Policy Impact Analysis - 117/HR/8501

Bill Overview

Title: Preventing Abortion Sanctuaries Act

Description: This bill prohibits the Department of Health and Human Services from providing funding to a state that permits abortions or that facilitates interstate travel for abortions. In particular, the prohibition on funding applies to any state that lacks laws providing gestational protection at any stage of development; establishes a fund, commission, or similar entity to provide direct financial or logistical support to an individual traveling to the state to receive an abortion; or prohibits enforcement of another state's laws authorizing civil actions against those who receive or seek abortions, perform or induce abortions, or otherwise aid or abet such conduct.

Sponsors: Rep. Lamborn, Doug [R-CO-5]

Target Audience

Population: People of reproductive age, particularly women, who may seek or are seeking abortions.

Estimated Size: 65000000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

nurse (California)

Age: 32 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 15/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I believe this policy could undermine reproductive rights fundamentally.
  • The restrictions might lead to higher healthcare costs as a nurse, impacting our operations.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 7
Year 2 5 7
Year 3 5 7
Year 5 4 6
Year 10 3 6
Year 20 3 6

software developer (Texas)

Age: 28 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 12/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy could restrict my freedom to travel freely between states for healthcare.
  • I may have to consider moving to a more supportive state.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 8
Year 2 5 8
Year 3 5 8
Year 5 4 7
Year 10 4 7
Year 20 3 6

educational consultant (New York)

Age: 45 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 9

Duration of Impact: 15.0 years

Commonness: 14/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The policy represents a significant setback for women's rights and freedoms.
  • I'm concerned about the precedent this sets nationally, not just in providing abortions.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 9
Year 2 7 9
Year 3 6 9
Year 5 6 8
Year 10 5 8
Year 20 5 7

teacher (Florida)

Age: 30 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 18/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I worry this policy will reduce educational resources due to cuts in healthcare funding.
  • Interstate travel restrictions could impact many students' families.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 6 6
Year 3 5 6
Year 5 5 6
Year 10 4 5
Year 20 4 5

college student (Ohio)

Age: 23 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 12/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Access to abortion services is a healthcare right, and this policy undermines that.
  • As a student, travel restrictions could directly affect my peers.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 7
Year 2 4 7
Year 3 4 6
Year 5 4 6
Year 10 3 6
Year 20 3 5

public health worker (Illinois)

Age: 40 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 15.0 years

Commonness: 14/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Public health, especially women's health, could suffer if the funding is restricted.
  • Marginalized communities will be disproportionately impacted.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 8
Year 2 6 8
Year 3 5 8
Year 5 5 7
Year 10 4 7
Year 20 4 6

truck driver (Alabama)

Age: 37 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 19/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Although I support less government control, this policy could limit essential healthcare.
  • Travel restrictions could impact job logistics.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 5
Year 2 5 5
Year 3 4 5
Year 5 4 5
Year 10 4 5
Year 20 3 4

small business owner (Wisconsin)

Age: 50 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 16/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I worry about the health insurance and benefits for my female employees being affected.
  • The policy could lead to higher turnover and instability within my business.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 7
Year 2 5 7
Year 3 5 7
Year 5 5 6
Year 10 5 6
Year 20 4 6

journalist (Georgia)

Age: 29 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 13/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy could deter reporting on sensitive issues, limiting press freedom.
  • It's concerning how this could embolden other restrictions.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 8
Year 2 6 8
Year 3 6 8
Year 5 5 7
Year 10 5 7
Year 20 5 6

software engineer (Oregon)

Age: 34 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 9

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 17/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • State autonomy should be respected and this policy is an overreach.
  • I appreciate living in a state with broad healthcare choices.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 9
Year 2 7 9
Year 3 7 9
Year 5 7 9
Year 10 6 8
Year 20 6 8

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)

Year 2: $40000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $60000000)

Year 3: $45000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $65000000)

Year 5: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)

Year 10: $60000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $80000000)

Year 100: $100000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $120000000)

Key Considerations