Bill Overview
Title: Pregnancy Resource Center Defense Act
Description: This bill increases criminal penalties (and authorizes additional civil remedies) for intentionally damaging or destroying the property of a facility that exclusively provides abortion-alternative services or that is a place of religious worship. It also establishes a mandatory minimum sentence for certain conduct involving fire or explosives used against such a facility or place of religious worship.
Sponsors: Sen. Hawley, Josh [R-MO]
Target Audience
Population: People using pregnancy resource centers and places of religious worship
Estimated Size: 5000000
- The bill targets facilities that provide abortion-alternative services, often known as pregnancy resource centers, as well as places of religious worship.
- These facilities and places are used by individuals seeking support during pregnancy and those attending religious services.
- People who work at and utilize these centers, such as pregnant individuals seeking alternatives to abortion, will be impacted.
- Those who engage in activities leading to property damage of these centers will also be affected, as the bill increases penalties for such actions.
Reasoning
- The population distribution and perspective accounts for those directly interacting with pregnancy resource centers and places of worship, as well as a broader swath that may be indirectly affected through community sentiments and legal precedents.
- Budgetary constraints imply that only a fraction of central service providers and their frequent visitors would be directly impacted by infrastructure improvements or heightened security measures from penalties.
- Individuals who might potentially engage in crime (such as vandalism) could be discouraged, subtly altering community crime dynamics, although this would more peripherally influence wellbeing scores.
Simulated Interviews
School teacher (Austin, Texas)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe this policy could make the centers safer for those of us who rely on them.
- Pregnancy resource centers helped me during my first pregnancy, so I appreciate any policy aimed at protecting them.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Clergy member (Boston, Massachusetts)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's heartening to see more protection for places of worship and allied community centers.
- Any increase in safety feels like a positive step for our community.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
College student (Salt Lake City, Utah)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a volunteer, I feel safer knowing there's more protection for our centers.
- This policy helps ensure we can keep assisting those in need without fear.
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 | 9 | 8 |
Nurse (Miami, Florida)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this policy means less damage and vandalism where I work.
- As someone working in healthcare, safety improvements are always welcome.
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 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Firefighter (Atlanta, Georgia)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could mean fewer calls to places that could be potential fire risks.
- Improved safety for these spaces is positive, hopefully reducing property damage.
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 |
Lawyer (New York City, New York)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's an interesting balance between safety and civil liberties.
- I'll be watching closely how this impacts clients involved in such cases.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Small business owner (Chicago, Illinois)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Hopefully, better security for these places also reduces incidents near my business.
- This policy may also deter similar crimes against nearby properties.
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 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Student (Seattle, Washington)
Age: 19 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It’s comforting to know such places might be safer due to increased penalties.
- I think communities will feel better protected, but the effect is hard to quantify directly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Manager at a non-profit (Charlotte, North Carolina)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- A focus on protection can hopefully lead to more community support and less anxiety.
- This law may help in securing assets and property for our partner institutions.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Social Worker (Denver, Colorado)
Age: 36 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this policy indirectly enhances the support networks available to families through safer centers.
- It provides peace of mind to some extent regarding safety and stability.
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 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $15000000)
Year 2: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $15000000)
Year 3: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $15000000)
Year 5: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $15000000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- Federal and state corrections costs could be substantial if incarceration rates increase significantly.
- Deterrence effectiveness of increased penalties remains uncertain and could influence future cost predictions.
- The bill might face legal challenges or require provisions to ensure enforcement is fair and non-discriminatory.