Bill Overview
Title: Ultrasound Informed Consent Act
Description: This bill requires abortion providers, as a condition of receiving federal funding, to conduct an ultrasound before performing an abortion. Specifically, before a woman gives informed consent to any part of an abortion, the abortion provider must perform an obstetric ultrasound on the pregnant woman; display the ultrasound images and make audible (when present) the heartbeat and related cardiac sounds for the woman to view and hear while simultaneously explaining the ultrasound depiction and the cardiac sounds; provide a complete medical description of the images, including the dimensions of the embryo or fetus, cardiac activity if present and visible, and the presence of external members and internal organs if present and viewable; and provide the woman with a copy of the ultrasound image. Providers are subject to civil actions and penalties for violations. The bill's ultrasound requirements do not apply in cases where a physical disorder, illness, or injury caused by the pregnancy endangers a woman's life. A woman is also not required to view the ultrasound images; nor may she or the provider be penalized if she declines to do so.
Sponsors: Sen. Marshall, Roger [R-KS]
Target Audience
Population: Pregnant women seeking abortions
Estimated Size: 930000
- The global number of abortions is approximately 73 million per year, according to WHO data.
- Not all abortions worldwide are performed under conditions where federal U.S. funding is relevant.
- This bill directly impacts those abortion services that receive U.S. federal funding and thus would impact abortions performed at facilities that depend on federal funding.
- Indirectly, it may affect a broader group if facilities alter practices to comply due to federal funds reliance or precedent setting.
Reasoning
- The Ultrasound Informed Consent Act affects a specific subset of the population: women seeking abortions at federally funded healthcare facilities.
- With a budget constraint in mind, the implementation of additional steps in abortion procedures could increase operational costs, potentially impacting healthcare access.
- There could be indirect effects on women who are not directly affected by this policy but may experience increased emotional and psychological stress due to changes in the procedure.
- Some women may appreciate the additional information provided by the ultrasound, while others may find it intrusive and stressful.
- The policy's introduction could spark broader ethical and political debates, influencing opinions and societal pressures surrounding abortion.
- This policy might affect the wellbeing of women differently based on personal, cultural, or religious beliefs about abortion and informed consent.
- The commonness score for each simulated person reflects how prevalent individuals with similar characteristics might be within the relevant population.
Simulated Interviews
College Student (New York, NY)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think informed consent is important, but this feels like it adds unnecessary stress to an already difficult decision.
- It feels like a political statement rather than genuine care for women's health.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Nurse (Dallas, TX)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Support for informed consent is good, but not if it's more about deterring women.
- I worry about how this complicates healthcare delivery in already strained clinics.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Public Policy Analyst (Chicago, IL)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy feels like a step back for women's rights in terms of control over their reproductive health.
- Procedures like this could deter some women from seeking necessary medical care.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 10 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 10 |
Software Developer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm pro-choice and think women need as much information as possible, but not in a way that feels like it's coercive.
- I'd be concerned about the emotional impact on women facing uncertainty.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
High School Graduate (Birmingham, AL)
Age: 19 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It feels like another hurdle in accessing the care I need, which is already hard to get where I live.
- This policy might scare some women away from clinics.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 8 |
Human Resources Manager (Boston, MA)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Clarity and information are important in medical decisions, but this seems more like a directive than choice.
- Women need to feel empowered, not subjected to more regulations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Elementary School Teacher (Charlotte, NC)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Having more information during my procedure might have helped me mentally, but it's not needed by everyone.
- I worry about the mental and emotional health impacts this might have on others.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Small Business Owner (Denver, CO)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see the value in informed consent, but I fear this is more about regulating choices than ensuring safety.
- I'm skeptical of the motives behind such acts, particularly in healthcare.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Stay-at-Home Mom (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I fully support measures that provide transparency and ensure women know exactly what's happening.
- This approach might change minds and save lives, which I believe is critical.
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 | 10 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 9 |
Freelance Artist (Seattle, WA)
Age: 26 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see this more as an infringement on women's rights than a measure of care.
- There needs to be autonomy and trust in women to make their own decisions without added pressure.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 10 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 10 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 2: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 3: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 5: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 10: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 100: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Key Considerations
- The ability of healthcare facilities to absorb these costs without decreasing service availability.
- Legal and ethical considerations influencing the bill's adoption in clinics.
- Public response and potential alterations in patient preferences due to the mandate.