Bill Overview
Title: Let Doctors Provide Reproductive Health Care Act
Description: This bill sets out protections for and establishes programs to support health care providers (and those who assist such providers) who offer reproductive health care services that are lawful in the state where the services are provided. Reproductive health care services refer to abortion services; contraceptive services; in vitro fertilization; or other reproductive care, education, and counseling that is provided (1) at a health care site or via telehealth, and (2) in a medically accurate manner. The bill prohibits individuals, entities, and states from preventing, restricting, or otherwise interfering with the provision of lawful reproductive health care services by health care providers. The Department of Justice, individuals, or providers may bring a lawsuit to enforce this bill, and states are not immune from suits for violations. Furthermore, states may not use federal funds to pursue legal cases or similar proceedings (e.g., adverse licensing proceedings) against health care providers, individuals, or entities that offer or assist with lawful reproductive health care services. Additionally, medical malpractice insurers may not deny coverage to or sue a health care provider because the provider offers or assists with lawful reproductive health care services. The bill also funds grants to assist health care providers who offer or refer for abortion services and face legal issues relating to their provision of reproductive health care services with legal matters and improving security.
Sponsors: Rep. Schrier, Kim [D-WA-8]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals in need of reproductive health care services
Estimated Size: 200000000
- The bill directly impacts health care providers who offer reproductive health care services, including those who provide abortion services, contraceptive services, in vitro fertilization, and other reproductive care.
- Indirectly, patients who seek these reproductive health care services will be affected as the bill aims to protect and support the availability of these services.
- Women and individuals who can become pregnant are a significant segment of the population affected as they are the primary recipients of reproductive health care services.
- Family planning and reproductive rights advocates, along with legal professionals involved in defending reproductive rights, will also be impacted as the bill influences the legal landscape around reproductive health care.
- Globally, reproductive health care is a universal need, impacting people everywhere, although the legislation itself applies to the United States.
- The bill's legal protections may indirectly influence policies and practices in other countries facing similar reproductive health challenges.
Reasoning
- Given the budgetary constraints, the implementation must prioritize areas with the maximal expected impact for providers and patients while ensuring broad protections are delivered. The policy significantly affects three main groups: health care providers, patients seeking reproductive health services, and advocates/legal professionals involved in reproductive care.
- The high cost of medical legal protections and security improvements are accounted for, especially for areas at high risk of litigation or where reproductive services are most heavily restricted.
- A portion of the budget is allocated for public education to prevent misinformation and improve access to accurate reproductive health services information, ensuring individuals impacted by the legislation understand the services available to them.
- Impact varies significantly based on local legislation and existing access to reproductive health services, hence the need to simulate different experiences among distinct geographical locations and backgrounds which match U.S. demographics.
- Outreach and delivery models vary—telehealth options, clinics in urban centers, and mobile services in rural areas are considered.
- This simulation takes into account possible legal resistance and societal reactions, which can both positively and negatively influence well-being scores.
Simulated Interviews
OB-GYN (Texas)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As an OB-GYN in Texas, I've faced numerous challenges due to restrictive state laws. This policy would give me and my colleagues more confidence to provide necessary reproductive health services without fear of legal repercussion.
- The financial support for legal matters included in the bill would be crucial in allowing us to focus on patients instead of potential lawsuits.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 3 |
Reproductive Rights Advocate (California)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This bill marks a major step forward in securing reproductive health rights across the nation, especially in states with aggressive legal challenges against providers.
- There might be backlash from conservative groups, but the legal protections are well-founded and vital for healthcare providers' peace of mind.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 4 |
Family Planning Nurse (New York)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe this policy is a lifeline for many clinics that struggle with funding and legal threats.
- It means we can focus more on our work serving patients without constantly worrying about potential lawsuits.
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 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Medical Student (Alabama)
Age: 23 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could change my career path. Right now, I'm hesitant to pursue reproductive health care due to potential legal issues.
- If enacted, the protection it offers would provide peace of mind during my training and future practice.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 3 |
Administrative Staff at a Fertility Clinic (Florida)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our fertility clinic often encounters legal grey areas which impede our ability to assist patients effectively. This bill could provide clearer guidelines and protections.
- The assurance that states cannot misuse federal funds for lawsuits is a major relief.
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 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Lawyer specializing in reproductive health issues (Illinois)
Age: 51 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This legislation will undoubtedly simplify many legal battles currently faced by health care providers in reproductive health.
- It provides a definitive federal safeguard against restrictive state policies that could otherwise deter providers.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Retired Educator and Reproductive Rights Volunteer (Mississippi)
Age: 62 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- For someone like me, this policy reinforces why I stand for reproductive rights. It offers protection I've advocated for my entire career and volunteer work.
- It will fuel more grassroots initiatives as people feel safer advocating and accessing these services.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Telehealth Consultant (Arizona)
Age: 30 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This legislation will stabilize the telehealth industry for reproductive health, especially in fluctuating political climates.
- I'm optimistic that federally backed protections will encourage more people to seek services without hesitation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 4 |
Research Scientist in Reproductive Health (Michigan)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy strengthens the ability to conduct research uninhibited by state-level restrictions.
- With legal protections, my work can progress without fear of being negatively impacted by state regulations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Healthcare Advocate in Rural Areas (Kentucky)
Age: 26 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- In rural Kentucky, access is a severe issue. The protections from this bill would be revolutionary, encouraging more providers to serve these communities.
- I'm hopeful that the grant funding can be used to educate both providers and the community on these new rights.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 3 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $400000000 (Low: $300000000, High: $500000000)
Year 2: $400000000 (Low: $300000000, High: $500000000)
Year 3: $400000000 (Low: $300000000, High: $500000000)
Year 5: $400000000 (Low: $300000000, High: $500000000)
Year 10: $400000000 (Low: $300000000, High: $500000000)
Year 100: $400000000 (Low: $300000000, High: $500000000)
Key Considerations
- The execution of legal protections could face significant challenges, which may modulate overall costs.
- Public response and litigation trends due to shifting policies across states could affect enforcement and protection costs.
- Fluctuations in healthcare service demand based on legal protections and access availability might impact cost and GDP estimates.