Bill Overview
Title: Protect Pregnancy Care Centers Act of 2022
Description: This bill directs the Inspectors General of the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security to report to Congress on domestic violent extremism against pregnancy centers. Such report shall include criteria for opening, managing, and closing investigations related to domestic violent extremism; information sharing relating to domestic violent extremism within and between the federal government, state, local, tribal, territorial, and foreign governments, specified congressional committees, nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector; all incidents of domestic violent extremism against pregnancy centers from May 1, 2022, through the date of this bill's enactment; and a recommendation as to criteria to be utilized in establishing a potential program to make grants to pregnancy centers for purposes of enabling grantees to prevent, prepare for, protect against, and respond to domestic violent extremism, and a report on current federal programs and federal funding streams available to pregnancy centers for such purposes.
Sponsors: Rep. Smith, Christopher H. [R-NJ-4]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals involved with and benefiting from Pregnancy Care Centers
Estimated Size: 1500000
- Pregnancy Care Centers are the primary entities targeted for protection and assistance by the bill.
- Pregnancy Care Centers are facilities that provide support and resources to individuals, often pregnant women, who seek alternatives to abortion.
- These centers are located throughout the United States and possibly other countries, serving diverse communities.
- The bill's focus on domestic violent extremism suggests it impacts both the safety of the centers and possibly the communities they serve.
- Individuals working at or relying on the services of these centers could be directly impacted if violence disrupts operations.
- There are over 2,500 pregnancy centers in the United States alone, implying a significant population impacted by ensuring their protection.
Reasoning
- The Protect Pregnancy Care Centers Act of 2022 is primarily focused on improving the safety of pregnancy care centers by highlighting domestic violent extremism threats. This involves enhancing the investigation and information-sharing mechanisms regarding such threats. Given the nature of the act, it directly impacts those associated with or relying on these centers, such as employees, clients (typically pregnant women), volunteers, and possibly people living nearby.
- The policy has a strict budget that needs to cover not just administrative costs but also potential grants for enhancing security measures at the centers. Given its focus on extremism, it is also likely to indirectly affect those wary of relying on services due to safety concerns.
- While some individuals will see direct benefits (increased safety at centers), others might not notice substantial changes. Thus, we need to simulate the perspectives of a wide range of people, from frequent visitors or employees at these centers to residents living in nearby neighborhoods who might experience ancillary benefits such as improved local safety awareness.
- The geographic spread of pregnancy care centers across various types of communities (urban, suburban, rural) means different commonness levels across the population. The act potentially has a varying impact across these categories, being more significant for those directly linked to centers.
Simulated Interviews
Counselor at Pregnancy Care Center (Austin, TX)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I feel safer knowing there might be more support for our center's security.
- It is important for us to continue serving our community without fear of disruptions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Homemaker (Boise, ID)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I trust the center more knowing they are supported by federal policies.
- It's reassuring there’s focus on safety for places I visit frequently.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Security Consultant (Columbus, OH)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could improve my business as centers seek professional security guidance.
- The specified funding might help centers prioritize their safety.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Graduate Student (Tucson, AZ)
Age: 25 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a volunteer, I'd appreciate a safer environment for all involved.
- Policy focus on extremism is critical, but I hope it doesn't create panic.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Public Health Researcher (Raleigh, NC)
Age: 31 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm interested in how this might showcase the importance of consistent support for these centers.
- The funding could lead to valuable datasets on threat management.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Retired (Nashville, TN)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this reduces the crime around the center.
- Happy to see federal focus on our local issues.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 2 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 2 |
Nonprofit Administrator (Chicago, IL)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Federal support can strengthen our grant applications significantly.
- This is a needed approach as extremism concerns grow.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Educational Coordinator (Portland, OR)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Security improvements through federal support could help us maintain program attendance.
- It's necessary for centers to feel secure to support education initiatives.
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 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Social Worker (Brooklyn, NY)
Age: 26 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Enhanced safety can improve access to essential services for my clients.
- I hope the implementation considers our diverse community needs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 2 |
General Practitioner (Denver, CO)
Age: 48 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support any measure that secures the centers I direct my patients to.
- It's crucial for maintaining community health that these services are safe and reliable.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $3000000 (Low: $1000000, High: $5000000)
Year 2: $2000000 (Low: $500000, High: $4000000)
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's impact is primarily in terms of its administrative and reporting requirements.
- Costs associated with the creation of a new report and recommendations might vary based on the complexity and depth of research required.
- The bill does not fund the proposed grant program, merely a study and recommendations for such a program.
- Focus on domestic violent extremism and information sharing could serve broader purposes beyond pregnancy centers.