Bill Overview
Title: SHIELD Act
Description: This bill establishes a framework to limit interference with persons seeking to provide or access reproductive health services at the state level. For the purposes of this summary, interference with persons seeking to provide or access reproductive health services includes acts to prevent, restrict, impede, or retaliate against a health care provider who provides reproductive health care services, any person or entity who helps health care providers to provide such services, any person who seeks to access such services, or any person or entity who helps another person to access such services. First, the bill reduces the allocation of funds under certain law enforcement grant programs for a state that has in effect a law authorizing state or local officers or employees to interfere with persons seeking to provide or access reproductive health services. Second, the bill prohibits interference with persons seeking to provide or access reproductive health care services by state or local officers or employees acting under color of law in any manner that would have a discriminatory effect on a woman, and by persons who are not state or local officers or employees and are attempting to implement or enforce a state law in circumstances affecting interstate commerce. The bill authorizes civil remedies for a violation, including damages and injunctive relief. Additionally, it authorizes criminal penalties for a violation involving the use of a deadly or dangerous weapon or the infliction of bodily injury.
Sponsors: Rep. Jackson Lee, Sheila [D-TX-18]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals seeking or providing reproductive health services and related support
Estimated Size: 50000000
- The bill is focused on the reproductive health sector, specifically targeting interference prevention.
- The global population includes all individuals who may seek or provide reproductive health services, as well as those aiding them.
- Approximately 48 million induced abortions occur globally each year, suggesting a large population directly utilizing reproductive health services.
- There are numerous healthcare professionals involved worldwide, including doctors, nurses, and support staff, who might be affected by such legislation.
Reasoning
- The SHIELD Act targets individuals and entities involved in the reproductive health sector, particularly those providing, accessing, or facilitating access to services.
- The policy focuses mainly on protecting against interference and reducing litigation stress, which impacts a wide variety of stakeholders.
- Estimations consider the diverse demographics of the U.S. population engaged in reproductive healthcare, both in urban and rural settings and across age groups.
- The policy's primary objective is to protect legal access without discrimination; thus, it will more acutely affect providers and advocates in states with restrictive laws.
Simulated Interviews
Ob-Gyn (Texas)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe this policy could significantly reduce my stress levels as a provider.
- It's a step towards ensuring women have access to safe reproductive health services without fear.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 2 |
Nurse (California)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support the SHIELD Act as it will help us focus on patient care rather than legal battles.
- This protection is necessary for ensuring the rights of both patients and providers are upheld.
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 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
Lawyer (New York)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The SHIELD Act is essential to counter unnecessary legal threats.
- This policy could redirect resources from legal defense to proactive healthcare support.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 2 |
College Student (Florida)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm hopeful that the SHIELD Act will protect future services that I may need.
- The reduced litigation prospect means we can advocate without as much fear.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 2 |
Pastor (Ohio)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't agree with the SHIELD Act as it conflicts with my beliefs, but I understand the focus on protecting legal activities.
- We should still push for understanding and solutions that respect different viewpoints.
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 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 5 |
Community Health Worker (New Mexico)
Age: 31 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The removal of fear from litigation will enable me to work more freely with my community.
- Ensuring everyone can access care without restrictions is crucial.
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 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Retired Nurse (Mississippi)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Having spent my life being cautious, the SHIELD Act is a hopeful change.
- I hope current practitioners will find this shielding policy beneficial and stress-relieving.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 2 |
Politician (Illinois)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The SHIELD Act aligns with many legislative goals to better support healthcare providers.
- Legal protections are vital for the sustainability of these healthcare services.
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 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Social Worker (Georgia)
Age: 37 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- With the SHIELD Act, I hope to feel safer in my role and better protect my clients.
- Protecting both access and providers is essential for community health.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 2 |
Journalist (Washington)
Age: 64 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The SHIELD Act is a significant federal safeguard against state overreach.
- It's an interesting pivot in the ongoing debate over state versus federal control in health matters.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 2: $52000000 (Low: $31000000, High: $73000000)
Year 3: $54080000 (Low: $32000000, High: $76000000)
Year 5: $58363200 (Low: $36000000, High: $82000000)
Year 10: $70451446 (Low: $42000000, High: $99000000)
Year 100: $214423933 (Low: $130000000, High: $300000000)
Key Considerations
- Legal conflicts between state and federal governments.
- Public opinion and support for reproductive health services.
- Potential for increased litigation and its impact on federal resources.
- Impact on healthcare providers' operational environments.
- State compliance with federal guidelines and possible grant cuts.