Bill Overview
Title: Freedom to Travel for Health Care Act of 2022
Description: This bill prohibits anyone from interfering with a person's ability to access out-of-state reproductive health care. (Reproductive health care is defined as medical, surgical, counseling, or referral services related to pregnancy, the termination of a pregnancy, contraception services, and other reproductive care.) Specifically, the bill prohibits anyone from restricting, discriminating against, or otherwise disadvantaging anyone who receives, provides, or assists with out-of-state reproductive health care that is legal in the state in which it is provided. The bill allows the Department of Justice to bring a civil action and establishes a private right of action for violations. The bill specifically waives any applicable governmental immunity and preempts any contravening state laws.
Sponsors: Sen. Cortez Masto, Catherine [D-NV]
Target Audience
Population: People seeking and providing out-of-state reproductive health care
Estimated Size: 72000000
- The bill addresses the ability to access reproductive health care, which can affect a large number of women of childbearing age globally as well as healthcare providers.
- Globally, there are an estimated 2.2 billion women of childbearing age (15-49 years) as of 2021, and this demographic is most likely to require reproductive health services.
- Healthcare providers who offer reproductive health services are impacted since the legislation affects the legal framework under which they operate.
- The legislation also impacts people who assist individuals in receiving out-of-state reproductive health care, including friends, family, or healthcare navigators.
Reasoning
- The Freedom to Travel for Health Care Act impacts individuals seeking out-of-state reproductive care, predominantly affecting women of childbearing age and healthcare providers.
- The policy aims to safeguard individuals and healthcare providers from legal repercussions associated with seeking or providing such services across state lines.
- The $15,000,000 yearly budget indicates that there might be additional resources provided for legal support or educational campaigns, suggesting expansion of access and reduced stress for these individuals.
- Considering the prevalence of the target population (72 million women of childbearing age in the U.S., and the broader support network), the policy's effects are moderated by its interaction with state laws and resource allocation for enforcement.
- The diversity in locations and occupations among individuals may see varied impacts, with people in restrictive states likely experiencing significant changes in wellbeing.
Simulated Interviews
nurse (Texas)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's stressful thinking about my options and these legal barriers add to the burden.
- This policy could make it easier to get the care I choose without worrying about legal trouble.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
OB-GYN doctor (California)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- In California, we're less affected by restrictions, but the travel needs of out-of-state patients could increase.
- Supporting patients' rights across state lines aligns with our practice's values.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
legal aid attorney (New York)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm relieved that this policy might streamline efforts and provide clearer protections.
- This could encourage more individuals to seek assistance knowing they have legal backing.
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 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
college student (Missouri)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- With my state being so restrictive, this policy offers some hope.
- I'm cautiously optimistic that it makes travel for care less daunting.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 2 |
clinic administrator (Florida)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's challenging to operate with the patchwork of laws.
- I hope this brings consistency and less fear for staff and patients.
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 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
healthcare provider (Illinois)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our practice frequently sees out-of-state patients who face legal hurdles back home.
- This policy will likely boost their confidence and encourage timely care.
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 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
graduate student (Kentucky)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I feel trapped by the state's restrictive measures.
- A policy that allows for travel without legal issues is empowering.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 2 |
health services administrator (Georgia)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The constant legal uncertainty is overwhelming.
- I believe this policy could stabilize our operations and help our patients.
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 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
community organizer (Tennessee)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's heartbreaking when people can't access care safely and nearby.
- This policy feels like a milestone for activism and patient rights.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 1 |
high school teacher (Colorado)
Age: 53 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe in empowering students with knowledge and options.
- This policy aligns with my commitment to their rights.
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 | 8 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $15000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $25000000)
Year 2: $15000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $25000000)
Year 3: $16000000 (Low: $9000000, High: $26000000)
Year 5: $16000000 (Low: $9000000, High: $26000000)
Year 10: $17000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $27000000)
Year 100: $20000000 (Low: $12000000, High: $30000000)
Key Considerations
- Legal jurisdictions varying by state could result in diverse levels of federal engagement and enforcement funding.
- The policy has strong implications for states' rights which could influence cost changes over time due to potential legal pushbacks.
- Changes in political climate or administrative priorities could influence the extent of enforcement related expenditures.