could incur some federal judicial system costs.
- Indirect economic benefits from increased workforce participation and reduced public health costs in the long term.