Bill Overview
Title: Reproductive Health Travel Fund Act of 2022
Description: This bill authorizes the Department of Health and Human Services to award grants to pay for travel, childcare, and other expenses of an individual seeking access to abortion services. Eligible grant recipients must be nonprofit or community-based organizations that assist individuals seeking abortion services through programs that are unbiased and medically and factually accurate. The grants may not be used to pay for abortion procedures.
Sponsors: Rep. Strickland, Marilyn [D-WA-10]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals seeking access to abortion services facing logistical barriers
Estimated Size: 250000
- The bill targets individuals seeking abortion services who face barriers to access due to travel or childcare requirements.
- In 2020, the Guttmacher Institute reports that there were approximately 930,000 abortions in the U.S., indicating a sizeable number of individuals potentially requiring these services.
- Barriers to access abortion services are significant following changes in state legislation and the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
- Nonprofit or community-based organizations are likely situated in areas where access to abortion services is highly restricted, potentially involving long-distance travel requirements.
- Globally, access to abortion services varies greatly, but prediction about global needs is complex without specific data on travel for services due to national policies.
Reasoning
- The policy is particularly aimed at individuals in states where abortion access is heavily restricted, requiring them to travel for services. This includes areas covered by triggering laws after the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
- The budget constraint means that not all individuals requiring help can be served, which influences how common beneficiaries are in the population.
- People without travel or childcare barriers might be minimally affected, while those directly facing these barriers could experience significant changes in wellbeing.
- The policy might have more pronounced effects in states with the most restrictive abortion laws, where individuals face significant logistical challenges in accessing services.
Simulated Interviews
Waitress (San Antonio, TX)
Age: 25 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could really help me if I ever need to travel for this kind of health care.
- Right now, I feel stuck because I can't afford to take off work or pay for travel.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
Nurse (Salt Lake City, UT)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm grateful for initiatives that support women's health, but I might not need this directly as I have support networks.
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 (Jackson, MS)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could be a lifesaver for students like me who have no financial ability to travel for health care.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Tech Manager (Portland, OR)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support policies that ensure access to health services, even if I won't personally use them.
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 |
Retail Worker (Mobile, AL)
Age: 19 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I didn't even know help like this was possible. It's scary if I need to travel that far without support.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
Accountant (New York, NY)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Living in New York, I don't face these issues, but I support funds that help women with fewer options.
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 | 6 | 7 |
Sales Executive (Chicago, IL)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- With the ability to handle emergencies, I don't see needing this, but it seems critical for many.
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 |
Stay-at-home Mom (Boise, ID)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I might use this if things got really tight, like if my husband lost work. It seems like a good backup.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Truck Driver (Omaha, NE)
Age: 43 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Supporting my wife's access to healthcare is important, especially if we need to travel.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Real Estate Agent (Raleigh, NC)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Awareness and funding for women needing to access healthcare is necessary and overdue.
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 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $125000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $150000000)
Year 2: $130000000 (Low: $105000000, High: $155000000)
Year 3: $135000000 (Low: $110000000, High: $160000000)
Year 5: $145000000 (Low: $120000000, High: $170000000)
Year 10: $160000000 (Low: $130000000, High: $190000000)
Year 100: $250000000 (Low: $200000000, High: $300000000)
Key Considerations
- The base estimate assumes $500 average grant per individual which may vary significantly if travel needs increase due to additional state restrictions.
- Potential inflation in travel and childcare costs could influence cost estimates.
- States with strict abortion laws might see a larger need for these grants, affecting the geographic distribution of funds.