Bill Overview
Title: Women’s Health Protection Act of 2022
Description: This bill prohibits governmental restrictions on the provision of, and access to, abortion services. Specifically, governments may not limit a provider's ability to prescribe certain drugs, offer abortion services via telemedicine, or immediately provide abortion services when the provider determines a delay risks the patient's health. Furthermore, governments may not require a provider to perform unnecessary medical procedures, provide medically inaccurate information, comply with credentialing or other conditions that do not apply to providers whose services are medically comparable to abortions, or carry out all services connected to an abortion. In addition, governments may not (1) require patients to make medically unnecessary in-person visits before receiving abortion services or disclose their reasons for obtaining such services, or (2) prohibit abortion services before fetal viability or after fetal viability when a provider determines the pregnancy risks the patient's life or health. The bill also prohibits other governmental measures that are similar to the bill's specified restrictions or that otherwise single out and impede access to abortion services, unless a government demonstrates that the measure significantly advances the safety of abortion services or health of patients and cannot be achieved through less restrictive means. The Department of Justice, individuals, or providers may bring a lawsuit to enforce this bill, and states are not immune from suits for violations. The bill applies to restrictions imposed both prior and subsequent to the bill's enactment.
Sponsors: Sen. Blumenthal, Richard [D-CT]
Target Audience
Population: people of reproductive age
Estimated Size: 70000000
- The bill impacts individuals who seek abortion services, as it directly relates to their access and the regulations surrounding such services.
- Providers of abortion services will be impacted, as the bill outlines specific limitations on regulations and procedures that can be imposed on them.
- The bill includes provisions ensuring patient safety and provider ability to offer services, particularly in scenarios where delays might risk patients' health.
- Given the global nature of reproductive rights discussions, the bill may indirectly affect international policy and advocacy efforts, influencing global population health considerations.
Reasoning
- The target population mainly includes women and individuals of reproductive age who may have an interest in accessing abortion services. It also involves healthcare providers imparting those services in the U.S. context.
- The policy aims to remove restrictions and improve access to these services, which might enhance self-reported wellbeing due to improved autonomy and reduced legal complexities for those directly involved.
- While the policy significantly benefits those directly involved with or needing access to abortion services, it may have minimal or no impact on others outside this context. Thus, it's crucial to consider a variety of perspectives, including those who won't be affected at all.
- The budget parameters suggest a moderate range of impact relative to the overall population size potentially affected, indicating targeted improvements for a specific segment rather than widespread changes.
Simulated Interviews
nurse (New York, NY)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I strongly support the policy as it enables timely healthcare services for women, which is crucial for safeguarding health.
- The policy will benefit women by providing greater freedom and control over their reproductive health.
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 | 9 | 6 |
college student (Austin, TX)
Age: 23 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy is crucial for students like me who require accessible healthcare options.
- It's important to ensure young women have control over their reproductive health without unnecessary barriers.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
OB-GYN doctor (Des Moines, IA)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a healthcare provider, this policy will allow me to practice without fear of legal ramifications and prioritize patient care.
- It's essential for protecting both doctors and patients from overly burdensome regulations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
lawyer (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Though not directly affected, I see the policy as an advancement in women's rights and a step forward in healthcare equality.
- It aligns with modern healthcare needs and rights.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
software engineer (Miami, FL)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm glad the policy supports women's autonomy in health decisions.
- Ensuring access to safe abortion services is important for women's health.
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 | 7 | 5 |
retired (Cleveland, OH)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see this policy as positively affecting my daughters' ability to choose when the time is right for them to have a family.
- It seems like a necessary adjustment to outdated restrictions.
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 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
stay-at-home mom (Salt Lake City, UT)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While the policy doesn't directly affect me, I understand its importance for others.
- More women should have the chance to decide their own reproductive paths.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
public health researcher (Chicago, IL)
Age: 41 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Professionally, this policy supports my work in health equity by aligning with efforts to remove healthcare barriers.
- The policy's focus on removing unnecessary restrictions is a step towards better health outcomes.
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 | 8 | 7 |
non-profit worker (Seattle, WA)
Age: 33 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policies like this are vital for ensuring all individuals have access to necessary reproductive services.
- The potential for improved health security is a significant outcome.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
journalist (Nashville, TN)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a necessary safeguard for maintaining women's health rights.
- It's comforting to witness legal strides in the right direction amidst current political climates.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $80000000 (Low: $60000000, High: $100000000)
Year 2: $85000000 (Low: $65000000, High: $105000000)
Year 3: $90000000 (Low: $70000000, High: $110000000)
Year 5: $95000000 (Low: $75000000, High: $115000000)
Year 10: $100000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $120000000)
Year 100: $150000000 (Low: $120000000, High: $180000000)
Key Considerations
- Judicial costs related to lawsuits for violations of the bill must be factored in as ongoing expenditures.
- Healthcare systems will need periodic updates in their compliance frameworks as legal interpretations of the bill evolve.
- Public health benefits from enhanced access to abortion services may not only have economic but also broader societal impacts.
- Insurance providers might need to adjust their policies and coverage, potentially impacting cost structures for end users.