Policy Impact Analysis - 117/HR/8976

Bill Overview

Title: Protecting Reproductive Freedom Act

Description: This bill prohibits states from restricting mifepristone or misoprostol that is approved for medical abortion from being sent across state lines or from being prescribed by telehealth. States are also prohibited from establishing in-person dispensing requirements.

Sponsors: Rep. Ryan, Patrick [D-NY-19]

Target Audience

Population: Women of reproductive age

Estimated Size: 64000000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Teacher (Texas)

Age: 29 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy is crucial for women in states like mine. Access through mail and telehealth ensures confidentiality and convenience, especially where local laws are restrictive.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 6
Year 2 8 6
Year 3 8 5
Year 5 9 5
Year 10 9 4
Year 20 7 4

Software Developer (California)

Age: 34 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • While California already protects access, this national policy ensures that women in less progressive states don't have their rights infringed. It's a huge win for reproductive autonomy.

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 8 8

College Student (Mississippi)

Age: 19 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy could dramatically shift my health planning. Knowing I could access these services remotely lowers anxiety about potential future needs.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 5
Year 2 8 5
Year 3 8 5
Year 5 8 4
Year 10 9 3
Year 20 8 3

Retail Manager (Florida)

Age: 42 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 8.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • It's important to have access as a choice, even if I don't plan on more children. This policy sets a positive precedent for other healthcare regulations.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 7
Year 2 8 7
Year 3 8 7
Year 5 8 7
Year 10 8 6
Year 20 7 6

Nurse (Illinois)

Age: 26 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 7.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Policy like this may encourage people to stay in their home states rather than move for access to healthcare—making reproductive health options equitable nationwide is critical.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 6
Year 2 8 6
Year 3 8 6
Year 5 8 5
Year 10 7 4
Year 20 7 4

Small Business Owner (New York)

Age: 38 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 6.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Beyond reproductive termination, these medications have therapeutic uses important in circumstances like mine—making them reliably accessible across states has broader health benefits.

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 7 6
Year 10 7 6
Year 20 6 6

High School Student (Ohio)

Age: 17 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Access in emergencies or unforeseen situations is empowering and crucial, even if you never expect to need it.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 5
Year 2 8 5
Year 3 8 5
Year 5 9 4
Year 10 9 3
Year 20 8 3

Public Health Official (New Mexico)

Age: 45 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • National health policies like this reshape the landscape positively, improving equity and standardizing access across states.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 7
Year 2 8 7
Year 3 8 7
Year 5 8 6
Year 10 8 6
Year 20 7 6

Part-Time Waitress (Missouri)

Age: 21 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Lowering barriers to access allows me to plan my health proactively without worrying about state restrictions. It's a big relief.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 5
Year 2 8 5
Year 3 8 5
Year 5 8 5
Year 10 7 4
Year 20 7 3

Healthcare Consultant (Michigan)

Age: 31 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 4.0 years

Commonness: 12/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This step forward for digital health services unlocks safer, more personalized care options for women, especially those in underserved areas.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 9 8
Year 2 9 8
Year 3 9 8
Year 5 9 8
Year 10 9 8
Year 20 8 8

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $12000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $15000000)

Year 2: $11000000 (Low: $7000000, High: $15000000)

Year 3: $11000000 (Low: $7000000, High: $14000000)

Year 5: $10000000 (Low: $6000000, High: $13000000)

Year 10: $9000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $12000000)

Year 100: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)

Key Considerations