Bill Overview
Title: MARCH for Military Servicemembers Act
Description: This bill repeals the restriction on utilizing Department of Defense funds and facilities for performing abortions. The restriction only allows such funds and facilities to be used for abortions in cases of rape, incest, or where the mother's life is endangered.
Sponsors: Sen. Gillibrand, Kirsten E. [D-NY]
Target Audience
Population: Active-duty military personnel and their dependents with access to Department of Defense medical facilities
Estimated Size: 1300000
- The bill is specifically targeted at lifting restrictions on abortion services provided through Department of Defense facilities.
- This would primarily affect people who are eligible to receive medical services through the Department of Defense, i.e., active-duty military personnel and potentially their dependents.
- According to recent statistics, there are approximately 1.3 million active-duty military personnel in the United States.
- In addition to active-duty personnel, reservists and National Guard members may also be affected, but these groups traditionally have different access levels to military healthcare facilities.
- The global strength of the U.S. military, while not entirely relevant to domestic legislative changes, includes over 1.3 million active personnel and their dependents, plus over 700,000 in the reserves.
- Due to the nature of this legislation, it might also impact retired military personnel if they have access to military healthcare facilities that could provide the newly authorized services.
- Globally, U.S. military personnel stationed in U.S. bases and facilities such as those in Europe or Asia may also be impacted under the changes proposed by this bill if they access reproductive services at these locations.
Reasoning
- The target population primarily consists of active-duty military members and possibly their dependents who utilize Department of Defense medical facilities.
- Since the policy is about accessing reproductive health services through these facilities, the primary impact will be on women in these demographics.
- The budget implications suggest a change that needs to be absorbed within existing military healthcare budgets, meaning the scale of change might be substantial for affected individuals but limited in scope.
- There is also potential for differing impacts based on geographic location and availability of these services at various military installations, especially overseas.
Simulated Interviews
Army Specialist (Fort Bragg, NC)
Age: 26 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support the policy because it gives me and my peers more control over our reproductive health.
- Currently, accessing certain services has been difficult and costly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Logistics Officer (Pentagon, VA)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think the policy is beneficial for families like mine. It provides reassurance that healthcare concerns are addressed comprehensively.
- While I won't directly use these services, it affects service morale positively.
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 | 7 | 6 |
Marine Corporal (Camp Pendleton, CA)
Age: 21 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy means access to needed services without fear of judgement or financial burden.
- I believe it supports equality for women in the military.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Nurse Practitionist (Kaiserslautern, Germany)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Providing comprehensive reproductive care is essential and overdue.
- Overseas, access is tricky, so this change could make a big positive difference here.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Navy Lieutenant (San Diego, CA)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As someone who has faced difficult pregnancies, knowing there are more options is comforting.
- This policy needs proper support and funding to be effective.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Navy Dentist (Guam)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While the policy doesn't affect me directly, it helps ensure my team can access the same comprehensive care.
- It's a step towards modernizing military health benefits.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Navy Ensign (Norfolk, VA)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy gives me peace of mind about starting a family while being supported by the military healthcare system.
- It makes planning for the future a bit easier.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Army Chaplain (Fort Hood, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I advise carefully balancing the policy against personal beliefs and unit cohesion.
- How we address sensitive topics like this is important for the whole force.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Army Nurse (Fort Carson, CO)
Age: 23 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I fully support this policy; it ensures we have the same healthcare rights as civilians.
- Access to comprehensive care is critical for readiness and morale.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Air Force Pilot (Joint Base Andrews, MD)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy relieves some of the challenges faced in healthcare decisions.
- It's crucial for women in demanding roles to have flexibility in their health choices.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $30000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $40000000)
Year 2: $30000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $40000000)
Year 3: $30000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $40000000)
Year 5: $30000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $40000000)
Year 10: $30000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $40000000)
Year 100: $30000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $40000000)
Key Considerations
- Assessing costs in the international context where healthcare provision might vary at overseas military bases.
- The political and social contexts for potential resistance or support which might influence enactment and compliance costs.
- The potential for expanded healthcare provision at DoD facilities setting precedents for other non-covered procedures.