Bill Overview
Title: Pregnancy Resource Center Defense Act
Description: This bill increases criminal penalties (and authorizes additional civil remedies) for intentionally damaging or destroying the property of a facility that exclusively provides abortion-alternative services or that is a place of religious worship. It also establishes a mandatory minimum sentence for certain conduct involving fire or explosives used against such a facility or place of religious worship.
Sponsors: Rep. Tenney, Claudia [R-NY-22]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals engaging with or impacted by facilities providing abortion-alternative services
Estimated Size: 5000000
- Pregnancy Resource Centers primarily serve individuals seeking guidance on abortion alternatives. This includes pregnant women or those who become pregnant and are exploring their options.
- Some facilities may also serve families or partners involved in counseling or support services offered at these centers.
- Individuals using religious places of worship connected to these centers may also be impacted as these sites are included in the bill's protections.
- The bill implies protection for staff, volunteers, and patrons of these facilities against acts of violence or vandalism.
- The population, therefore, includes not just clients but also employees and associated community members like donors and activists who support these centers.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily impacts individuals who interact with Pregnancy Resource Centers and places of worship connected to these centers. This includes clients, staff, volunteers, community supporters, donors, and possibly activists. The policy's increased penalties are aimed at reducing vandalism or violence, contributing to emotional wellbeing by promoting a sense of security.
- Considering the large number of Pregnancy Resource Centers across the nation, and each serving potentially thousands of clients annually, the policy could impact millions indirectly by enhancing the safety of these centers.
- A significant portion of the population served by these centers may belong to lower-income demographics or those without strong support systems, and thus, increased protection can improve their perceptions of safety and wellbeing.
- As the policy strengthens legal measures against threats to these centers, staff and volunteers who may be apprehensive about potential risks might feel more secure, enhancing their commitment and operational effectiveness.
- The budgetary restriction requires efficient allocation to ensure enforcement measures are adequately supported within initial funding limits. Over ten years, escalating penalties and support for affected centers call for continuous funding, but the resultant enhancement in wellbeing could justify this funding through societal benefits such as reduced fear and increased resource accessibility in safe environments.
- Potentially impacted individuals include religious attendees not directly involved but nevertheless influenced by the enhanced protective measures of religious venues.
Simulated Interviews
Receptionist at a Pregnancy Resource Center (Austin, TX)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I feel safer knowing there are tougher penalties for those who might want to harm our center.
- It's crucial for me to know that while I'm at work and my child is nearby, we are both safe from any potential threats.
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 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
Pastor (Salt Lake City, UT)
Age: 65 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our church has been a target of vandalism before, and knowing there's now stronger legal backing gives my congregation and me peace of mind.
- These centers are important for our community and deserve protection.
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 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 3 |
Volunteer at Pregnancy Resource Center (Birmingham, AL)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a volunteer, I feel our efforts are finally being recognized and protected.
- It eases my mind to know that our efforts to help are being supported legally.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
College Student (Brooklyn, NY)
Age: 22 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned this policy only focuses on protection for centers providing abortion alternatives, ignoring comprehensive women's health needs.
- The heightened security might deter open discussion and activism for broader health options.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Security Consultant (Des Moines, IA)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy increases demand for effective security strategies in these facilities.
- Our consultation service feels more in demand, supporting centers needing improved security.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Counselor at a Pregnancy Resource Center (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy helps assure our clients of their safety, which is paramount for them opening up about sensitive issues.
- It's good to see these services acknowledged and protected by law.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Donor to Pregnancy Centers (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 26 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned the policy might divert too many resources to punitive measures rather than improving actual conditions for clients.
- It seems like a step towards improved safety, which is important.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Legal Advisor (Chicago, IL)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The law provides a greater legal framework to protect clients and centers I'm affiliated with.
- Greater protection means more stability and trust from our clients.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Client of Pregnancy Resource Center (Houston, TX)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's comforting to know that the place I go for advice is a safe environment.
- I hope this policy results in more resources for clients like myself.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Activist for reproductive rights (Seattle, WA)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy seems to divert attention from broader reproductive health challenges.
- While safety is important, these penalties could create a chilling effect on advocacy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $6000000)
Year 2: $5200000 (Low: $4200000, High: $6200000)
Year 3: $5300000 (Low: $4300000, High: $6300000)
Year 5: $5500000 (Low: $4500000, High: $6500000)
Year 10: $6000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $7000000)
Year 100: $12500000 (Low: $10500000, High: $14500000)
Key Considerations
- The bill's cost largely depends on how extensively it is enforced and how many cases emerge under its provisions.
- Costs associated with incarceration are uncertain and depend on the number and length of sentences issued.
- While the bill intends to protect certain groups, its implications on freedom of activity and protest may result in indirect societal costs.