Bill Overview
Title: No Federal Funds for Abortion Travel Expenses Act of 2022
Description: This bill prohibits the use of federal funds to support interstate travel to obtain an abortion.
Sponsors: Rep. Norman, Ralph [R-SC-5]
Target Audience
Population: People seeking abortions requiring interstate travel
Estimated Size: 2000000
- The bill affects individuals who are seeking an abortion but require interstate travel to access these services due to restrictions or lack of access in their home state.
- Access to abortion services significantly impacts women's health and wellbeing.
- The prohibition of federal funding could disproportionately affect low-income individuals who may rely on such support to afford travel for abortion services.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily impacts individuals who require financial assistance to travel for abortion services across state lines due to local restrictions.
- A significant portion of those affected by this policy are likely to be low-income women, as they are more likely to require federal funding support for travel expenses related to obtaining abortions.
- Not all individuals seeking abortions need to travel interstate; therefore, the impact of this policy varies among different demographics depending on their location, income, and access to abortion services.
- Those who do not rely on federal funding for travel will not be affected by this policy, showcasing the diverse impacts across the population.
Simulated Interviews
Retail worker (Texas)
Age: 24 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy scares me because if I need an abortion, I might not be able to afford the travel.
- Without federal support, I feel like my choices are being restricted even more.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 7 |
Software engineer (California)
Age: 31 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy is an attack on women's rights, but personally, it doesn't affect me directly.
- I am worried about people in less progressive states. This is a step back for reproductive rights.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Waitress (Mississippi)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I constantly worry about what I would do if I needed an abortion. It's already hard enough here, let alone with no travel help.
- This policy makes me feel even more trapped.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 5 |
Student (New York)
Age: 21 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I feel fortunate to live in a state that supports my choices.
- The policy is unfair to women in restrictive states. It's important to advocate for 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 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Homemaker (Utah)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't think tax dollars should be used for something like this, but I sympathize with women in tough situations.
- Personally, it doesn't affect me because I'm not in the childbearing stage anymore.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Public health worker (Florida)
Age: 37 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy is another hurdle for already burdened low-income women.
- It doesn't change my circumstances directly, but could affect clients I work with.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Teacher (Kentucky)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I might consider moving to a state with better access if things get worse.
- The federal support for travel could have been the only way for some to access healthcare safely.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 6 |
Cashier (Indiana)
Age: 19 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Living here with restrictive laws, any additional barriers feel like a threat to my independence.
- I might need to travel for abortion care in the future and this policy adds more stress.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Business owner (Illinois)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As an advocate, I find the policy regressive for women's autonomy.
- I'm fortunate that my personal life stage means I am unaffected, but I'm worried about future generations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Journalist (Ohio)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This kind of policy makes it harder for those who need it most to get care.
- It doesn't affect me personally, but I worry about my community's access to necessary healthcare.
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 | 7 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 2: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 3: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 5: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The bill primarily seeks to restrict federal expenditures rather than implement new revenue or cost measures.
- Potential impact on federal savings is contingent upon the demographics and socio-economic status of individuals seeking abortion services, particularly those reliant on federal support.