Bill Overview
Title: SAFE for Patients Act
Description: This bill establishes a civil action for damaging or destroying a reproductive health care facility or for harassing, injuring, or intimidating a person who provides or obtains reproductive health services.
Sponsors: Rep. Speier, Jackie [D-CA-14]
Target Audience
Population: People seeking or providing reproductive health services, especially related to abortion
Estimated Size: 20000000
- The target population includes individuals seeking reproductive health services, which can encompass a wide range of services from family planning to abortion services.
- Providers of reproductive health services who risk harassment or intimidation while performing their duties are directly impacted.
- Facilities offering reproductive health services, particularly abortion services, are often targeted by extremists and hence directly benefit from protection under the bill.
- Globally, women's reproductive health services are essential for many individuals, but the legal context differs in various countries.
Reasoning
- The budget of $15,000,000 in year 1 limits the immediate reach of the policy to a fraction of the target population. Prioritizing regions with a higher incidence of harassment or threats may optimize initial resource allocation.
- Some individuals may not perceive a direct benefit if they visit facilities or live in regions with lower levels of extremist actions despite the overarching protective umbrella of the policy.
- The long-term benefits of the policy include potential improvements in facility operations by reducing staff turnover due to fear and by ensuring safer care environments, which could lead to indirect improvements in patient wellbeing.
- Given that approximately 930,000 abortions occur annually in the U.S., the impact of such a policy could be substantial if efficiently targeted and implemented, especially for patients and providers frequently encountering harassment.
Simulated Interviews
Obstetrician-Gynecologist (New York City, NY)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe the SAFE for Patients Act is crucial for our safety and peace of mind.
- The constant harassment we face can be exhausting; any legal backing is a relief.
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 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Patient receiving reproductive health services (Austin, TX)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Knowing there's a policy to protect us makes future visits less daunting.
- The emotional toll of being harassed is significant; this act is a small but vital step.
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 | 6 | 4 |
Clinic Security Officer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy is necessary for ensuring the security of both staff and patients.
- Frequent incidents make the work environment stressful; protection under law helps.
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 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
College student (Chicago, IL)
Age: 24 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The SAFE for Patients Act alleviates some fear of protesting extremist behavior.
- More focus and funds should go towards public education on reproductive rights.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Small business owner (Rural Alabama)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't use these services, but the harassment near the clinic is disruptive.
- If the policy effectively reduces conflict, it would improve community wellbeing.
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 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Reproductive health services volunteer (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 31 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The legislative backing is crucial in ensuring volunteers like us can work safely.
- I hope this reduces the stigma and fear surrounding reproductive health services.
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 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Pastor (Topeka, KS)
Age: 46 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry that such a policy may infringe on our freedom to protest.
- We must balance safety with the right to voice opposition.
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 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Social worker at a women's shelter (Portland, OR)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Legal protections are essential for empowering women to make safe choices.
- Reducing anxiety around accessing services can improve many aspects of life.
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 | 5 |
Retired police officer (Miami, FL)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Security at clinics often goes unnoticed until incidents escalate.
- This act may deter potential troublemakers and improve community relations.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Software developer (Seattle, WA)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's crucial to have protection from harassment, especially during vulnerable times.
- A safer environment directly impacts my decision to proceed with necessary services.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)
Year 2: $15500000 (Low: $10500000, High: $20500000)
Year 3: $16000000 (Low: $11000000, High: $21000000)
Year 5: $17000000 (Low: $12000000, High: $22000000)
Year 10: $18500000 (Low: $13000000, High: $23500000)
Year 100: $20000000 (Low: $14000000, High: $25000000)
Key Considerations
- The cost and savings estimates hinge on the effectiveness of civil actions deterring extremist activities.
- There is uncertainty in the policy's indirect economic effects, particularly concerning job security and economic contributions from reproductive health services.
- The policy's impact on legal systems and associated costs for pursuing civil actions needs further analysis.