Bill Overview
Title: Protect Sexual and Reproductive Health Act of 2022
Description: This bill requires the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to undertake activities to promote access to sexual and reproductive health and well-being. The bill renames HHS's Office of Population Affairs as the Office of Sexual and Reproductive Health and modifies its responsibilities. Among other activities, the office must develop and implement a strategy to promote sexual and reproductive health and well-being. This strategy must include recommendations to integrate sexual and reproductive health equity and reproductive justice into federal programs. HHS must also award grants for improving access to sexual and reproductive health care to nonprofit or community-based organizations that assist individuals seeking abortion services through programs that are unbiased and medically and factually accurate. Grant funds may not be used to pay for abortion services. Additionally, HHS and the Director of the White House Gender Policy Council must jointly establish an interagency task force to coordinate and promote federal programs and activities related to sexual and reproductive health and well-being.
Sponsors: Rep. Bush, Cori [D-MO-1]
Target Audience
Population: People seeking sexual and reproductive health care
Estimated Size: 70000000
- The bill will impact individuals who seek sexual and reproductive health services, including abortion services.
- The amendment to HHS's Office of Sexual and Reproductive Health will potentially affect a broad range of people as it seeks to promote sexual and reproductive health equity and reproductive justice.
- Given the worldwide focus on sexual and reproductive health, the principles and practices developed under this US-based act may influence similar actions and policies globally.
- Programs and grant funding will be directed toward nonprofit or community-based organizations, potentially affecting the people they serve.
- Reproductive health equity and justice are issues that can impact all genders, affecting millions of people.
Reasoning
- The simulated interviews will include individuals likely to be directly impacted by the policy, including those seeking sexual and reproductive health services, healthcare providers, and members of nonprofit organizations. Also included will be individuals from diverse demographic and geographic backgrounds to reflect the broad range of those potentially affected by the policy changes.
- Considering the budget constraints and the number of individuals potentially impacted, some interviews will represent those with minimal or no perceived change in their wellbeing due to limited engagement with the targeted services.
- A range of cultural, societal, and policy perspectives are considered, with individuals who live in states where access to reproductive services varies widely.
- The policy effectively targets a diverse range of individuals through community-based organizations, thus people from less served areas or those with limited access to care should be considered.
- Since the policy also involves educational aspects and integration into federal programs, interviews with individuals who may see indirect benefits, such as better informed community advocacy groups or increased resource availability in healthcare institutions, are included.
Simulated Interviews
Nurse (Austin, Texas)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think this policy can really help expand access, especially in underserved areas.
- It's important that we provide unbiased and medically accurate information to all patients.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
College Student (Los Angeles, California)
Age: 24 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy seems to address the worries many of us have about access to essential health services.
- It makes it easier to access education and resources, which is crucial for college students.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Farmer (Rural Mississippi)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this policy can make a real difference in rural areas like mine where services are so limited.
- It's crucial that resources reach people in restrictive environments.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
Retired Teacher (Chicago, Illinois)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a step in the right direction for ensuring reproductive rights are protected and information is available.
- I am eager to see unbiased information being distributed widely.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Software Developer (Portland, Oregon)
Age: 28 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Access to reproductive health services is crucial for everyone, and this policy offers hope for better inclusion.
- I hope it addresses the specific needs of the LGBTQ+ community effectively.
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 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Reproductive Health Policy Analyst (New York, New York)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy is a significant advancement as it aligns US efforts with global reproductive health trends.
- It should increase the effectiveness and reach of programs domestically and potentially influence policies internationally.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 10 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
High School Student (Miami, Florida)
Age: 18 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could provide much needed access to resources for younger people like me.
- Sexual education and contraception access are crucial and should be well implemented.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Obstetrician/Gynecologist (Denver, Colorado)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- In my practice, this policy could ensure more patients receive the care and information they need.
- It should support medical professionals in providing accurate information.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 10 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Community Organizer (Rural Appalachia)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policies like this are essential in communities with restrictive laws where access is incredibly limited.
- There needs to be more action to ensure services reach rural populations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
Barista (Seattle, Washington)
Age: 20 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's reassuring to see a federal policy that supports reproductive health access, complementing our state's efforts.
- Ensuring these services are available nationwide is critical.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $400000000 (Low: $350000000, High: $500000000)
Year 2: $380000000 (Low: $340000000, High: $480000000)
Year 3: $370000000 (Low: $330000000, High: $470000000)
Year 5: $360000000 (Low: $320000000, High: $460000000)
Year 10: $350000000 (Low: $310000000, High: $450000000)
Year 100: $300000000 (Low: $260000000, High: $430000000)
Key Considerations
- The policy does not fund abortion services directly, which may limit some criticisms regarding federal funding use.
- Implementation costs could vary significantly based on the efficiency of proposed strategies in the Office of Sexual and Reproductive Health.
- Potential political and public debate could influence the stability and continuation of funding.